Today's Article
Some security
contractors may
remain outside the
jurisdiction of U.S.
courts, civil or
military, for improper
conduct in Iraq.
contractors may
remain outside the
jurisdiction of U.S.
courts, civil or
military, for improper
conduct in Iraq.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
'Private Soldiers' In Iraq Outside of U.S. Legal Jurisdiction
By Cliff Montgomery - May 14th, 2009
A Congressional Research Service report from 2008 discussed a matter which has barely received notice
from America's corporate press: The United States' unprecedented use of private security firms in Iraq, a still
hostile environment.
In such chaos, the employees of these companies often behave as little more than private soldiers. That
brings up the thorny question of how these 'private soldiers' may be held accountable if they break the law.
The simple truth? No one really knows. What is known is that private security contractors with the State
Department "may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq."
Below we quote from the study's summary:
"The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including
security. From publicly available information, this is apparently the first time that the United States has
depended so extensively on contractors to provide security in a hostile environment, although it has previously
contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
"In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Contractors (PSCs) serve to protect individuals, transport
convoys, forward operating bases, buildings, and other economic infrastructure, and are training Iraqi police
and military personnel.
"By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, many analysts and policymakers say, private
contractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring peace to Iraq.
Nonetheless, the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability.
"The lack of public information on the terms of the contracts, including their costs and the standards governing
hiring and performance, make evaluating their efficiency difficult. The apparent lack of a practical means to
hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they
could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern.
"Contractors working with the Department of State or the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) in
Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities,
and whose conduct may be attributable to the United States.
"Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 makes military contractors
supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but due to constitutional concerns, it seems more
likely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply
extra-territorially or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by means of
the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
"Generally, Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant
member country of the multi-National Forces in Iraq. Some contractors, including those with the State
Department, may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - May 14th, 2009
A Congressional Research Service report from 2008 discussed a matter which has barely received notice
from America's corporate press: The United States' unprecedented use of private security firms in Iraq, a still
hostile environment.
In such chaos, the employees of these companies often behave as little more than private soldiers. That
brings up the thorny question of how these 'private soldiers' may be held accountable if they break the law.
The simple truth? No one really knows. What is known is that private security contractors with the State
Department "may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq."
Below we quote from the study's summary:
"The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, including
security. From publicly available information, this is apparently the first time that the United States has
depended so extensively on contractors to provide security in a hostile environment, although it has previously
contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
"In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Contractors (PSCs) serve to protect individuals, transport
convoys, forward operating bases, buildings, and other economic infrastructure, and are training Iraqi police
and military personnel.
"By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, many analysts and policymakers say, private
contractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring peace to Iraq.
Nonetheless, the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability.
"The lack of public information on the terms of the contracts, including their costs and the standards governing
hiring and performance, make evaluating their efficiency difficult. The apparent lack of a practical means to
hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they
could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern.
"Contractors working with the Department of State or the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) in
Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities,
and whose conduct may be attributable to the United States.
"Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 makes military contractors
supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but due to constitutional concerns, it seems more
likely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply
extra-territorially or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by means of
the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
"Generally, Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant
member country of the multi-National Forces in Iraq. Some contractors, including those with the State
Department, may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq."
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark
e-newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!