« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Contractors Could Leave Iraq in Wake of Immunity Change
The private security industry is trying to make sense of the announcement today from Baghdad that the Iraqi government is revoking a CPA-era edict, known as Order 17, immunizing contractors from prosecution in Iraqi courts. Some believe that the State Department will succeed in an anticipated attempt to prevent Americans from appearing before an Iraqi judge, while warning that if a full revocation succeeds, American companies or individual contractors might simply up and leave Iraq rather than potentially face charges in an immature justice system.
Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association -- otherwise known as the private-security lobby -- took a cautious approach, saying he wanted to reserve judgment until the State Department and the Pentagon made its views known. But he pointed out that most contractors -- not just security contractors, but contractors involved in reconstruction, as well -- hire Iraqis to do significant amounts of grunt work, which westerners supervise. "If you say anyone not Iraqi is now under Iraqi law -- such as it is -- you'll lose a lot of oversight and management capabilities," Brooks says. That's because he expects his member organizations on the ground in Iraq to either shed their American staff or experience difficulty recruiting Americans to go to Iraq in the future. "It would be enormously risky to stay. Individual contractors would have to take a hard look" at remaining in Iraq.
That's how private-security expert P.W. Singer sees it as well. Two models for Iraq security contracting exist: what Singer calls the ArmorGroup model, where Americans supervise Iraqis and so-called "third country nationals," who are neither Iraqi nor American; and the Blackwater model, where nearly all aspects of the job are filled by Americans. (Blackwater's workforce in Iraq is 80 percent American, according to the company.) "One corporate response could be a shift more and more towards model one," Singer says.
The companies themselves aren't discussing their next moves. DynCorp spokesman Greg Lagana says, simply, "We're perfectly fine with being held accountable under U.S. law." The Iraqi justice system is hardly a model of competence and fairness: Singer says that some contractors "might add the word 'kangaroo' in front of it."
Similarly, Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell declines to comment on "hypotheticals." But Blackwater doesn't have control over whether its security guards are Americans, Iraqis or so-called Third Country Nationals: that's something State builds into the terms of Blackwater's contract, Tyrrell says. "On our end, nothing would change," she says, "but if this were to affect policy -- and you've heard Erik Prince say we're not policy people -- then of course things would change."
What will change, however, isn't something the State Department is commenting on. "We'll continue to work through this issue with the Iraqis, to clarify the legal authority to govern this issue," says spokesman Edgar Vasquez. Vasquez would not elaborate on whether the State Department would accept Iraqi prosecutions of U.S. contractors in Iraq, or what legal framework State would accept.
Singer points out that the Iraqi annulment of Order 17 shows, ironically, the Iraqi government doing what the State Department, in the abstract, would like: that is, accepting more and more responsibility for governance. "The more they do to try and act like a sovereign state, the harder it becomes for us to operate inside Iraq," he notes. "The odd development is that the way we want to get out of Iraq is to leave a functioning state behind, but the last stages of that are really functionally challenging."
Comments (66)
GySgt213 wrote on October 24, 2007 5:03 PM:They might leave if they have to follow the law? See ya!!!
Sagacity wrote on October 24, 2007 5:15 PM:Wow, this could mean the end of the occupation. Since contractors are doing so many things--golly, what a shame when things are going so great.
I hope the Iraqi govt means it.
Sagacity wrote on October 24, 2007 5:16 PM:Wow, this could mean the end of the occupation. Since contractors are doing so many things--golly, what a shame when things are going so great.
I hope the Iraqi govt means it.
Michael Sweeney wrote on October 24, 2007 5:16 PM:What? The contractors are going to cut and run? What about the mission?
Steve5117 wrote on October 24, 2007 5:16 PM:Gee, do you think a foreign contractor working in the United States would be held accountable for their actions under our laws or would our government let them send people who had murdered our citizens go home?
sheerahkahn wrote on October 24, 2007 5:18 PM:Yeah imagine that, no more getting do whatever you want whenever you want. I'd say this is a sure sign of the Iraqi's standing up...and now the security contractors can stand down.
teedawg wrote on October 24, 2007 5:19 PM:buh-bye!
What? Don't tell us; the contractors are thinking of cutting and running?
SplendidOne wrote on October 24, 2007 5:30 PM:Well, internally, the US is getting to b a much friendlier place for mercenary organizations to operate.
And, of course, they might need all their forces in place here, not "over there," if Bush pulls the curtain over the 2008 elections due to some emergency next year.
SplendidOne wrote on October 24, 2007 5:31 PM:Well, internally, the US is getting to be a much friendlier place for mercenary organizations to operate . . . hopefully that trend will reverse in 2009.
OTOH . . . Of course, they might need all their forces in place here, not "over there," if Bush pulls the curtain over the 2008 elections due to some emergency next year.
r€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 5:31 PM:No more killing Iraqis with impunity?
Sounds like a good thing to me.
Danno wrote on October 24, 2007 5:34 PM:If the Iraqi court system was considered good enough to try Saddam...
EH wrote on October 24, 2007 5:35 PM:Iraq is just no fun anymore.
bobcn wrote on October 24, 2007 5:39 PM:I've always wondered how you could risk having a military force whose logistics are provided by civilian contractors (who can quit at any time). Now I'm wondering even more. If the convoys (and other forms of support) the contractors provide were to quickly stop things could get even worse for our troops.
Mafalda Hopkirk wrote on October 24, 2007 5:41 PM:The Ministry of Magic is concerned. What will happen when the mercenaries come here?
GHB wrote on October 24, 2007 5:41 PM:Not without a sense of loss, I realized I'm not sure which I'd prefer: being a US citizen in the Iraqi justice system or an Iraqi citizen (and Muslim) in the US justice system.
r€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 5:41 PM:Gee, do you think a foreign contractor working in the United States would be held accountable for their actions under our laws or would our government let them send people who had murdered our citizens go home?
IOKIYAWCA
It's OK If You're A White Christian American
r€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 5:43 PM:I'm having a hard time figuring out if there's much difference between Blackwater and the Gestapo or SS.
Shameful.
kurtyboy wrote on October 24, 2007 5:46 PM:Sheerahkahn beat me to it.
Who knew that what was meant by, "When the Iraqi people Stand up..." is that they stand up and kick folks (and eventually our military) out.
Fundamentally, however, that is exactly the demonstration of soveriegnty that the neocons had in mind when they uttered the phrase (unless, of course, they were being cynical and believed that such a day would never come---).
Doofus wrote on October 24, 2007 5:48 PM:So much for "exporting democracy." Maybe they need to dust off Paul "Tex" Bremer and send him and his cowboy boots back to Baghdad to talk sense to these Iraqi guys. The nerve, thinking they can run their own country!
Johann wrote on October 24, 2007 5:48 PM:Posse Commutatis makes it illegal for the USA's armed forces to operate in the USA. Is there is no such protection from private armies like BlackWater?
Us citizen ... Us Justice? wrote on October 24, 2007 5:49 PM:GHB:
What about being a US citizen in the US Justice system? If you're not a loyal bushie?
Makepeace wrote on October 24, 2007 5:57 PM:Just give them diplomatic immunity.
Make them Ambassadors of Peace Keeping.
Fop wrote on October 24, 2007 6:02 PM:Posse Commutatis makes it illegal for the USA's armed forces to operate in the USA. Is there is no such protection from private armies like BlackWater?
Posse Comitatus Act
Not quite, there are limits and exclusions on the act, and no. Blackwater was in New Orleans after Katrina.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
Connecticut Man1 wrote on October 24, 2007 6:08 PM:r€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 5:43 PM:
"I'm having a hard time figuring out if there's much difference between Blackwater and the Gestapo or SS.
Shameful."
I know what you mean... heh
Michael Keenan wrote on October 24, 2007 6:09 PM:Under the power of Congress to tax and spend for the military the right of OUR representatives to call for a resolution on whether or not we EVEN want a standing army leaves a private army,i.e., Blackwater with no STANDING at all.
California will never be a Blackwater Dog House.
Michael Keenan wrote on October 24, 2007 6:09 PM:Under the power of Congress to tax and spend for the military the right of OUR representatives to call for a resolution on whether or not we EVEN want a standing army leaves a private army,i.e., Blackwater with no STANDING at all.
California will never be a Blackwater Dog House.
Connecticut Man1 wrote on October 24, 2007 6:13 PM:€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 5:43 PM:
"I'm having a hard time figuring out if there's much difference between Blackwater and the Gestapo or SS.
Shameful."
I know what you mean... heh
OOPS the link didn't go all HTML like it should... Oh well, I'll try the cave computer link method:
http://drinkliberal.blogspot.com/2007/10/blackwater-rebrands-itself.html
Taxpayer wrote on October 24, 2007 6:14 PM:I thought Mr. Prince said in his testimony that the mercenaries -- er, peace officers -- in his company bleed red, white and blue and would never do anything to hurt this country.
sherifffruitfly wrote on October 24, 2007 6:24 PM:If upwards of 200,000 mercenaries leave Iraq, is it even REMOTELY feasible for the actual troops to stay for any length of time?
Free the Diplomats! wrote on October 24, 2007 6:25 PM:If the mercenaries leave, then the diplomats can leave too.
Thank you, Iraqis, for standing up!
Steve5117 wrote on October 24, 2007 6:48 PM:Let's see now, the Iraqi's want no permanent bases and no contractors. Well what are we waiting for. Everybody home for Christmas.
Well, maybe at least some more of the 25 per centers will see the light when Bush decides that the Iraqi government is supporting the terrorists by objecting to our presence there. That will require more troops to protect our assets there (the contractors), but under martial law all non-college republican males will be conscripted. I'm sure that republican women will have no problem leaving their jobs to become stay-at-home baby makers when we get to that point. It's only a bunker buster or two away!
r€nato wrote on October 24, 2007 6:48 PM:"If upwards of 200,000 mercenaries leave Iraq, is it even REMOTELY feasible for the actual troops to stay for any length of time?"
we may have finally found a way to end the war!
aquart wrote on October 24, 2007 6:49 PM:Could it possibly be so simple?
And, YEAH! this looks like a damned good example of Iraqis standing up.
PS. On the posse commitatus, Marines are patrolling San Diego right now.
Nell wrote on October 24, 2007 6:50 PM:Of course the private military are happy to be accountable under U.S. law -- because under this administration and its Dept. of Justice, no investigations will ever be concluded and no charges brought.
As the Iraqi government can plainly see, when even killing the VP's bodyguard in the Green Zone doesn't bring about any response within the U.S. justice system.
So the practical choice is: impunity vs. kangaroo court.
bobcn wrote on October 24, 2007 6:54 PM:This could conceivably force the withdrawal in a way that congress can't.
If congress were to reduce funding to only cover a withdrawal, Bush would merely leave the troops in place and play chicken with the congress while the funding ran out. He doesn't give a rats ass whether the troops would suffer from such a tactic or not. He would merely play the politics of it and let the troops be damned.
If, however, the logistics provided by the contractors were taken away in any substantial way, the generals would probably demand either a partial withdrawal or a consolidation of the troops for force protection and support.
Unfortunately, Bush won't allow the Iraqis to exert their sovereignty in this way. Despite all the talk of bringing freedom to Iraq, Bush thinks he now owns the place. He won't let anything interfere with his occupation (and staging for the next likely battle -- Iran).
chisholm wrote on October 24, 2007 6:56 PM:This is a very interesting situation.
If the paramilitary forces leave the country the sh*t will really hit the fan. But when you look at it at face value, keeping them there under their immunity clause etc. is just impossible to defend or rationalize. I don't think State can really even attempt to put lipstick on that monster.
Also amazing to see that the Iraqi parliament is so much more effective than our Democratically controlled Congress. They've forced Bush's hand, something the Democrats just don't have the character to do. Always goes to show, it ain't over till its over.
Bill wrote on October 24, 2007 6:59 PM:Surprise! Surprise! Iraq wants to restore its own sovereignty and make it illegal for foreigners to commit acts that are even illegal in America! Who'd have ever predicted that? Next I suppose we'll see the US Supreme Court label renditioning as conspiracy to commit torture or maybe a US Attorney will call lying to Congress an act of perjury. You never know, with all of these people running around so hidebound to the "rule of law", whatever that is. What a bunch of throwbacks they are. Stay the course, George, stay the course!
Tross wrote on October 24, 2007 7:05 PM:Now Blackwater is playing the victim?
Excuse me, but didn't Iraq revoke Order 17 because Blackwater employees routinely shot and killed innocent civilians?
So if you're a child whose parents can't afford healthcare and you ask the gov't for help, you're considered a drain on the economy.
But if you are a corporation that gets 90% of your revenue from the gov't (and you continuously violate internation laws and don't even pay your taxes), when you ask the gov't for help, the President falls all over himself to heap praise.
bisonheart wrote on October 24, 2007 7:08 PM:Can we please stop letting the Repugs frame the debate and call them for what they are? They're not contractors, they're MERCENARIES! Amurikan MERCENARIES. Just another example of how far this country has fallen away from its supposed ideals.
TRINLA wrote on October 24, 2007 7:14 PM:You guys are still missing the point here. Blackwater is no more or less at fault here than Dyncorp or any of the other contractors on the ground there. They saw an opportunity, and they took advantage.
The real fault here lies with Condi and State. The rest is just noise. Those weren't blood-thirsty mercenaries who got into trouble in Nisour Square. They were U.S. State Department contractors. The more we scream about Blackwater this and Blackwater that, the more we muddy the very important fact that it was the State Department who sent them there in the first place. They are the ones, to use the parlance of our times, who put out the hit. And they are the ones who should be taking the blame.
Hank Essay wrote on October 24, 2007 7:42 PM:You cut and run with the mercenaries you have, not the mercenaries you wished you had.
ApacheTrout wrote on October 24, 2007 8:07 PM:-
Uh... weren't the Republicans touting the Iraqi judicial system as a sign of progress not too long ago?
Veritas78 wrote on October 24, 2007 8:10 PM:Well, it's a start. Let's make sure they don't come back here.
Me_ again wrote on October 24, 2007 8:11 PM:Contractors Could Leave Iraq in Wake of Immunity Change
Theose security contractors are making HUGE amounts of money - but suddenly, being told they must comply with laws, they up and say "we're leaving".
I just bet.
Reagan fired all those traffic controllers who did not go back to work (It's how you know that Bush is NO Reagan, never has been, never will be, in fact Bush is NO conservative at all).
So I say, fine, let them quit, sombody who does want to stay inside the law will surely find those unbid-contracts well worth legitimizing the private security firm business.
And you know how Bush and Cheney like it, in that only the criminal way in the realm of true Bushism.
Mexican Jumping Bean wrote on October 24, 2007 8:15 PM:TRINLA:
Suppose they outsourced torture. Torture by mercenaries. No matter who paid the torturers, don't you think they too would be complicit?
numi wrote on October 24, 2007 8:23 PM:I seem to recall that 220 years or so ago, the citizens a fledgling republic took great offense at the presence of a large group of MERCENARIES, hired by one King George, invading their country and suppressing their liberties. Those same citizens, our ancestors, proceeded to kick Hessian butt clear back to wherever the rat bastards came from.
Only Republicanite vermin would consider MERCENARIES a good thing.
The only downside is that the MERCENARIES would be coming back here - just in time to support the looming martial law election suppression for the latest King George.
ANd people wonder why I despise Republicanites.
Sully18 wrote on October 24, 2007 8:24 PM:After donning my tinfoil hat,I had the terrifying thought that at some point we`ll have to deal with them.
And after I took it off, I thought about their memo to"pass the truth."I wonder what that means in doublespeak.
Cal Damage wrote on October 24, 2007 9:19 PM:Like Shakespeare wrote (kinda):
aggravated voter wrote on October 24, 2007 10:09 PM:"First, We Fire All The Contractors!"
Are they going to leave before or after the sensivity training?
canadianvisitor wrote on October 24, 2007 10:15 PM:I would say that if they are now saying they will have to leave Iraq, then to me, that implies they have been doing things illegally knowing they had immunity. Isn't it always the republicans who like to say if you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear? Or is it that the Iraqi courts were good enough to try and subsequently hang Saddam but are not good enough to try an American? Aren't these court people being trained by Americans? Exactly, in the eyes of these people, is Iraq a sovereign country now being run by their own Parliament, whether good or bad at this stage, or still being occupied and run by the US with a puppet Iraqi government for show?
Bonnie wrote on October 24, 2007 10:19 PM:". . . you'll lose a lot of oversight and management capabilities," Brooks says."
I'm sorry; but, I haven't noticed any "oversight and managment capabilities" since this war was started. I can't imagine losing something we never had.
phil wrote on October 24, 2007 10:49 PM:W(einer)is gonna need 'em in Paraguay in about a year or so. I'm sure by then he'll have a new view of extraordinary rendition....and the ever dark Lord cheney will need 'em in Dubai as well.
smike wrote on October 25, 2007 12:00 AM:One can only hope.......
What stands out to me is the part of the argument about the overseers of the grunts. Iraq is in such peril of losing such experts.
Has it occurred to no one that people in that part of the world have been building things - some of them lasting much longer than the United States has existed - without our expert overseers? That argument gives the impression that those people are too stupid to handled such responsibility. Without our help it sounds like they would never realize that water runs downhill.
TJ wrote on October 25, 2007 12:14 AM:Replacing American employees with Iraqi employees to run their own country? What a novel idea.
TJ wrote on October 25, 2007 12:14 AM:Replacing American employees with Iraqi employees to run their own country? What a quaint idea!
brian wrote on October 25, 2007 1:07 AM:The Americans have to get rid of the Maliki government. It was a mistake to arrange majority rule. The Shiites are the majority, they are sympathetic to Iran, they form large groups in the Gulf states ... our 'friends' in the Gulf don't like this.
Thus the Americans must arrange a beef with the Maliki government - viola, Blackwater is a problem. Watch the administration develop their new theme, viz., Maliki is no good.
In line with this is our new deal with Sunni tribal leaders who are accepting money (really ?!?!?) to oppose 'Al Qaeda'. From this group we will attempt to form a Sunni government that will have Iran as an enemy, as we wish.
The scheme will flop, of course, and take way too long, and have hideous unforeseen consequences.
xargaw wrote on October 25, 2007 1:32 AM:Now that I have read the Blackwater plea I plan on doing my part. I am contacting members of the House and Senate and letting them know I expect them to hold Blackwater accountable and not cave in to pressure from those that they are soliciting to do their bidding.
xargaw wrote on October 25, 2007 1:32 AM:Now that I have read the Blackwater plea I plan on doing my part. I am contacting members of the House and Senate and letting them know I expect them to hold Blackwater accountable and not cave in to pressure from those that they are soliciting to do their bidding.
Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 3:44 AM:They Were Expendable: We Weren't
29 10 2004
dw wrote on October 25, 2007 7:40 AM:0415
Two COACs along the street. Target Area D. No survivors.
0800
LOS monkeys, 3 or more. More in. Advance to F-19-28
0807
COACs verified KOA. No vis.
0825
Stretch DS. Lookback patrol VIS neg. Kills 15 in and out.
0900
Stgrp called in. Tight circ. No COAC but fire at 6-8. One
UKOA at our 4. Sent 2 TRC to scope the 4 and put CF on all
6-8 in spray with movement. STR kill called. 5 groups on
star patrol from F-14x542green. Called NO to head0Y0-position
and immunity. REP: roger 5-K2press.
0925
Local mop. 5K+5. 25 NO seen exp 25 more NO. .5 km now.
COAC setup and drops. Shift to F-15x52 with FS.
1014
5 CSOVs stops KOA. our 7 is active. Sent 2SQ to quiet or NOP.
Suspect COAC. RA to our 9 and 12 to join at F-19. Expect trade.
1037
RA1 not active to 9. COAC air is lighting F-19x4. RA2 has kills.
Repts 29. 2 SAQ. & .2k from RA. Lite CPP Easy takedown. Exp. no
SAQ and < 150 NOP kills to RA.
1040
7 rpts all kill. 1 USA. Fast-clear sec 149 in prep for USAC.
4 min to 1-2SQ RAQ. DF at our 11-12 prep. to RA. 45 KOA on ST.
1100
RA reached. USAC H5 breached P2. NOP'd with SRPG on NA by
4r2 contract. Regrets. COAC's KOA==14/0. ZOP at 1130. 3F & 3.
1130
OP-steal w/COR and true. 2 NEQ, no perim TQ. Kill ORQ all 500/360.
1210
COAC on 12DS KOA. Regretss. AllowRQ call RCV on 27: AU CREV 1210.
CF-CF on F-19-54 while MEDV. Our 10 sends fire.
1217
SQ sent to the 10 FZ. KOA=15+ mostly CVacs and CNOCs. Regrets.
1220
All-clear. Rough cnt 15 COA/5 monkeys.
1314
COAC KOA on AQ sight/false. Regret called 4Q. COAQ knock-down PQ24
1330
PQ24 and take-down. 1 COA. Regrets. 4 SQ disarm with USAC 6sig secure.
BOA on F-20x13. Will ACQ at 1900. Need evac of these COAC amateurs
or will shoot.
1630
At F-19-80 now. 155 COA. Sight 180degree BPMh centeredon our 12.
Tomorrow Faj is dead. Lite SWF on 7. Est. 5 USAF KOA 15 COA. Regrets.
Friendlys at about 23. REQ sent to keep USAQ slow and dumb.
Will the thieves and war profiteers in Washington leave if their guarantee of protection from the corrupt justice department is withdrawn?
Michael wrote on October 25, 2007 8:07 AM:Darn, now where will we deploy our mercenary army? What's the next target? Got to keep it in operation to funnel money to the repukes and to rape and pillage some other country. How about Venezuela? It has oil, small army, backwards, petty strong man, who was elected by the people, but that's only a minor detail. That sounds like a great idea. Let's invade Venezuela and put the CEO of Exxon/Mobil in charge.
Dawn wrote on October 25, 2007 9:47 AM:It would be so richly ironic if the only way we can get this occupation to end is by the contractors leaving of their own accord to avoid facing Iraqi courts. If the occupation had been remotely successful these courts would be fair instruments of justice by now, but as it stands no American in their right mind would hang around waiting to be charged with something. If this gets us out of there, I'm quite pleased.
wordvarc wrote on October 25, 2007 1:09 PM:.
DEREGULATION OF US VIOLENCE
Deregulation of US violence by mercenaries was orchestrated by w and the GOP.
While lawless opportunists, it is w and the GOP that deregulated all laws, policies, and checks on their mercenaries.
.
Utopia wrote on October 25, 2007 1:18 PM:No one is making them leave. All they have to do is obey the law. Is it impossible for them to do their job AND obey the law?
Besides, just what are the missions they are protecting. I'm led to believe hardly anyone ventures out of the Green Zone, certainly not the diplomats and administrators, Iraqi or American. I'm sure the military can take care of itself. So who is Blackwater protecting? Do they really need to go where they are going?
U
chris wrote on December 9, 2007 7:23 AM:A lot of americons do not like the occupation in Iraqi thay think that we are free if thay would open thera eis look at 9-11 and i think thay do not no how much dop came frome thear and packastan.just that is cleaning up the usa.look what hitler did and how the usa stoped him . so are you just going to fite on usa grond . or do you no what free reale is.som times you just have to go and kick the bad mans as. so wean you see som one in a unafrom think what thay have gave to you i no what thay gave to me .Iam free
chris wrote on December 12, 2007 2:13 PM:TO you yhat BICH tack a GOOD LOOK AT THE GOLD OLD USA. wean i yeng thear was prar in public schools neativity seans inallfedreal and state buildings som buildings had the ten commandments in theam now thear is none so thay are tiching kids thies is bad have you read the ten commndments .all be cose som one did not whant her boy tot pair in schools. look it up separation of state and church look what went on in the house for vot and wen .go to google separation of state and church.gov . ps so wen did the gans start taking over in are citys .....you all have a GOOD CHRISMAS TO ALL may GOD healp US all