Just heard on CNN: Mercenaries (aka. "Civilian Contractors")

[Walt Starr]

are NOT subject to the UCMJ (of course not, they're "civilians"), Iraqi Law, or to U.S. law.

Apparently, there is a loophole whereby the WORST criminals in the torture of Iraqi prisoners will never see the inside of a court.

That leaves one jurisdiction. These bastard mercenaries need to be sent to the Hague to face a war crimes tribunal.

Time to start calling for these mercenaries to get their due. Call your congresscritters and tell them to send the "Civilian Contractors" invovled to The Hague!

[LittleApple81]

1. WOW! Now we know why Bush* is using them. n/t

[Arianrhod]

2. That was kind of a given, wasn't it? n/t

[arcane1]

5. another reason...

is that since these guys are making $500-1,000 per day, that means the corporations that own them are making BILLIONS.

There is no profit in a weekend-warrior being sent on the state's dollar to go fight in Iraq

But with Mercenaries, a company like Blackwater can do the good old "$500 Hammer" and overcharge the living hell out of US through NO-BID CONTRACTS

Bush kills 2 birds w/ one stone here


and wouldn't these guys be immune to the Hague, since they are technically not run by the government?

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. BULLSHIT!

Every job I sign up for as a contractor (in another industry but still as a contractor) means that as I am working for the company paying me and I must abide by their rules unless it is otherwise stipulated in the contract. These people were/are working for the US government and must abide by the same rules. So if the military has a code and is part of the government then the contractors have to abide by it.

[Arianrhod]

8. Um, no.

Government contractors working overseas actually fall under the jurisdiction of their host nation, not the US. Since these guys were in Iraq--meaning, basically, under the same criminal administration that's running the occupation--there's probably no law that covers them. That's one of the primary reasons for using mercs.

[Norquist Nemesis]

16. You must know more than

me about it, (granted I'm not well versed on it). But after watching the talking heads this evening, I'll stand by my original statement that they are bound by the same rules as the body that contracted with them which is the US government.

[tom_paine]

12. No they don't

You must still be under the erroneous impression that you live in a Free Country.

You don't. (though it still SEEMS mostly free, that is an illusion)

[Unknown Known]

4. Now you can understand why Rummy doesn't want a draft

He wants to privatize as much of the military as possible - no culpability - besides think of all those profits!!:evilgrin:

[htuttle]

6. Theoretically, they are under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department

...via the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000.

However, as this Salon article points out, this law, while on the books, is not ready to be implemented:

Congress took steps to close this loophole with the passage of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Theoretically, the law allows for prosecution in U.S. courts of contractors working alongside the military overseas, but the law is far from comprehensive.

For one thing, the regulations to govern just how the statute works have yet to be written. So while the law is technically in effect, how it is to be carried out -- how prisoners would be handled, who would defend suspects, which federal magistrates would handle cases -- is unclear. Even when the needed regulations are written, it will take another 90 days before they become active.

"As far as I know, this act doesn't have the regulations that are designed to implement it yet," Howlett says, "and it hasn't ever been used a person who committed a crime overseas."

Howlett says in a rare instance the law could be used without those regulations, but calls such a possibility unlikely.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/06/27/military/index2.html

[MoonRiver]

7. Maybe they should be tried by the Iraqis.

Right alongside Saddam.

[Randers]

9. that is what I would like to see....n/t

[Walt Starr]

15. Instant Death Penalty

They signed up as mercenaries, so....

[Walt Starr]

13. So theoretically, Ashcroft decides whether or not to prosecute

Same difference as not being under the jurisdiction of U.S. law.

[Junkdrawer]

10. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but...

if they commit war crimes and are NOT punished, Bush is responsible under international law.

[tom_paine]

11. The purpose of Hessians is unchanged since the LAST King George of Amerika

1) To better lie and deceive the homfornt people about the True Casualties and Costs of War.

2) To allow the Hessians to commit brutalities the British Army couldn't perform without exposure.

I have no doubt the Imperial Hessians have done terribel, unjust things. Iraqis, I'll bet live in total fear of Amerikan Hessians because they know that, like the Imperial Family they serve, the Hessain are Bound by NO LAW.

[workforpower]

14. CNN

No one watches it. It is just pathetic.