Civilians ID'd in abuse may face no charges

[Caution]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/05/04/civilians_idd_in_abuse_may_face_no_charges/

WASHINGTON -- A legal loophole could allow four American civilian contractors allegedly involved in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners to escape punishment, US military officials and specialists said yesterday.

US commanders in Iraq announced that seven military supervisors have received administrative reprimands over the alleged abuse of the detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, commander of US forces in Iraq, said the investigation into the supervisors -- officers and non-commissioned officers -- was complete and they would not face further proceedings.

<snip>

[UpInArms]

1. the privatization of torture?

and above or outside the law?

But the four civilian workers identified in an internal army report for their involvement in the physical and sexual mistreatment of the prisoners -- including the alleged rape of one detainee -- cannot be punished under military law, and it is unclear whether they will face any charges under either US or Iraqi laws.

from another post

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x529199

General Taguba saved his harshest criticism for two officers and two private contractors. These were the commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade who had control of the overall detention facility, Colonel Thomas Pappas, Lieutenant- Colonel Steven Jordan, who directed the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Centre inside the prison, and two employees of US-based security firm CACI International, Stephen Stephanowicz and John Israel. These four men, General Taguba wrote, "were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses at Abu Ghraib". He recommended "immediate disciplinary action" against the four.

These "people" need to be imprisoned somewhere. :mad:

:nuke:

:argh:

[progressivebydesign]

6. Gee.. how about WAR CRIMES? How about the int'l law.?? N/T

[Just Me]

2. Damn!!!

:nuke:

:argh: :argh: :argh: :argh:


:grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr: :grr:

[Tempest]

3. This won't make the Iraqis happy

This is the kind of justice the U.S. wants to export to the Middle East?

[priller]

4. And now we see one of the "advantages" of privatizing military functions

NO ACCOUNTABILITY! Just the way Dubya and the Pukes like it!

[Dhalgren]

8. If these mercs aren't under anyone's jurisdiction

then they should not be allowed in theatre, period. These mercs are what used to be called "bandits" or "outlaws", but now they are "contractors". This is 100% bullshit! The hammer is goning to fall and when it does, make sure you are on the right end of the handle.

[Walt Starr]

5. If they are not covered under military, Iraqi, or U.S. law,...

then they damn well are covered under international law, making them all war criminal subject to the ICC regardless of nationality.

Send their asses to The Hague.

[Just Me]

7. The freakin' neocons UNILATERALLY exempted US from the ICC.

:argh:

:grr: :grr: :grr:

[Dhalgren]

9. These mercs aren't covered under Us aegis

so they aught to fall under ICC - I say turn their NAZI asses over and loby to have them imprisoned in Pakistan!

[TacticalPeek]

10. I believe you are correct. IIRC, US military was exempted from ICC.

Contractors were only shielded from some corporate liability, perhaps.

The MP's should arrest Stephanowicz and Israel for extradition to the Haque. And hunt down the rest.

[fishnfla]

14. can CACI be sued by the victims?

I knew this was gonna happen. These torture experts knew they could put the troops up to it and get away with it.

[Just Me]

16. Indemnity clauses in contracts,...

,...with the DoD/Gvt will place the burden on American taxpayers to compensate.

:argh:

[bobthedrummer]

19. A lot of GI's are being killed or wounded now because of the employ-

ment of mercenaries:grr: by the administration of George W. Bush aka The War President.

They are big political contributors, it is corruption at its worst imo.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/wow/resources.aspx?act=contrib

Btw the United States of America fought in two world wars against militarism and fascism and in defense of the people-not organized crime or a corporate logo.
Our military are being abused. I think we should prosecute all the known cases that have ended with the entry of so-called National Security, which has been used to cover horrific crimes domestically.

NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.

[yardwork]

27. So this is not a "loophole."

This is an exception, created deliberately by Bushco, so that we could conduct this illegal war using illegal methods, while protecting our hired perpetrators.

This is happening in our name, funded by our taxes.

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. They are covered by the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic...

"Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"

Opening Statement of Chairman Bill McCollum
on H.R. 3380, the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"

<snip>

Civilians have served with or accompanied the American Armed Forces in the field or ships since the founding of the United States. In recent years, however, the number of civilians present with our military forces in foreign countries has dramatically increased. Many of these civilians are nonmilitary employees of the Defense Department and contractors working on behalf of DOD. In 1996, there were more than 96,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense working and living outside the United States.

<snip>

The bill before us today would close this gapping hole in the law by extending Federal criminal jurisdiction to crimes committed by persons employed by and accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces overseas. Specifically, the bill creates a new crime under Title 18 that would make it a crime to engage in conduct outside the United States which would constitute an offense under Title 18 if the crime had been committed within the United States. The new crime would apply only to two groups of people. First, persons employed by or who accompany the Armed Forces outside the United States. This group includes dependents of military members, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and Defense Department contractors or subcontractors and their employees. This group also includes foreign nationals who are relatives of American military personnel or contractors, or who work for the Defense Department, but only to the extent that they are not nationals of the country where the act occurred or ordinarily live in that country.


Someone needs to send Rummie and Myers a copy of this legislation. They may find out that their friend Bill McCollum closed up that little loophole about 5 years ago, when this bill was passed into law. Who ever thought that worthless slug would do something useful?


(Kudos to Tinoire for digging this little gem up.)

[JAbuchan08]

11. I think we should hire some "private contractors"

to torture the private contractors, which I believe would be legal if they were declared terrorists - right?

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. hmmm - let's think about this - I'm sure there is some Iraqi law

.
.
.

that doesn't allow this sort of thing?

Or did the US abolish some Iraqi laws while they were at it?

If the US doesn't "take care" of the offenders, I'm sure the general Iraqi population will not accept this.

And that means every non-Iraqi in Iraq would likely now be in extreme danger. And I believe I read somewhere that the contractors are non longer allowed to arm themselves?

At any rate -

Some more from the article:(page 2)

Singer estimated that there were more than 10,000 civilians in Iraq working for private contractors.

US officials say private contractors offer special skills -- like languages and technical know-how -- that are useful in situations such as interrogations. But critics say well-paid contractors, whose deaths are not factored into the official tally of war dead, are also increasingly employed to avoid the politically unpopular move of sending more US soldiers to Iraq

/snip/

"The military has no jurisdiction over the civilian contractors," said the spokeswoman, who has been assigned by military officials to handle inquiries on the prison abuse scandal. She asked not to be identified. "The military can make recommendations, but it is going to be up to the employer to decide what measures to take."
___________________________________________________


The WH and Pentagon can dance around the accountability issue all they want.

All the legal mumbo jumbo won't satisfy the Iraqis, or the World for that matter.

The US started this war.

The US is responsible for the results no matter how many legal "loop-holes" they pull out of their evil minds.

Th US's reputation is in a nose-dive.

Denying accountability and shirking responsibility for what is happening in Iraq only makes it worse.

(sigh)

[TacticalPeek]

18. "up to the employer to decide what measures to take."

Let me get this right.

I can organize myself as Imperial Piracy, LLC. I can go to Iraq, and bribe, steal and cheat to my heart's content. If I'm caught, our military will make recommendations to my employer, me. Then I will decide what measures to take. I decide to hike the bribes and be more careful.

Hey, I've heard of this before!

[Tansy_Gold]

23. Not sure which post to reply to, but listening to Randi Rhodes

right now, she is saying that *'s executive order declares Iraq a "lawless country," where no laws exist because there is no government, and if there are no laws, there is nothing illegal, no crimes, no punishment. Rape isn't legal, but it isn't illegal. Torture isn't legal, but it isn't illegal either. Murder, theft, embezzlement, nothing is a crime.

This is news to me. It's horrible but fascinating news.

And, it's one more milepost on the way to a stated, open, declared * kingship.

[TacticalPeek]

24. This could be argued to hold for US jurisdiction, I guess, though IANAL.

International jurisdiction would seem to be another matter.

Hell, Iraqi jurisdiction, if there ever is an Iraq again.

If fact, the only smattering of hope for a US-face-saving way out of this would be a US military tribunal of Gitmo temper, snatching the contractor perps and railroading them to a stern disposition. Get some benefit out of the post-911 strong-arm.

:evilgrin:

[Tansy_Gold]

25. My understanding is that the Exec. Order effectively negated

even international intervention.

I didn't get all the details. i was eating lunch and listening and chatting with hubby, so I didn't write down the number of the Exec. Order. But what Rhodes seemed to be saying was that the U.S. declaration that Iraq as a nation/government no longer exists, there are no Iraqi laws. And until there is a new Iraqi government to enact laws -- like * is ever gonna let THAT happen -- nothing in Iraq is illegal.

If nothing is illegal under (non-existent) Iraqi law, the international community can't come in and impose *it's* version of Iraqi law. And as long as *'s U.S. is the 800-pound gorilla, no one can do anything.

It's essentially tautological imperialism, or something like that.

[Tansy_Gold]

28. I found a link to the Executive Order, 13303

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/05/con04192.html

:sigh:

I have four billion important things to do to keep myself from going bankrupt, but even more important than that today is that I read this EO and then read some of the stuff I've accumulated in my personal library, specifically the analyses of executive power/privilege that emerged after Watergate.

Tansy Gold, poverty-stricken but angry beyond belief

[leQ]

13. but when saddam's men did it, they paid the ultimate price

n/t

[MGKrebs]

15. Wow. Nice gig. $1000 per day and no risk!

[Bridget Burke]

17. So, other mercenaries may pay the price.

Like the four who died in Fallujah. If there's no legal recourse, revenge is still possible.

Of course, the ones who end up paying may not have been guilty of anything particularly evil.

[damnraddem]

20. Civilian contractors to escape punishment? Hey, with 'reprimands,' ...

the military supervisors have basically escaped punishment. The military thinks that a letter that can stop promotion is 'punishment.' These people, military and civilian, committed war crimes, crimes against humanity.

[enki23]

21. that's interesting

when *their* civilians are accused of being criminals, we tend to hold them indefinitely without trial. when our own do it, we can't touch them? who's bullshitting who here?

[Fleshdancer]

26. Okaaay Kharma...don't let me down now. n/t

[jayfish]

29. Here Is What We Need To Do.

have an Iraqi court convict the "contractors" of torture, murder or what have you. Then the US military can shut them down, surround Contractor City and demand that they turn over their weapons and themselves. Just like they are doing in al Najaf. Ask Moqtada al Sadar or the good people of Falluja how to do it. They have fresh, first-hand experience in matters of nuIraqi justice.

Jay