So it is law, and January 1, 2009 is the date.  In the meantime, maybe the DoS and DoD can answer these questions for those contractors operating in Iraq as we speak?  

***** 

Will there be retroactive application of criminal jurisdiction?(It is unclear whether Iraqi law will preclude ex post facto prosecutions based on allegedly criminal acts that occurred before January 1, 2009.)              

The agreement includes language about the “parties” retaining their rights to legitimate self-defense as defined in applicable international law. “Parties” to the agreement only includes the US government and the Iraqi government, thus apparently excluding contractors from the right to self-defense.  Will there be further guidance forthcoming as to contractors’ rights to self-defense, especially for those contractors who are required or authorized to carry weapons?                                                                                                          

Will the 1934 extradition treaty with Iraq mean that US citizens now in the US will be extradited back to Iraq for trial?

Will contractor equipment in Iraq be subject to pre- or post-judgment attachment when a civil suit is filed against a contractor?

Will there be retroactive application of civil jurisdiction? 

How will the statutes of limitations apply for tort and contract claims, and will this mean that contractors be sued on January 1, 2009 in Iraq based on occurrences in the past? 

***** 

     All of these questions were asked at the briefing given by the DoD and DoS, by legal experts, and they had no answer!  Amazing that we have gotten this far with this document, and these kinds of questions have not been answered.  Talk about being thrown under the bus. 

     I suggest that if you are reading this, and you are a security contractor operating in Iraq as we speak, then ask your company to press the DoD and DoS about these issues.  Or as a civilian, you can write the DoD and DoS and express your concern. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————–

Iraqi Parliament approves security pact

By Alissa Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell

Thursday, November 27, 2008

BAGHDAD: The Iraqi Parliament ratified a long-delayed security agreement on Thursday that lays out a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

     Boy, so the paragraph that jumps up at me in this article, is this one:

 But the question of whether Iraqis could use the agreement to prosecute contractors for previous incidents wasn’t addressed in the new agreement. When security company officials asked Thursday, “We told them that’s a question we don’t know the answer to,” said a State Department official, who spoke to reporters about the meetings under the condition of anonymity.

     My guess is that they do know the answer, and they have been withholding that information to insure there wasn’t any real protest by the companies.  Especially Blackwater, because if the Iraqis can go back in time and prosecute contractors for previous incidents, well then that will cause a stampede of litigation.  Obviously the Iraqis would want to go after those implicated in the Nisour Square incident as the first case.  But where would it stop, and how far will they go back?  This smells.  

   To me, I think the companies were pretty much in wait and see mode, with what they ‘thought’ was the SOFA. Hell, I even posted the copy that was released over at Fox News.  But if this paragraph up top is an indicator of the holes in this thing, then I think all of us in this industry deserve a full explanation of what really is going to happen?  And why is there an Arabic draft available only to Iraqi lawmakers, yet no official copy of the final draft in English for the rest of us to read?  

   The other thing that gets me, is that the companies should not be surprised about anything.  If they would have had the guts to confront the client about this matter, and demand to be included in the loop, then we wouldn’t be playing this guessing game right now.  How many of us have died in defense of the client/Coalition? There are 230,000 plus civilian contractors in this world wide war, and we continue to be treated like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————-

US-Iraq Pact Ends Contractor Immunity

November 21, 2008

Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - Contractors working for the United States in Iraq, including armed security outfits such as Blackwater Inc., will be subject to Iraqi law under the new U.S.-Iraq security pact. Not only that, they could face Iraqi prosecution for acts committed when they supposedly had immunity from Iraqi law, U.S. officials said Nov. 20.

A new U.S.-Iraq security agreement doesn’t specifically prevent Iraqi officials from bringing criminal charges retroactively in cases such as the September 2007 shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians by contractors protecting a State Department convoy, officials told security company officials during meetings in Washington Thursday.

The news caught company officials by surprise.

“We are still trying to make sense of it,” said Anne E. Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater Inc., whose security guards have been involved in some of the most controversial incidents in Iraq, including the Sept. 16, 2007, shooting at al Nisoor Square in Baghdad.

Close Protection Position

Ref :         000002

Region:          Global

Country:  Global, Afghanistan, Iraq  

Department: Project Management

Role Type:  Close Protection

Job Purpose

The Individual is expected to have sufficient training and flexibility to be able to undertake the role of a Close Protection Officer as detailed below.

Iraq Security Leader

Business Unit:  GE Infrastructure, Energy

Function:    Security

Location:   UAE/Jordan/Iraq, Iraq

Job #:            856009

Posted:            Oct 28, 2008

Responsibilities - General

*Conduct site security audits and design security protocols for GE Energy projects and service sites in the MEA region.

*Actively participate in crisis management planning and preparedness, decision-making, and communications.

*Assure appropriate loss prevention, fire safety, access control, intrusion detection and alarm systems are in place and maintained.

A pamphlet handed out by the Iraqi authorities warning the public of the danger of so-called sticky bombs. 

November 14, 2008

Militants Turn to Small Bombs in Iraq Attacks

By KATHERINE ZOEPF and MUDHAFER AL-HUSAINI

BAGHDAD — They are usually no bigger than a man’s fist and attached to a magnet or a strip of gummy adhesive — thus the name “obwah lasica” in Arabic, or “sticky bomb.”

Light, portable and easy to lay, sticky bombs are tucked quickly under the bumper of a car or into a chink in a blast wall. Since they are detonated remotely, they rarely harm the person who lays them. And as security in Baghdad has improved, the small and furtive bomb — though less lethal than entire cars or even thick suicide belts packed with explosive — is fast becoming the device of choice for a range of insurgent groups.

They are also contributing, in the midst of an uptick in violence, to a growing feeling of unease in the capital.

“You take a bit of C4 or some other type of compound,” said Lt. Col. Steven Stover, a spokesman for the United States military in Baghdad. “You can go into a hardware store, take the explosive and combine it with an accelerant, put some glass or marble or bits of metal in front of it and you’ve basically got a homemade Claymore,” a common antipersonnel mine.

Iraqi Cabinet approves security pact with US

By QASSIM ABDUL-ZAHRA, Associated Press Writer Qassim Abdul-zahra, Associated Press Writer Sun Nov 16, 10:13 am ET

BAGHDAD – Iraq’s Cabinet on Sunday approved a security pact with the United States that will allow American forces to stay in Iraq for three years after their U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

The decision followed months of difficult negotiations and, pending parliamentary approval, will remove a major point of contention between the two allies. Parliament’s deputy speaker, Khalid al-Attiyah, said he expected the 275-member legislature to begin debating the document this week and vote on it by Nov. 24.

The U.S. government agreed last week to an Iraqi request to amend the draft. The amendment removed what al-Attiyah said was ambiguous language that could allow U.S. forces not to adhere to a timeline for their withdrawal from Iraqi cities by the end of June and from the entire country by Jan. 1, 2012.

The Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni parties making up Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s government dominate parliament, so there is a good chance that the legislature will approve the security pact.

    Well I am glad these folks are at least on our side when it comes to the SOFA.  This is a little old, but it is good reference for what the New America Foundation is producing.  So their hearts are in the right place, but they still have to make a better effort to connect with the industry they are writing about.  I promise we won’t bite. LOL -Head Jundi  

—————————————————————— 

U.S. Contractors Shouldn’t Face Iraqi Courts

By Maria Figueroa Küpçü, Michael A. Cohen, New America Foundation

Wall Street Journal | August 22, 2008

More must be done to hold security contractors accountable for their actions — but this is not the way to do it.

     Wow, I had no idea the Professional Services Council would get involved with the process, but that is cool.  I didn’t even know they existed, and at least someone cares about us.  Although, seeing how this was sent almost a month ago, the SOFA(Status of Forces Agreement) writers and negotiators have been notified and I really haven’t seen a focus on these issues.  When the final product comes out and the agreement has been signed, then we will see if Condoleezza Rice was really listening.

   Also with the letter, they mentioned how this SOFA could impact a Afghanistan SOFA in the future.  That if you do not protect civilian contractors with a sound agreement in Iraq, that Afghanistan might push for the same type of agreement in that war zone.  It is about precedent and it is about doing the right thing, and that the DoD and DoS both have an opportunity to take a stand about how important we are in the war effort.  Especially as we draw down in Iraq, and build up in such places as Afghanistan and Africa. 

    The other thing that is interesting about the PSC, is that they are another resource you can use to bring up issues in the industry that need attention.  -Head Jundi

——————————————————————

PSC Urges Contractor Protections in Iraq SOFA

In a letter sent to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on October 8, PSC outlined its concerns regarding the development of a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq that may exclude basic protections for contractor personnel supporting the military and reconstruction efforts in the country. Of particular concern is the fact that a fledgling Iraqi legal system and the general in-country environment may not provide adequate due process procedures for detained contractor personnel.