By Cliff Montgomery – May 29th, 2010
The federal government’s reliance on private companies for its overseas operations–including war–was thesubject of a very interesting hearing conducted in February 2008 before the Senate Committee on landSecurity and Governmental Affairs.
Though the hearing occurred a few years ago, a report on the matter wasn’t released to the public until March2010.
Among those who testified before the Senate panel in 2008 was Laura Dickinson, a University of ConnecticutSchool of Law professor. It would appear that her testimony remains a valid warning.
Below the American Spark quotes a major portion of Professor Dickinson’s prepared statement:
“Thank you for the opportunity to address you here today on this important topic. As members of thisCommittee are no doubt aware, both our military and our foreign policy agencies are now employing privatecontractors to an unprecedented degree. For example, current estimates suggest that there are almost asmany contractors as troops in Iraq.
“These contractors are serving meals, building facilities, transporting goods, and providing a broad range oflogistical support to troops. They are training Iraqi police […] and, in some cases, they are interrogatingdetainees and providing security to governmental officials, sites, and convoys.
“We don’t know precisely how many security contractors are operating in Iraq, though estimates suggest theremay be as many as 30,000.
“Indeed, we are forced to rely on rough estimates because neither the State Department nor the Departmentof Defense, nor any other arm of government, keeps sufficient track. And some reports suggest that even on-the-ground military commanders in Iraq may not know whether private security contractors are operating intheir territory.
“While most contractors have performed admirably and filled vital roles—and more than 1,100 contractors havedied in Iraq while doing so—some have committed serious abuses without being held accountable.
“Perhaps the most notable recent case is the incident from September 16th of [2007], when Blackwatersecurity guards employed by the Department of State fired into a crowd in Baghdad’s Nisour Square, killingseventeen people. Subsequent reports by the Department of Justice and the military have concluded that atleast 14, and possibly all, of the killings were unprovoked. Yet no one has yet been indicted for the killings.
“In a similarly high-profile incident, contract interrogators and translators joined troops in sexually humiliatingand brutally abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq in 2003. Indeed, General Fay reported that thecontractors, many of whom lacked training, were actually supervising uniformed military personnel at the prison.
“Yet while twelve uniformed soldiers have faced punishment for their role in the abuse, no contractors havebeen charged.
“A recent report from Human Rights First suggest that these incidents are just the tip of the iceberg and thatthere are many more cases in which security contractors or contract interrogators may have used excessiveforce. In fact, CIA director Michael Hayden has testified that he believes that CIA contract interrogators haveengaged in waterboarding.
“But again there has been [as of February 2008] only one instance—the case of the CIA contract interrogatorDavid Passaro—in which U.S. authorities have criminally prosecuted a contractor for such crimes.
“Thus, we are left with the unmistakable conclusion that the use of private security contractors andinterrogators potentially threatens core values embodied in our legal system, including (1) respect for humandignity and limits on the use of force and (2) a commitment to transparency and accountability.
“How should Congress respond to the problems posed by private security contractors and interrogators?
“One possibility is to take steps to discourage or ban the outsourcing of at least some military, security, andintelligence functions. Certainly, the risks are greatest when contractors are authorized to use force, as in thecase of security contractors or interrogators. Accordingly, we should be particularly cautious about outsourcingsuch functions and consider whether they may be inherently governmental.
“Alternatively, Congress might consider designating such functions as ‘core’ rather than inherentlygovernmental, which would permit outsourcing but at the same time impose limits on the percentage ofpositions that may be turned over to contractors, while mandating higher standards of oversight regardingthese positions.”
“Nevertheless, although efforts to declare certain activities to be inherent or core governmental functions areimportant, I also think that the incentives to use contractors will persist, and may even expand, particularly oncethe inevitable draw-down of uniformed military personnel begins. Therefore, it may be difficult (and perhapseven unwise) to limit significantly the use of private security contractors.
“Accordingly, Congress will undoubtedly need to institute more effective measures to punish contractors if theycommit abuses.”
