Does every company that helps to produce and sell Iraqi oil now have blanket immunity against all lawsuits and criminal charges? The L.A. Times reports:

An executive order signed by President Bush more than two months ago is raising concerns that U.S. oil companies may have been handed blanket immunity from lawsuits and criminal prosecution in connection with the sale of Iraqi oil.

The Bush administration said Wednesday that the immunity wouldn't be nearly so broad.

But lawyers for various advocacy organizations said the two-page executive order seemed to completely shield oil companies from liability — even if it could be proved that they had committed human rights violations, bribed officials or caused great environmental damage in the course of their Iraqi-related business.

"As written, the executive order appears to cancel the rule of law for the oil industry or anyone else who gets possession or control of Iraqi oil or anything of value related to Iraqi oil," said Tom Devine, legal director for the Washington-based Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit group that defends whistle-blowers.

The executive order says that

any attachment, judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment or other judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and void,

with regard to Iraq's Development Fund and

all Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein, and proceeds, obligations or any financial instruments of any nature whatsoever arising from or related to the sale or marketing thereof, and interests therein, in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that are or hereafter come within the possession or control of United States persons.

If the language is taken literally, you can't sue any company working in Iraq for anything -- for instance, "an operator of an oil tanker that suffered a major spill while hauling Iraqi crude could be immune from liability."

The Bushies say they're not interpreting the law that broadly. But the absolutist wording is there.

(Use "clipjoint" and user name and password if you can't read the L.A. Times story.)