This can't continue. I can understand why Hashemi doesn't trust that sectarian concerns and basic corruption can't be suppressed for a fair trial. That's why we wanted special rules for our troops to remain in Iraq after last year.
But at the same time, if Hashemi is guilty, we can't accept that politicians are protected from prosecution because their conviction might incite their sect's members. Some Sunni Arabs really are still carrying out terrorism and some are inside the government. Some of Hashemi's staff could be guilty.
Rule of law means that Hashemi must stand trial and that the trial must be fair. So the Kurdish position has merit:
Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdistan region is unwilling to hand over Iraqi Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi despite a formal demand from the central government that he be sent to Baghdad to face charges of running death squads.
While not refusing outright to arrest the Sunni leader and send him to face trial, Iraqi Kurdish officials said the Baghdad government should accept Hashemi's demand to be tried outside the capital.
Why can't we take custody of Hashemi and supervise the trial? Or heck, can't we get the UN to do something useful here and take on the supervision job? At the very least, the slow pace that the UN will proceed buys time for passions to cool.
This has to be transparent. Just as important as the guilt or innocence of Hashemi is making sure that all parties are confident that justice has taken place and that either a guilty man was convicted or an innocent man set free.
And get the Iraqis to agree to have our troops return. They still need the safety net that our troops represent as the Iraqis attempt the high wire act of settling differences with rule of law.
