GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Loss of legal immunity will change landscape for contractors in Iraq

• 65087
  

  Once again the US government is bending to the will of the middle east. If the SOFA agreement will no longer protect contractors, then they should leave. the personal risk and danger to them is just not worth it!

  Kathy Posted December 16, 2008 2:08 PM
• 64758
  

  You should be listening for the great sucking sound as the good guys leave town.

  Answerman Posted December 10, 2008 3:58 PM
• 64535
  

  Contractor personnel subject to the UCMJ??? I understand there are problems, but applying the UCMJ, with its non-judicial articles, is not the solution. Court proceedings are similar, but Article 15 could be a nightmare. Would there be NJP? What pentalties would civilians receive? How do you fine a civilian (do funds come from the employee, or the parent contractor/subcontractor, paid to the US Treasury)? How do you place a civilian on restricted liberty? If one of my contractors was given restriction, he still wouldn't report to a military duty officer, and I won't sign restriction papers (unless I charge the taxpayers more), and I doubt the convening authority will do the signing and filing. Since NJPs do not follow the service member into civilian life, any NJP resulting in a suspended sentence would be a waste of time and other resources.

  My proposal would be to deploy magistrates to theater, just as there are magistrates to deal with infractions (such as speeding on base by military families) on all the bases now. The UCMJ wouldn't have to change, only the SOFA would have to be reworked to include magistrates.

  John Posted December 8, 2008 1:12 PM
• 64529
  

  If you're armed in a war zone acting on behalf of the U.S. government, you should be protected by that same government, whether you are military or civilian. Any violations should come under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, not a civilian court. Otherwise, you would be foolish to go over to Iraq as a contractor, and be vulnerable to a political witch hunt.

  Just Saying Posted December 8, 2008 12:11 PM
• 64523
  

  I would have no problem with this lack of protection if State fell under the same parameters. I've been in countries where State Dept employees have killed local nationals and were asked out of the country before charges could be filed and sent to another country with no punishment. The current farse that's going on trying to punish Blackwater for murder in Iraq is just another example of the double standard that exists. I've yet to see an Iraq national put on trial for killing an American until that happens its the Wild West there and the laws should fit the circumstances

  dan ketter Posted December 8, 2008 11:58 AM
• 64493
  

  Frequently, private guards must make split second life or death decisions. If one turns out to be a tragic mistake, or perceived to be a crime, then the private guard(s) can be in a world of hurt. The first time this happens,if it is not handled right, will see an exodus of these private guards from Iraq and very few (if any) new folks to replace them whatever the price.

  Lots of luck......

  Bob Posted December 8, 2008 9:22 AM
• 64474
  

  If contractors are supporting DoD, they should be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice with regard to their personal conduct and responsibilities. I can't think of a reason why a contractor, particularly one that is armed, should be treated any other way. I'd be happy for someone to give me a non-emotional explanation, if one exists.

  arclight Posted December 8, 2008 6:17 AM
• 64473
  

  I know the use of support contractors became a necessity as a result of the political decision back in the 1980s to gut the USS military of manpower. I also recognize the use of those support contractors makes is possible to artificially decrease the number of people deployed in support of military operation. Though the logic to cut the bone from out military might not have been prudent, it was not immoral. The same can not be said for the hiring of mercenaries. It's one thing to hire civilians to provide support to the military, but to hire mercenaries to kill, who are exempt from the law, that crosses the moral line. If there are not enough military personnel to do the job, then we need to increase the size of the military. If that means bringing back conscription, then so be it. Conscription might not be what anybody wants, but it is a much more moral answer to the problem than using mercenaries.

  Jim Posted December 8, 2008 4:32 AM
• 64472
  

  Most SOFA agreements with other nations are written with the assumption that "forces" means military and government civilians. Government assumes responsibility and accountability for these people. Yet, the existing laws and regulations were never designed to deal with a huge force of contractors. Consequently contractors operate in a gray area where they aren't held accountable by either the US or host nation. This is not a problem unique to Iraq, but it's gained more attention there because of egregious contractor behavior. I applaud the Iraqi government for holding out on this issue and demanding accountability.

  Anonymous Posted December 8, 2008 3:55 AM
• 64434
  

  Iraq is a third world country. Third World courts, third world legal system. Do you think if given the opportunity Iraqi police will not harass American civilians? At Baghdad International alone 100's if not 1000's of Americans pass through on their way in and out of Iraq. What about civilian convoy drivers. I just can't see KBR expending the effort to protect an employee that has broken some arbitrary Iraqi law. They have their hands full with soldiers suing them. It's just time to pull out the troops and come home.

  Ms Sparky MsSparky(dot)com

  Ms Sparky Posted December 5, 2008 7:11 PM