By Cliff Montgomery – May 14th, 2009
A Congressional Research Service report from 2008 discussed a matter which has barely received noticefrom America’s corporate press: The United States’ unprecedented use of private security firms in Iraq, a stillhostile environment.
In such chaos, the employees of these companies often behave as little more than private soldiers. Thatbrings up the thorny question of how these ‘private soldiers’ may be held accountable if they break the law.
The simple truth? No one really knows. What is known is that private security contractors with the StateDepartment “may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq.”
Below we quote from the study’s summary:
“The United States is relying heavily on private firms to supply a wide variety of services in Iraq, includingsecurity. From publicly available information, this is apparently the first time that the United States hasdepended so extensively on contractors to provide security in a hostile environment, although it has previouslycontracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
“In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Contractors (PSCs) serve to protect individuals, transportconvoys, forward operating bases, buildings, and other economic infrastructure, and are training Iraqi policeand military personnel.
“By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, many analysts and policymakers say, privatecontractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring peace to Iraq.Nonetheless, the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability.
“The lack of public information on the terms of the contracts, including their costs and the standards governinghiring and performance, make evaluating their efficiency difficult. The apparent lack of a practical means tohold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that theycould be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern.
“Contractors working with the Department of State or the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) inIraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities,and whose conduct may be attributable to the United States.
“Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 makes military contractorssupporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but due to constitutional concerns, it seems morelikely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that applyextra-territorially or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by means ofthe Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
“Generally, Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevantmember country of the multi-National Forces in Iraq. Some contractors, including those with the StateDepartment, may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for improper conduct in Iraq.”
