The New York Times editorial board has called the SOFA’s exclusions of protection for contractors “an acceptable price to pay to show this country’s commitment to the rule of law.” A diplomatic concession that blatantly and offensively treats one class of American citizen differently than others hardly demonstrates the U.S. commitment to the rule of law.
What it does demonstrate is that the U.S. government was eager to get a SOFA signed, so as to claim progress on the path to Iraqi sovereignty. To get it signed, the U.S. government made an enormous concession as to the due process rights of one currently unpopular class of its citizens: contractors. By so conceding, we achieved a document we can point to and claim that Iraq is sovereign. Iraqi sovereignty was our stated goal in Iraq. This SOFA is just one last way for us to wave a “Mission Accomplished” banner. –Tara Lee, From the Jurist
*****
The other day, I was trying to get Tara Lee’s opinion about what is going on here legally. What are the laws and basic human rights violated in this incident, that would fall under either the SOFA or UCMJ? My guess is that there isn’t much these guys can do, and I really haven’t seen any new interpretations of the SOFA or UCMJ as it applies to contractors. Tara was one of the few that really had this stuff nailed during the time we signed the SOFA, and she was a lone supportive voice in the sea of negativity regarding what security contractors do.