US Military Can't Prosecute Contractors That Commit Crimes

US Military Can't Prosecute Contractors That Commit Crimes

rawstory.com

A presentation prepared by the US Army shows that there still exist situations in which the military may not be able to prosecute private contractors who commit crimes.

"Contractors accompanying U.S. military forces in Iraq or elsewhere who commit crimes may be beyond the reach of law enforcement...because the Defense Department has not yet updated its regulations to conform to a Congressional mandate, resulting in a 'gap' in legal jurisdiction," wrote Steven Aftergood, the project's director.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Bush's Shadow Army
WAR: The Shadow Soldiers of Iraq
Private Armies----Rent-A-Warrior

I don't really see them doing that anytime soon because chances are that they'd have to prosecute about 80% of the "contractors", if not more.

You see, there are about 125,000 "contractors" or "privatized military" in Iraq right now...almost more "contractors" then there are military personnel, and those contractors technically aren't under the laws of the United States, so they are pretty much free to do what they want without fear of being prosecuted.

Furthermore, some of those "contractors" are getting paid about $1,000/day...and guess who's footing the bill? The taxpayers.

And guess who outsourced these "contractors"? Dick Cheney.

So, like I said earlier, I don't see the DoD implementing these mandated changes anytime soon because that would mean that the "private contractors" would lose all of that money solely for the fact that what they are doing now would become illegal.

And we wonder why the war in Iraq is costing $1.4 BILLION a week.

rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

So who holds them accountable?
Most of them have serious ties to the government.... I think this is a loop whole that will be seriously misused to fight this war, and the coming wars.

A bit off topic, but the billions of dollars being paid to contractors in Iraq by the government, could that be causing the economic down turn?
I mean effectivley arent they printing money and handing it to the contractors for circulation?

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
So who holds them accountable?
Most of them have serious ties to the government.... I think this is a loop whole that will be seriously misused to fight this war, and the coming wars.

That is where the problem lies.

See, Congress passed a mandate last year, but the DoD has yet to implement it, so the "loophole" will sit there until the DoD does implement it - which, like I said in my initial comment, I don't think they will anytime soon. So, technically, they can't be held accountable AT ALL until the "loophole" is closed. They are pretty much free to rape, pillage and even kill without fear of prosecution.

After pondering this and other things that have been going on in the Executive Branch of our Government, I've come to realize that they are doing all of this stuff to INTENTIONALLY circumvent Congress.

Well, you might say that that's ok...but then you have to ask yourself "Who does Congress represent?". The people. Therefore, to me, the Executive Branch is circumventing the American people.

Originally posted by elderban


I don't really see them doing that anytime soon because chances are that they'd have to prosecute about 80% of the "contractors", if not more.

Is there a source for that figure?

You see, there are about 125,000 "contractors" or "privatized military" in Iraq right now...almost more "contractors" then there are military personnel, and those contractors technically aren't under the laws of the United States, so they are pretty much free to do what they want without fear of being prosecuted.

Furthermore, some of those "contractors" are getting paid about $1,000/day...and guess who's footing the bill? The taxpayers.

I don't see an inherent problem with outsourcing tasks; otherwise the government would have to pay for overhead and skills that they don't readily have available.

And guess who outsourced these "contractors"? Dick Cheney.

I don't understand that point.

So, like I said earlier, I don't see the DoD implementing these mandated changes anytime soon because that would mean that the "private contractors" would lose all of that money solely for the fact that what they are doing now would become illegal.

What precisely is being done that is illegal?

After pondering this and other things that have been going on in the Executive Branch of our Government, I've come to realize that they are doing all of this stuff to INTENTIONALLY circumvent Congress.

Intent is a tough thing to prove; what is there to show that?

Don't get me wrong: if something illegal is being done, that is unsettling and needs to be stopped. Further, just because the military doesn't have jurisdiction doesn't mean that there might be some other judicial body with the jurisdiction. Of course, I don't know if this is the case.

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Togetic]

Originally posted by Togetic
I don't see an inherent problem with outsourcing tasks; otherwise the government would have to pay for overhead and skills that they don't readily have available.

The problem I See, is that regular army who handle specific jobs are being pulled from their tasks and replaced by contractors.
IE repairs, and technology.
They are the army for a reason, bringing in contractors who dont fall under normal rules is a issue.
too many government officials are making lots of money from this war, and private contracting firms are a big chunk of it.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop

The problem I See, is that regular army who handle specific jobs are being pulled from their tasks and replaced by contractors.
IE repairs, and technology.
They are the army for a reason, bringing in contractors who dont fall under normal rules is a issue.
too many government officials are making lots of money from this war, and private contracting firms are a big chunk of it.

But if it can be done cheaper, isn't that an okay thing to do? Why should we spend more for the military to do it?

[edit on 4/7/2007 by Togetic]

But thats it, we arent.
We are paying people thousands and thousands a week to do a job the military does for much cheaper.

And the military atleast stick to the guidlines and rules set out
Plus, imagine the morale amongst troops?
seeing a man get paid 10x the amount to do a job you do.
You sleep in a tent on a fold out bed, he sleeps in a nice bed in a building.
you drive a humvee thats under-armoured, he drives a armoured SUV

this war is the most outsourced war in American history, and whe nyour VP is making tonnes of cash from it, it leaves it open to foul play.

Its just 1 in a long list of reasons that this war is unjust.

This is not only true but one of the most problematic and often left to do what ever the one contractors are the mercenaries for hire.

This link is to an article that will open your eyes to what our tax payer money is paying for.

www.corpwatch.org...

$293 million Pentagon contract to coordinate security for reconstruction projects, as well as support for other private military companies, in Iraq. This effectively put him in command of the second-largest foreign armed force in the country—behind America's but ahead of Britain's. These men aren't officially part of the Coalition of the Willing, because they're all paid contractors—the Coalition of the Billing, you might call it—but they're a crucial part of the coalition's forces nonetheless.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
But thats it, we arent.
We are paying people thousands and thousands a week to do a job the military does for much cheaper.

Then why is it being done?

Can you show me your numbers, comparing exactly how much we are paying private military contractors and mercenaries to how much the same work is estimated to have cost the regular military?

..support/logistics contractors, 2005: 50,000
...non-Iraqi security contractors, 2005: 20,000
...Iraqi security contractors, 2005: 15,000
...reconstruction contractors, 2005: 40-70,000
KBR workers in Middle East: ~50,000
Erinys private security guard pay: $400-1,000 per day
Overall annual pay: varies, some making $100,000 or more
Contractor pay vs. new Army private pay: at least 6X higher, mostly tax-free

ptsdcombat.blogspot.com...

Iraq Contractor Wages
Kevin Begos and Phoebe Zerwick of the Winston-Salem Journal used details from federal contracts to contractors in Iraq to calculate a basic labor rate of $350,000 a year for a “liaison officer under the contract that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Charlotte’s Zapata Engineering to help dispose of captured munitions. It’s 10 times what the average soldier or member of the National Guard earns, even for full combat duty.”

www.thescoop.org...

Soldiers, diplomats and private contractors in Iraq are all putting their lives on the line.
But should anyone be paid $350,000 a year to work in Iraq?
That's the basic labor rate for a liaison officer under the contract that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers awarded Charlotte's Zapata Engineering to help dispose of captured munitions. It's 10 times what the average soldier or member of the National Guard earns, even for full combat duty.

www.corpwatch.org...

Zapata and other private companies doing munitions disposal are being paid handsomely for a job that has traditionally been done by members of the military.

www.corpwatch.org...

Employees of Erniys make $88,000 a year, plus benefits -- triple what most soldiers make. A bodyguard from a company like Pilgrims or Securicor can cost as much as $500 a day.

www.post-gazette.com...

Troops Are Demoralized Due To Unequal Pay
Soldiers often find themselves working next to contractors who make ten times more money than the troops. The average enlisted service member makes roughly $25,000 a year compared to a civilian contractor, who can make up to $200,000 a year. This is unfair. Considering that soldiers often struggle to support their families back home, it is frustrating and demoralizing for troops to witness such a salary discrepancy. Low morale can significantly reduce the combat effectiveness of these army units.

www.optruth.org...



[edit on 7-4-2007 by Agit8dChop]

As for why its being done?
Easy, the same reason this illegial war has been staged on the public

The top profiteers after 9/11 were the CEOs of United Technologies ($200 million), General Dynamics ($65 million), Lockheed Martin ($50 million), and Halliburton ($49 million). Other firms where CEO pay the last four years added up to $25 million to $45 million were Textron, Engineered Support Systems, Computer Sciences, Alliant Techsystems, Armor Holding, Boeing, Health Net, ITT Industries, Northrop Grumman, Oshkosh Truck, URS, and Raytheon.

While Army privates died overseas earning $25,000 a year, David Brooks, the disgraced former CEO of body-armor maker DHB, made $192 million in stock sales in 2004. He staged a reported $10 million bat mitzvah for his daughter. The 2005 pay package for Halliburton CEO David Lesar, head of the firm that most symbolizes the occupation's waste, overcharges, and ghost charges on no-bid contracts, was $26 million, according to the report's analysis of federal Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

So corporations can make lots of money, while taking control of a valuable resource.

Its really that simple.
Just look at who we have in whitehouse for petes sake!

Originally posted by Togetic

Originally posted by elderban

Furthermore, some of those "contractors" are getting paid about $1,000/day...and guess who's footing the bill? The taxpayers.

I don't see an inherent problem with outsourcing tasks; otherwise the government would have to pay for overhead and skills that they don't readily have available.

I think that's the OP point...the government IS paying for it...with HIS tax dollars.

Here's a video interview with author Jeremy Scahill...he's done some interesting research on the issue of private contractors...particularly Blackwater USA.

If anyone was wondering 'whatever happened to' Kenneth Starr?...the Clinton impeachment wolverine...apparently he's now listed as Blackwater's attorney-of-record.

Part 1 (7 min) /3cu4u5

Part 2 (7min) /2767q4


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1

Why compare them to privates, when they all have far more experience?

I didn't ask for the basic salary comparison, I asked what it would have cost to do the EXACT same job. Why did they outsource jobs? Would it have cost the Army more money to get additional resources?

Originally posted by Johnmike
Why compare them to privates, when they all have far more experience?
I didn't ask for the basic salary comparison, I asked what it would have cost to do the EXACT same job. Why did they outsource jobs? Would it have cost the Army more money to get additional resources?

Urrm, it says there.
6-10x the difference in salaries.

When the war began the outsourcing wasnt as rife.
But as the war continued to spiral out of control, the corporations saw just how much money private contractors were bringing in.

so they expanded.

Now, the private military is the 2nd largest force on the ground.
That says something.

They outsourced the military jobs to corporations because corporations make money, and many of the people on the board of directors for the corporations are owed lots from the government via 911.

IE R. Meyers.

Its like Halliburton,

why let the government pay a military man to do a job, when you can hire someone, pay him more, and make money of him while he does the same job.

Go watch a documentary called 'iraq for sale'

IT shows how the military was requested to TRAIN corporate contractors to do the same job they do for the military.

They were officially outsourced to private firms.

Maybe I'll explain this a little more simply.


You can't base price only on the salary of men.

There are things such as upkeep, transportation, etc.

Deployment can be costly.


At times when the Army cannot deploy additional resources without paying more money, it is possible that contractors may be the cheaper option.

In conclusion, salary is NOT the only indicator of cost.

well, there pay is tax free.
They drive around in armoured cars, where as the US military are under-armoured.
They are flown over in the same style the US miltiary is.

Im pretty sure the contractors MAKE a lot more money, and cost a lot more.

Again, you haven't shown any figures that aren't salaries. "I'm pretty sure" doesn't cut it.

And how does one go about applying for one of these contracted positions? Seems like a very lucrative employment opportunity if you ask me.

Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
Civilian Number, Duties Are Issues

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page D01

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.

Full text: /y49efd


An estimated 100,000 extra bodies to help prosecute a controversial military effort in Iraq...without having to seek congressional approval?...and no oversight?

Sounds like a helluva deal.


Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1