Who watches US security firms in Iraq?

Who watches US security firms in Iraq?

By RICHARD LARDNER 17 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The fog of war keeps getting thicker. The Iraqi government's decision to temporarily ban the security company Blackwater USA after a fatal shooting of civilians in Baghdad reveals a growing web of rules governing weapons-bearing private contractors but few signs U.S. agencies are aggressively enforcing them.

Nearly a year after a law was passed holding contracted employees to the same code of justice as military personnel, the Bush administration has not published guidance on how military lawyers should do that, according to Peter Singer, a security industry expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

A Congressional Research Service report published in July said security contractors in Iraq operate under rules issued by the United States, Iraq and international entities such as the United Nations.

more...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070919/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_contractors

"Nearly a year after a law was passed holding contracted employees to the same code of justice as military personnel,"

Whose law is it? Iraq? Can't be the US, can it?

OK, I will click on the link now.

for the Overlords' edification and amusement.

We raised hell here after the invasion when a law was passed that left all American contractors immune from lawsuits. There were at least 50 to 100 different threads about it.

snip>>

aqi government representatives also said they probably would not rescind Order No. 17, which was issued more than three years ago by the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority. The order gives American security companies immunity from Iraqi prosecution on issues arising from their contracts.

"We don't want to do so because we don't have the services they are providing for the diplomats and for the American Embassy here in Iraq," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told CNN.

Blackwater, based in Moyock, N.C., is one of three private security firms employed by the State Department to protect its personnel in Iraq. The two others, both of which are headquartered in the Washington, D.C., suburbs, are Dyncorp, based in Falls Church, Va., and Triple Canopy of Herndon, Va.

The State Department has provided little information on Sunday's incident, which began after a car bomb attack against an American convoy guarded by Blackwater employees turned into a firefight that left eight Iraqis dead.

The department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security is conducting an investigation with assistance from the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. The Iraqis are conducting their own inquiry, although it seems unlikely the Iraqi government would revoke Blackwater's license and order the company's 1,000 personnel to leave the country.

snip>>

but remains under the umbrella of the US military for protection. Something is definitely wrong with this picture, and has been since this illegal occupation started.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/mmonk

Order # 17

They are copping to only 100 mercenaries from BW. Ah hell no! I thought it was at least 20,000.

They are freaking out about the actual number of private security contractors being exposed to the American public.

Damn, if we only had some MSM friends. We could really mess this admin up.

The ghosts of Iraqis past I guess :shrug:

Here's an excerpt from a memo some contractors in Iraq received back in January:



Recently Congress amended the Uniform Code of Military Justice to permit the prosecution of civilians accompanying the armed forces during contingency operations such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, Djibouti,and Georgia.
....
Civilians accompanying the armed forces are also subject to prosecution of violation of US law under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), and in many cases, can be subject to prosecution under the laws of the host nation. The addition of the UCMJ jurisdiction over civilians accompanying the armed forces during a contingency operation does not change this.
....
UCMJ Section 802
Art. 2 Persons subject to this chapter
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:

(10) In time of declared war or a contingency operation, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.



Since the security firms work for the state department, not the DoD, I'm not sure that they are "accompanying an armed force in the field." They're actually accompanying diplomats in the field.

it's an illegal occupation.

But welcome to DU!

I'm probably not going to agree with most of you on Iraq issues, but we do have some things in common. :)

From Dem. Now! yesterday, and I do consider Scahill to be an expert on the subject.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/18/140201

snip//

JEREMY SCAHILL: But I wanted to respond to what Doug is saying about the accountability issue. Yes, there's a law on the books called the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, which, in theory, provides for the prosecution of contractors who commit a crime in a foreign war zone back inside of the United States. And then, because of a change in language last year to the Defense Authorization Act, they're “in theory” is the ability to prosecute contractors who work for the Department of Defense under the court-martial system. But the fact of the matter is that we've had tens of thousands of mercenaries go in and out of Iraq; not a single one has been prosecuted for any crimes against an Iraqi. So either we have tens of thousands of mercenaries running around Iraq who are actually Boy Scouts, or something is fundamentally rotten with the system.

And I personally, Doug, do not have faith in the Bush administration's Justice Department to go after these crony corporations of the administration. I mean, we see the politicization of the Justice Department. Do we really believe that they're going to go after Erik Prince's men in Baghdad?

snip//

JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, the reality here is that every time Iraq has made any kind of noise about prosecuting contractors, the contractors are whisked out. It becomes a major discussion between Washington and Baghdad diplomats. And the fact of the matter is, this is solid proof. There is no sovereignty in Iraq of the government at all. The US gutted out the Iraqi legal system, made it virtually impossible for Iraqis to hold accountable murderers and thugs inside of the country who are foreign operatives. And so, when the Bush administration talks about how great everything is going in Baghdad, we have to remember that when US mercenaries shoot Iraqis, the Iraqis are basically powerless to stop them.

What Scahill fails to take into consideration in his little rant is that the security contractors do not work for the Department of Defense; they work for the Department of State. Most contractors (truck drivers, mechanics, etc.) have an ID that says "Department of the Army."

Security contractors have an ID that says "Department of State." Therefore, according to the language in the UCMJ that I posted above, they are not subject to those regulations.

I'm not addressing the issue of whether there SHOULD be more oversight on security contractors, I'm only addressing the comments that they are subject to the UCMJ but are not being held accountable. Based on everything I've read and seen (and it's probably more - and more pertinent - than many of you have read or seen), the UCMJ does not apply to State Department workers.

are working for, it's about them escaping culpability for any crimes they might be committing, with the full and known support of this admin. I'm curious why you're defending mercenaries, but this is DU and that is your right.

.... your original post makes mention of the year since the law was passed subjecting these people to military oversight (the UCMJ).

Since these people are NOT subject to military oversight (the UCMJ), the basic premise of the article doesn't hold up.

If you want to argue that there should be oversight, I'll agree with you.
If you want to argue that they are squirming out from under the law, I'll disagree with you. That law does not apply to them.

Every American citizen should.