US responds to Iraqi contractor legislation

It seems there is a genuine power-struggle developing over security contractors in Iraq in the wake of the Blackwater shootings:

A draft law that would place American private security companies under government supervision and make their personnel accountable for their actions has been submitted to a state legal committee for review, an Iraqi Interior Ministry spokesman said Tuesday. (New York Times)

This proposal was the main subject of a very interesting briefing yesterday by Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell:

  Q     What's the Pentagon's position on the draft Iraqi law that would strip security contractors of their immunity?

 

            MR. MORRELL: You know, I don't know. I read that today, but I'm not so sure the Pentagon has a position on it. You know, obviously this is a sovereign government, and they have -- if this is one of the laws that they wish to pass, it would be sort of ironic in the sense that it would certainly show their ability to work together and pass laws. But I'm not so sure it would be something that we necessarily want to weigh-in on. (Defenselink News)

The Pentagon may be more concerned than this jibe would suggest, given the actions Mr Morell went on to outline:

I think I mentioned to you last week, that the secretary had some questions about -- in the wake of the Blackwater incident with regards to the Department of State, he had some questions that he wanted answered about our exposure, our reliance on contractors in Iraq. And those questions have -- they've provided some answers to those questions which have led to still more questions.

And the secretary in light of that has dispatched a small team from his office, from Policy, from AT and L, to go over to Iraq. They left on Sunday, they're due back by the end of the week. I mean -- this is not a task force. It's not a committee. These are some people that are going over to sort of delve deeper into some of the questions he had. But at this point, I really want to reiterate from our perspective, he is satisfied with what he's heard from them and others that we have the right policies, procedures and legal authorities in place to sort of deal with the contractors who are working for us.   

   

That said, he does have some concern about accountability and oversight. And to that end, yesterday evening the deputy secretary of Defense, Gordon England, has sent out a memorandum to the Joint Chiefs, to the combatant commanders, sort of articulating for them what exactly their authorities are, providing a little more guidance from this building as to that they have the means through MEJA or the UCMJ to hold contractors accountable. So, we're just trying to make it clear to them that there are the existing authorities to sort of do this job that people are concerned about.

The existing system hasn't always been particularly transparent as David Isenberg points out:

It is too soon to know for sure what happened last weekend, and Blackwater personnel involved are innocent until proven guilty.

We will have to wait until the investigations are finished. But this time, unlike certain past incidents -- such as the probe of the 2005 Aegis Defense trophy video, showing contractors supposedly firing indiscriminately at Iraqi civilians -- the results must be made public, and not kept secret. (United Press International)

It may be that there will be some action this time, if only to avert the threat of Iraqi legislation, and preserve a system of extraterritoriality that reeks of colonial precedents.
____________________________________________________

As a postscript, some of the exchanges at the press conference make it very clear how the status quo has operated up to now (my italics):

Q     Geoff, has there ever been a contractor prosecuted under any of those means?

 

            MR. MORRELL: Has there been a DOD contractor prosecuted? One of our security contractors?   

 

            Q     Yes.

 

            MR. MORRELL: We certainly have had contractors prosecuted by this government -- by this --- for bribery and fraud. To our knowledge, as we've mentioned before, we do not believe a security contractor has been brought up on charges. I think that's accurate.

...

     Q     I wanted to follow up with Courtney's question. If the -- General Petraeus says that he needs contractors to do the job, and if no one has been prosecuted under U.S. law or any of the courts and systems in place in this country, and they're not susceptible to Iraqi law, what is the leverage that the Pentagon has over these contractors to make sure that they comply? And what happens if they don't? Because so far, in my time there, they didn't comply to a lot of these things that you spell out, and there doesn't seem to be any leverage to sort of -- to stop them, and they don't.

 

MR. MORRELL: Look, Nancy, the things I've spelled out, I find it hard to believe that you would know whether they were complying or not, based upon whether they had authorized weapons or whether or not they had shared their SOPs.

 

But listen, this notion that there's not -- that there are not authorities in place to deal with rogue contractors or contractors who are breaking the law is nonsense. We have the means to go after them through the Department of Justice, we have the means to go after them through military courts. Just because there has not been a prosecution brought does not mean that the authority does exist to deal with people who misbehave, who break the law.

 

Q     I'm not questioning the means. I'm asking if nobody has used those means, and it is clear that there have been instances -- I've seen them firsthand there -- where these rules weren't complied to, and there hasn't been any justice. What is the leverage? If there's nothing to suggest in the past that these means were used, what is the leverage to suggest that they'll be used in the future?

 

            What is the leverage if there's no --

 

            MR. MORRELL: Yeah, I -- Nancy, I can't speak to any past abuses you may or may not have witnessed. I can tell you that the authorities exist to prosecute, and I think that's a lot of leverage over contractors. The authorities exist to sort of void contracts, and that's a lot of leverage over contracts. These are -- I think the contract -- security contractors in Iraq -- the last thing I saw suggested there were over $900 billion in contracts for security contractors. That's a lot of money, and it's a lot of money that stands to be lost by contractors. So it's in their best interest to comply with the rules and regulations that we lay out.

 

            (Cross talk.)

 

            Q     Nine hundred billion (dollars), you said?

 

            Q     One follow-up. One follow-up. Have any of those contracts -- have any contracts --

 

            MR. MORRELL: Sorry. Did I say billion? I apologize.   

 

            Q     You did.

 

            MR. MORRELL: It's 900 million (dollars). Excuse me.   

 

            Q     Have any of those contracts ever been voided, that you know of -- any of those security contracts ever been voided, or --   

 

            MR. MORRELL: Have security contracts ever been voided? I don't know that they have, but I don't know that they haven't. And that's certainly something we could probably check with you on. But I don't know that they have or don't know that they haven't.