Baghdad Rumors. Christmas Party Cop Killing

I've been hearing rumors about an ugly Christmas party incident involving one of the big private military corporations.   Thus far today I've only been able to confirm that the rumor is circulating in the private military community, but the core story seems consistent; the same PMC is always named; the number of rounds is the same and it's circulating among the crowds that would be quick to dismiss it if it were fabricated.  It's just a matter of time before the full story comes out, regardless of whether or not I blog about it, so I decided to go ahead and discuss it because of the legal issues it raises regarding the recent changes in laws governing military contractors. 

Here's the scuttlebutt:

An PMC operator reportedly got very drunk at his company's Christmas party in Baghdad's Green Zone.  The story varies as to whether or not he was in the Green Zone or had left it, when the incident took place, but sometime after the party he reportedly encountered an Iraqi policeman and unloaded ten rounds into him, killing him. 

The PMC, a company that recently has prided itself on its compassion for all people, seems to be behaving somewhat responsibly and has reportedly banned alcohol consumption among its troops and sent the guy home immediately--before Iraqi police could get their hands on him. 

This alleged incident raises some important questions about legal accountability of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly given recent changes. Federal Times reported last week that an obscure clause in the 2007 Defense Bill now places contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under the Uniform Military Code of Justice.   The Federal Times writes:

Under the military justice code, soldiers and now contractors can be disciplined not just for felony crimes like murder that exist in the general justice system, but for offenses such as talking back to an officer, viewing pornography in a country where it is forbidden or even wearing a uniform incorrectly, according to people familiar with the code.

The Boston Globe wrote about the topic over the weekend and cited concerns that convictions would not hold up under Supreme Court review:

[President of the National Institute of Military Justice, a nonprofit organization in Virginia Eugene] Fidell said that US courts have a history of throwing out convictions of civilians who were tried in military courts, including the 1957 case of a wife who killed her husband on a military base.

According to the Library of Congress, the measure went into effect on October 17, 2006.  If the rumor is true,the case could be the first charged under the rule changes.  It will be interesting to see if the Department of Defense chooses to prosecute.  This has not always been the case, according to the Boston Globe:

US civilian prosecutors have been reluctant to take on such cases because witnesses and victims are thousands of miles away in a war zone. The Justice Department team responsible for initiating such charges has not gone forward with any of the nearly two-dozen cases referred by the Pentagon and the CIA, partly because of lack of evidence, according to The New York Times.

Fidell said the Defense Department could decline to prosecute the cases, just as the Justice Department has, even though Congress has given the department the power to do so. Only a handful of contractors have been prosecuted in US courts, mostly for financial crimes under a whistle-blower statute that protects the US government from fraud

I'm not a legal expert, but, unfortunately for the drunk PMC operator, this is likely to be more of a political than a legal question and politics are something I know a fair bit about.  A drunk US Contractor killing an Iraqi cop would be a hard one for the US government to look the other way on.  That is, IF there's still a semblance of an Iraqi government in place to be placated by the time such a court martial could take place.  At least one major security/consulting firm is now warning its clients to consider moving their operations out of the Green Zone to the Baghdad International Airport or to Kurdistan because of concern that the perimeter security of the Green Zone is going to be handed over to the Iraqis.  (The Green Zone perimeter security is what keeps the headquarters of Western contractors, US diplomats and the Iraqi government safe from Iraq.) 

If I were the guy, I'd be heading somewhere without an extradition treaty, praying the troop surge does as many expect and fuels an unstoppable civil war, one that will turn his case back into a legal one from a political hot potato.  Otherwise, he's going to pay for all the times contractors have crossed the line, a line that's admittedly often hard to discern in the fog of war.

Another interesting thing to watch will the company's next reported casualties to see if Iraqi police decide to take an eye for an eye.  And then there's the whole issue of perimeter security of the Green Zone possibly going to the Iraqis.  If I were the PMC, I'd be staking out my new facilities at the airport, knowing I'd  sleep a lot sounder with Global Risk Strategies watching my back.

Comments

[Castor Troy]

As a government worker, I have problems with the changes that have taken place. Since the government has talked about, on numerous occasions, actually ordering civilian employees into Iraq if they don't get enough volunteers, the extra onus of being potentially subject to UCMJ is, to put it mildly, disturbing.

Back when I was in the Army, I, of course, had to accept UCMJ, and I never did like how it worked (later, as a civilian, I did a stint at JAG, and liked it even less.). The fact that the government could both order me to serve in a war zone and be subject to UCMJ is more than undemocratic.

People generally point to Contractors' excesses- to include murders- as the reasons that this change is good. I prefer to point to the fact that, for example, under UCMJ, disrespecting an Officer is illegal. So, as a civilian, if I am not properly differential to an Officer, I can be charged...

Instead of making contractors and civilians liable to UCMJ, the government should realize that this is EXACTLY why we shouldn't have armed contractors in the war zone. Our government civilians, at least, have taken an Oath to the Constitution. The contractors have none.

[William O'pakapaka]

I think that PMC's should publish their mission, vision and ethics statements along with company policies and procedures. These should be made public to see if they have administrative policies that deal with these types of issues. I know the company I work for doesn't have a public murder policy in place. Perhaps, there should be an professional accreditation organization that PMC's seeking contracts should be required to have. This would ensure that only quality PMC's are awarded contracts. These types of methods are the way that private professional service organizations often deal with quality of service issues.

[Retired]

All of the above are great, of course, but I'd be satisfied with the name and phone number of the Xerox repair lady.

[Uncle $cam]

Dr. Hillhouse, I thought perhaps todays DemocracyNow show would be of interest to you: Mike McConnell, Booz Allen and the Privatization of Intelligence
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/12/151224
Mike McConnell, the man President Bush tapped to replace John Negroponte as National Intelligence Director, has been a leading figure in outsourcing U.S. intelligence operations to private industry. McConnell is a former director of the National Security Agency and the current director of defense programs at Booz Allen. We take a look at McConnell and the privatization of intelligence with journalist Tim Shorrock.

Seems a close facet, in other words, cut from the same cloth as the rent-a- contractor game.