WP: (Defense) Contractors and the Law (Abu Ghraib cases)

[DeepModem Mom]

Contractors and the Law
Prison Abuse Cases Renew Debate

By Ellen McCarthy and Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page E01

Details of the role civilian contractors played in the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq sparked fresh debate yesterday about the effectiveness of laws and rules meant to govern workers hired to support the military.

Coming under particular scrutiny was the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act passed in November 2000 that allows for the prosecution of criminal acts committed by defense contractors accompanying the military to foreign lands.

Three generals investigating abuses at Abu Ghraib referred the cases of six contractors employed by Arlington-based CACI International Inc. and Titan Corp. of San Diego to the Justice Department, recommending that they be prosecuted for participating in or failing to report prisoner abuse. But the report itself raised questions about the potential success of such an effort, saying contract employees "under non-DOD contractors may not be subject" to the act. CACI's contract to provide interrogators at Abu Ghraib was managed by the Interior Department.

Some legal experts said it's unclear whether CACI is covered. "I guess the question is, who is a Department of Defense contactor?" said Steven L. Schooner, a professor of government contracting at George Washington University Law School. He said he would argue that because CACI is receiving Defense Department money and performing work for the department, it should be included. But he said that the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, as written, may not technically cover CACI's interrogators....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37289-2004Aug26.html

[gottaB]

1. How come CACI et al have so much cover and so much power?

Let's face facts. This is a covert op.

Rumsfeld and company knew that their torture policy was criminal in intent, so they designed a system specifically to avoid facing legal repurcussions. It's a disgrace.