Question: Exactly who did the Private Contractors Report to?

[ewagner]

Rummy didn't seem to know (snarf) who the private contractors who did interrogations for the pentagon at the prison reported to.

Was there military control?

Was there a military "contract administrator"?

Is the press corps following up on this?

[LittleApple81]

1. McCain could not get an answer. Do you think our liberal media will

even try?

[RC]

2. Did anyone ask

Richard Chenney... under oath?

[kentuck]

3. McCain could not get an answer...

So, does that end the questioning? Or do they pursue it until they get an answer. I would think they will have a canned response for the question the next time. Something like, "..it is being investigated at this time and I am not at liberty to say any names that might be part of the investigation..."

[mike1963]

4. The word "halliburton" keeps coming to mind.........

:eyes:
then "cheney"

Not too hard to connect two dots........

[jimshoes]

5. My guess is it goes straight to the White House!

Why else are they in such CYA mode? Der Furher's very own "Private Army"?

[markomalley]

6. They were responsive to the Contracting Officer ...

...whoever that was...via the technical point of contact...

If they were subcontracted via another company then the relationships can get a little more complicated. Problem is that since they were linguists/interrogators, their contract is undoubtedly classified and won't be available for oversight.

[ewagner]

7. ..and where would one find

"the contracting officer?"

Public records?

[markomalley]

8. If the contract is classified forget it...

if not, you might be able to find it poking around http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ or an agency equivalent. But, I would wager that it is either buried in a subcontract somewhere or is in a classified contract.

[Tinoire]

22. Yep... classified

by DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT, The New York Times
May 9th, 2004

<snip>

In mid-August, a team of civilian interrogators led by Steven Stefanowicz, a former Navy petty officer and an employee of a Virginia company called CACI, began work at Abu Ghraib under a classified one-year military contract. The contract was part of a broader effort by the military to enlist Arabic linguists and other civilians in the work of questioning Iraqi detainees. CACI sent 27 interrogators to Abu Ghraib, Pentagon officials have said. Their job was to conduct interrogations in conjunction with military police and military intelligence units, according to a company memorandum.

<snip>

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4678

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/middleeast/09PRIS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=

[PaDUer]

24. Lot of people involved...more than those mentioned..

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, former MP commander at the prison, has said military intelligence officials fostered the atmosphere of abuse, instructing soldiers to create "favorable conditions for subsequent interviews."
-snip-

"The MI guys were running the show over there," he said of reports that intelligence workers directed soldiers to "break" prisoners prior to interrogation.

http://www.scrantontimes.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11462575&BRD=2185&PAG=461&dept_id=415898&rfi=8

[Tinoire]

12. They report to the Military with a dual chain to the their organization

I worked with these people before and rated them once a year. They had a lot more autonomy than the soldiers but they weren't out there on their own.

An unbelievable mess.

[leftynyc]

30. They may report to the military but

the military cannot charge or try them. They also cannot be charged under federal law as it's not in the jurisdiction. My dad (lawyer) was totally incensed about this as as far as he could see, they will not be held accountable for this.

[Tinoire]

31. Check out the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"

They sure can now. Tell your dad there's plenty of hope. The press has caught on to this Act and so have a few Senators.

====

Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"

Opening Statement of Chairman Bill McCollum
on H.R. 3380, the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999"

Today the Subcommittee will consider H.R. 3380, the "Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 1999." This bill was introduced by Congressman Saxby Chambliss and I was pleased to be the original cosponsor of the bill. H.R. 3380 would amend the Federal criminal code to apply it to persons who commit criminal acts while employed by or otherwise accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces outside of the United States. It would also extend Federal criminal jurisdiction to persons who commit crimes abroad while a member of the Armed Forces but who are not tried for those crimes by military authorities before being discharged from the military.


Civilians have served with or accompanied the American Armed Forces in the field or ships since the founding of the United States. In recent years, however, the number of civilians present with our military forces in foreign countries has dramatically increased. Many of these civilians are nonmilitary employees of the Defense Department and contractors working on behalf of DOD. In 1996, there were more than 96,000 civilian employees of the Department of Defense working and living outside the United States.

Family members of American service personnel make up an even larger group of the civilians who accompany U.S. forces overseas. In 1999, there were almost 300,000 family members of military personnel and DoD civilian employees living abroad.

While military members who commit crimes outside the United States are subject to trial and punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, civilians are not. In most instances, American civilians who commit crimes abroad are also not subject to the criminal laws of the United States because the jurisdiction for those laws ends at our national borders. As a result of these jurisdictional limitations, American citizens who commit crimes in foreign countries can be tried and punished only by the host nation. Surprisingly, however, host nations are not always willing to prosecute Americans, especially when the crime involves acts committed only against another American or against property owned by Americans.

Because of this, each year incidents of rape, sexual abuse, aggravated assault, robbery, drug distribution, and a variety of fraud and property crimes committed by American civilians abroad go unpunished because the host nation declines to prosecute these offenses. And this problem has been compounded in recent years by the increasing involvement of our military in areas of the world where there is no functioning government -- such as Somalia, Haiti, and the Balkans. Because, in those places, no government exists at all to prosecute crimes, American civilians who commit crimes there go unpunished.

The bill before us today would close this gapping hole in the law by extending Federal criminal jurisdiction to crimes committed by persons employed by and accompanying the U.S. Armed Forces overseas. Specifically, the bill creates a new crime under Title 18 that would make it a crime to engage in conduct outside the United States which would constitute an offense under Title 18 if the crime had been committed within the United States. The new crime would apply only to two groups of people. First, persons employed by or who accompany the Armed Forces outside the United States. This group includes dependents of military members, civilian employees of the Department of Defense, and Defense Department contractors or subcontractors and their employees. This group also includes foreign nationals who are relatives of American military personnel or contractors, or who work for the Defense Department, but only to the extent that they are not nationals of the country where the act occurred or ordinarily live in that country.

The second group of people to whom the bill would apply are persons who are members of the Armed Forces at the time they commit a criminal act abroad but who later are discharged from the military without being tried for their crime. This portion of the bill is designed to authorize the government to punish persons who are discharged from the military before their guilt is discovered and who, because of that discharge, are no longer subject to court-martial jurisdiction.

We simply cannot allow violent crimes and crimes involving significant property damage to go unpunished when they are committed by persons employed by or accompanying our military. The only reason why these people are living in foreign countries is because our military is there and they have some connection to it. And so, our government has an interest in ensuring that they are punished for any crimes they commit there. Just as importantly, as many of the crimes going unpunished are committed against Americans and American property, our government has an interest in using its law to punish those who commit these crimes.

I wish to point out that both the Defense Department and the Justice Department support the legislation before the Subcommittee here today. The legislation is the product of close collaboration between the staff of the Subcommittee on Crime and the representatives of these agencies, and I am pleased that both Departments have seen fit to send representatives to our hearing today. I welcome all the witnesses before the Subcommittee today and look forward to receiving their testimony.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/mcco0330.htm

That bill was passed...

-----------------------------

Office of the Command Counsel

UNCLASSIFIED
AMSEL-LG POINT PAPER 1 NOVEMBER 2002

SUBJECT: The Status of Contractors on the Battlefield
PURPOSE: To summarize the rules and regulations concerning the use of contractors on
the battlefield.
FACTS:
· The contract establishes the responsibilities of the Government and the
support contractor with respect to the use of contractors on the battlefield.
Every effort should be made, therefore, to specifically incorporate the
respective duties of the two parties from the outset of that agreement. AMC
has issued AMC-P 715-18 ‘Contracts and Contractors Supporting Military
Operations’. This pamphlet seeks to integrate operations and contracting for
support of operations. Included at Appendix C of the pamphlet is a
compilation of suggested contract special requirements. Specific contractual
areas that should be addressed include: pay, accounting for personnel,
logistics, risk assessment and mitigation, force protection, legal assistance,
central processing and departure point, identification cards, medical coverage,
clothing and equipment, weapons and training, vehicle and equipment
operation, passports/visas and customs, staging, living under field conditions,
morale, Status of Forces Agreement, tour of duty, health and life insurance,
management and next-of-kin notification.

<snip>

As a general rule, the UCMJ does not cover contractor personnel although
court-martial jurisdiction may be expanded to cover contractors in time of war.
The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 does provide for federal
jurisdiction over crimes committed outside of the United States. This
jurisdiction covers members of and persons employed by or accompanying the
Armed Forces. The Act allows the Secretary of Defense, under specified
conditions, to authorize DOD law enforcement personnel to arrest suspected
offenders outside the United States involved with crimes punishable by
imprisonment of more than one year.
BRIEFER: John Reynolds, AMSEL-LG-B, ext. 29780.
REVIEWED/APPROVED BY:

Mark Sagan
Deputy Chief Counsel

http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/command_counsel/resources/documents/newsletter03-2/encl01.pdf

From JAG

Civilians and dependent family members accompanying US forces abroad are normally considered subject to the terms of the applicable SOFA



--- While the HN may exercise its jurisdiction, the US commander does not have UCMJ authority over these persons.? Until very recently, the US had no way of obtaining jurisdiction over these personnel



--- If the HN waives primary jurisdiction to the US, the options of the commander are limited.? (See articles entitled Debarment and Family Member Misconduct, Chapter 9, this Deskbook.)



--- To remedy this problem, Congress passed the Military Extraterritoriality Jurisdiction Act of 2000. The Act criminalizes behavior that would have been a crime in the US punishable by more than one year in confinement. The provision applies not only to military members, but also to civilian dependents of military members as well as civilian contractors.

http://milcom.jag.af.mil/ch15/foreign.htm

[Tinoire]

9. To Military Intelligence.

Military Intelligence has always had civilians working with them; they report to the Senior Intelligence officer in charge. In Iraq it was Major General Barbara Fast now headed back to the states to, get this, be in charge of Fort Huachuca which is in charge of all Army Intel training and doctrine.

They also report to their civilian organization but technical control belongs to the military.


I just posted something in LBN: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=543196#

Here it is but read the entire article. It explains a LOT.

Report steers clear of interrogators' boss
By SUSAN TAYLOR MARTIN, Times Senior Correspondent

<snip>

But except for one brief mention, the 55-page report contains nothing about the role of the top military intelligence officer in Iraq, Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast. As head of intelligence for the U.S. command in Baghdad, Fast was in charge of interrogators at Abu Ghraib, where prisoners were beaten, sodomized and photographed in sexually degrading positions.

<snip>

Korb said he was amazed at the murky lines of authority at Abu Ghraib, which technically was run by military police, but where certain cell bocks were controlled by military intelligence officers, CIA officials and civilian contractors.

<snip>

As head of intelligence in Iraq, Fast would have been responsible for intelligence officers working inside Abu Ghraib. She also "would have been very interested in the interrogation reports coming out of that prison," says Charles Heyman, senior defense analyst for Jane's Consultancy.

<snip>

Unlike Karpinski, whose military career probably will end because of the scandal, Fast still appears to be highly regarded and remains on active duty in Baghdad.

<snip>

Last month, the Pentagon announced Fast will return to Fort Huachuca - to head the Army Intelligence Center.

<snip>

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/08/Worldandnation/Report_steers_clear_o.shtml

[Tinoire]

26. Gen Barbara Fast is used to working with civilians & contractors in intel

She was in charge of Field Station Augsburg in Germany aka 66th Military Intelligence Group in 1977. No excuse for a muddled chain of command because Fast was no confused Reservist who didn't know how things were done.

She was, for crying out loud, the Deputy Commanding General at Fort Huachuca where they train the interrogators, linguists, etc last year.

This thing is going to explode.

=====
February 14, 1997 (Article about the closure of the 66th MI Group)

<snip>

Col. Barbara Fast, commander of the 66th Military Intelligence Group, said the units move will be planned carefully. It will take up residence in Darmstadt, she said, and probably one other place, not yet determined.

"We're not that far along in the planning process," she said.

The unit has about" 500 soldiers and employs more than 100 civilians, who will move with the unit.

<snip>

http://www.usafsa.org/FSAcurrnews/AugsClose1.htm

[sandnsea]

27. Yes, Fast, and another story

Thanks Tinoire!

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/05/08/Worldandnation/Report_steers_clear_o.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x543196

[Tinoire]

28. Hey... Anytime...

:hi:

I'm trying to find out more about her but a lot of the links are coming up blank. Unbelievable...

I'm going to keep digging. It really galls me that they have the nerve to toss out a few sacrificial lambs and think everything will be "ok".

Arghh!

Lol though, you know what DU needs? Its own PI team ;)

Peace

[Shadder]

32. Hey, we are not that far off

It's amazing some of the things that are turning up here

[JohnLocke]

10. L. Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority

[KittyWampus]

11. Were Our Troops Taking Commands From Non-Military Personnel?

[Tinoire]

13. Troops wouldn't take commands from civilian personnel unless ordered to

There are rank equivalents so that you know that you don't treat a GS-13 like crap but no properly trained troop would do that unless ordered to do so. Well, that was in my day at least. These troops also were Reservists so who knows what they were told and how easily they believed it.

Where were their NCOs and Officers? How come we never hear about them? 17 were whisked away before the scandal broke. 17 military personnel just "vanished" leaving these kids to take the entire blame.

[markomalley]

15. I sometimes had civilian supervisors as a GI

but never had a contractor as a boss (instructor, yes...co-worker, yes...boss, no)

[Tinoire]

16. But did you take orders from that person

and if so, were you ordered to?

I worked with them all my career and was sometimes one of the few military people around but never did we take orders from them, we always had a military chain-of-command responsible for us. A contractor or civilian could moan all they wanted to but they couldn't order us to do anything. This was just a few short years ago too.

The only thing I can think is that these kids were so young and impressionable that these cocky constractors started telling them they were the rank of Majors and LTCs. GS-9 - GS-11 is what they normally hire contract linguists as so I can see them pulling it off, especially since many(?/at least quite a few) of them were ex-military people who would have known exactly what to say and how to say it.


(same here - instructor, yes...co-worker, yes...boss, no)

[markomalley]

18. Of course I did...

...he was my supervisor, as directed by my commander. Failure to do so would have been punishable...(btw, I mean a GS-13 type civil service civilian...not a contractor type civilian)

Having said that, the orders given were day-to-day job-related; not military-unique. Orders to deploy; orders to go pee in a bottle; orders to get my hair cut; I was not directed in that way by my civilian boss. SOPs (job related) were signed by him (he was a division head). Operating money was allocated by him (thus he had a lot of power over us); personnel assignments within his division were made by him; etc., etc.

[Tinoire]

19. Which gets to my point... You were ordered to (directed)

Now the interesting thing will be to find out who was supervising these kids. Were they being supervised by these people or were they working with them. The situations I knew were very similar to the prison scenario but we were always working alongside them, never for them.


How far away were you from military people when this took place? IOW were you remote?

I do know of soldiers who reported to them because they were assigned to civilian-run missions but this was a military run operation & during war time at that.

What are you guessing was going on in that prison?

[markomalley]

21. Two times I was on a stateside main operating base...

and on the third, I was at a USAFE main operating base...but I can think of other examples that I am familiar with as well.

Now, to the prison scenario...from what I've heard, they were under the adcon of their brigade which was chop'd to the corps. TACON? that is a different question entirely...I don't have a ref, but I had heard that they were placed under the tacon of the MI people. But it is all military chains of command. The most likely influence of the interrogators was, as has been stated, that of the contractors knowing how to do a little social engineering on the kids. Not an excuse on their part -- there were a couple of SNCOs involved -- they should know better.

[Old and In the Way]

14. Outsourcing Responsibility.

That's what it comes down to with these guys. Off-load dirty work on a private contractor so you can pretend you're not responsible for their actions. How convenient.

[napi21]

17. Maybe, but civis won't take the hit alone!

Sounds to me like a double edge sword. Yes, they outsourced responsibility (or thought they did), but the civilians don't have alegience to their commanders like the military does. If Rummy decides to put the blame on these civilian contractors, they WON'T keep their mouth shut! We'll know who gave the orders and guidelines. I'm positive they won't take the hit for THIS!

[PaDUer]

25. Lawsuits are filed already..n/t

[Tinoire]

20. The doctrine of "Plausible Deniability" n/t

[Tinoire]

23. Yes. The Press is starting to... Some answers

((Entire article is well worth reading))


In Abuse, a Portrayal of Ill-Prepared, Overwhelmed G.I.'s

by DOUGLAS JEHL and ERIC SCHMITT, The New York Times
May 9th, 2004

<snip>

General Karpinski, Colonel Phillabaum and the military police in the battalion contend that the military intelligence officers had, even before Nov. 19, essentially taken control of the prisoners in the Tier 1 cellblock and had encouraged their mistreatment. General Taguba concluded that the 372nd "was directed to change facility procedures to `set the conditions' " for interrogations.

"It was like they were in charge now; it's a military intelligence unit now," said a member of the 32Oth Battalion, Sgt. John Lamela, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa.

The intelligence officers' practice of wearing uniforms without insignia made it difficult for soldiers to identify the officers or even to determine which of them were military and which belonged to other agencies, including the C.I.A., whose officers periodically visited Abu Ghraib prison to participate in interrogations.

"They were in charge; it was almost like whatever his battalion wanted, his battalion got," Sergeant Lamela said of one senior intelligence officer at the prison. "He moved people out of their units so his personnel could live in their units. His personnel could walk around without proper uniforms; we as M.P.'s were not to correct them; he would say, `Let it slide.' "

Sgt. First Class Joseph Mood of Benton, Pa., had a similar view of the intelligence officers' influence. "They took over the whole base; it was their show," he said. "That was their wording. `This is our show now.' They would try to get us to keep prisoners up all night, make them stand outside, have them stand up all the time — sometimes they asked the guards to do something that was totally against what you believed in doing."

<snip>

http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=4678

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/09/international/middleeast/09PRIS.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=



Now to find out more about these alleged "officers" who walked around with no insignia.

[Tinoire]

29. More

((Can't sleep lol - found this while researching General Peter Shoomaker, the guy Rumsfeld brought in from a 3 year retirement to head the Army for him after he purged the top Generals for not being malleable enough).

----------------

<snip>

Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona asked Rumsfeld whether military intelligence or the military police's direct commanders had authority over the military police prison guards at Abu Ghraib and what the guards' instructions were.

Rumsfeld said authority over the guards had "shifted over a period of time."

<snip>

Interrogators from military intelligence and other government agencies, believed to include the CIA, actively requested that military police guarding prisoners at Abu Ghraib set the conditions for interrogations, Taguba reported.

<snip>

http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=934693d3-a526-45a8-910d-72a2bf78b939