Feral Jundi

     Why is it that the security contracting community is always treated like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge?  We are the second largest force in Iraq, yet we are treated as insignificant or irrelevant when it comes to any conversation about our service there.    

     So with that said, this show was a little hard to listen too.  There is absolutely no voice representing the security contracting community in this forum.  I am actually kind of disappointed in PBS NewsHour for putting together such a one sided deal.   

   I think the biggest thing that kind of ticked me off, was that all of the contributors in this conversation, completely ignored the realities of the war in Iraq, during the times that they were referring to.   I really don’t know how else to convey how dangerous and tenuous these kinds of operations were then and now, and there was a total disregard for this fact during the show.  How else do you go down the road as a security specialist, guarding a convoy that every insurgent in Iraq would love to destroy?  Or worse yet, to be dealing with an environment where all vehicle are potential bomb laden threats.  The roads are dangerous, and keeping alive the client in a war zone is not easy or pretty.

    Or that the reason why we were called upon in the first place to do our thing in Iraq, was because the DOD and DOS did not have the man power to get these jobs done.  We are and were very important to the war effort, and this guys did not cover that aspect very well at all.  Did PBS think to post how many men Blackwater lost in Iraq?  Like I said, the conversation was a little one sided.

   Also, security contractors are a service provider.  If the client (DOD and DOS) wants to use us, then it is on them to determine the rules and what we can or can’t do.  With that said, I have had to sign numerous legal documents to operate in Iraq.  I have always understood that I was accountable for my actions and that I was covered by UCMJ, which really is the only legal system we should fall under while over there.(in my opinion) Likewise, if UCMJ was properly applied to contractors, then maybe Iraq would have seen more justice served.  But yet again, politics and the desires of the Iraqi people are what dictate the conditions of the SOFA, and not what is practical or fair. 

    The other thing that bothers me, is this mention of a fully operational and legitimate Iraqi legal system.  Maybe the courts are set up all nice, complete with well briefed judges, but the law enforcement side of the issue is in severe question.  How do you collect evidence, secure a scene, and question witnesses, in the middle of a war zone?  During the Blackwater incident, that is exactly what they came up against.  That evidence and witness questioning, was tainted by a war environment.  That the enemy could very well set up a situation to frame companies, as a tactic of war, and take advantage of this kind of chaotic environment.

   Now don’t get me wrong, I want Iraq to succeed and gain total independence from the US and Coalition. I want it to be a success story, just like everyone that has been a part of that war.  But it is my opinion that we need to slowly transition toward Iraqi independence, and do it very carefully and base all of our moves on results, and not politics.  What I am afraid of, is that politics will force these issues, and guys could get hurt during this transition period.  And when the war is finally finished, then maybe we can trust that justice and the law can be fairly administered.   

   I think we can fall under Iraqi law legitimately one day, and I think we should.(that’s if we are all still in their country when the war is over)  But do I think Iraq is at the level where justice will be fully served, and especially in the middle of a war?  I have my doubts, and I would like to hear some more experts out there weigh in on the issue to alleviate some of these doubts.   

    As for the DOS not falling under the SOFA, that is an interesting angle.  It could be that the guards of DOS are privy to more sensitive information, and that if they are brought up before an Iraqi court of law, that this could cause OPSEC/PERSEC problems.  But the DOD has the same situation as well. Or the State is just trying to protect Blackwater right now, because they know that Iraq is out for blood.  The current agreement got this far like that, so there must be intent for that part to be in there.

     I don’t know, and I am just speculating right now.  But this is the kind of thing I am talking about.  Who is going to explain this stuff to the guy on the ground?  That’s why I recommend to all employees of companies working in Iraq, to demand that the company explain the details of the SOFA to them as soon as an agreement is passed.  –Head Jundi 

——————————————————————- 

 

Click Here to Hear Podcast 

 

Transcript

Security Contractors Left Out of Iraq Status of Forces Pact

 

Blackwater security contractors in IraqA draft Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between the U.S. and Iraqi governments gives Iraq “primary legal jurisdiction over contractors with the U.S. and their employees.” But disagreement has arisen over whether the provision applies to State Department contractors, such as Blackwater USA, or just Defense Department contractors. The NewsHour’s Dan Sagalyn prepared this report.

DAN SAGALYN, NewsHour with Jim Lehrer: Iraqis may have mixed feelings about

U.S. troops patrolling their streets and countryside.

But from the highest official to the lowliest citizen, Iraqis agree that one

group of Americans needs to come under a tighter Iraqi thumb: and that’s the

hundreds of private contractors paid by the U.S. government for a variety of

security missions.

And by most accounts, the new Status of Forces Agreement negotiated between

the U.S. and Iraqi governments was supposed to put contractors under Iraqi

law.

But it appears the fine print may tell a different story than has appeared

in many U.S. news accounts.

For the past four years the U.S. government has maintained that American

contractors were immune from the Iraqi legal system, by virtue of Coalition

Provisional Authority order No. 17 signed by U.S. Administer Paul Bremer in

June 2004.

This legal immunity has been a sore spot for the Iraqi government. Since the

U.S. invasion of Iraq there have been numerous reports of instances of

American security contractors firing on and killing Iraqis.

A congressional committee investigation that reviewed internal incident

reports by Blackwater — the security contractor with the largest presence

in Iraq — revealed that between 2005 and Sept. 12, 2007, 16 Iraqis were

killed, and there were 162 incidents of property damage.

The U.S. government has said it would investigate, and if need be prosecute

any wrongdoing. However, so far there have been no prosecutions of American

contractors involving Iraqi deaths.

David Tafuri recently returned from 15 months in Iraq. He traveled all over

the country as the State Department’s rule of law coordinator. He says

security contractors are well trained and are crucial for American success.

DAVID TAFURI, former rule of law coordinator: They provide the protection

when you travel outside of the Green Zone, they often provide the protection

when you travel in cities outside of Baghdad. They provide armored vehicles,

and security professionals who are trained to protect diplomats. It’s

necessary for diplomats and reconstruction advisors to get out and to meet

with Iraqis. Were contractors, security contractors not to be there, the

U.S. military would have to take over those responsibilities, which would

require even more U.S. soldiers to be in country.

But Feisal Istrabadi sees it differently.

FEISAL ISTRABADI, law professor: They do play an important role, they do

provide security. That’s why were generally have held our noses and accepted

their rather obnoxious presence in the country.

DAN SAGALYN: Istrabadi was Iraq’s deputy representative to the United

Nations from 2004 to 2007. He’s now a professor of law at Indiana

University-Bloomington.

FEISAL ISTRABADI: They drive through cities with arms, with machine guns

literally sticking out of windows of the vehicles they’re in. They shoot at

random. They don’t have the kind of discipline and control and training that

U.S. regular armed forces do. They’re not under any kind of military code,

whereas U.S. forces, of course, come under the Uniform Code of Military

Justice. These people are simply a law unto themselves, and they behave that

way. They’re detested by the Iraqis.

DAN SAGALYN: The most notorious incident involving American security

contractors took place on Sept. 16, 2007 at a busy intersection in Baghdad.

Guardsmen from Blackwater USA were escorting American diplomats and thought

they were being fired upon. They shot at what they thought were hostile

Iraqis. When the dust settled 17 Iraqis were killed.

According to Laith Kubba, a former spokesman for the Iraqi prime minister in

2005 and 2006, that particular incident had a powerful effect. It stiffened

the Iraqi government’s resolve to demand that contractors fall under Iraqi

law.

LAITH KUBBA, former Iraqi government spokesman: That, of course, was not the

only incident, but that was the incident that galvanized public opinion

against the presence of these security firms. When I was in Iraq, I saw how

they conduct themselves. They are above the law and absolutely no

self-respecting nation would accept the presence of these troops loose out

there with guns. Irrespective of whatever guidance they’re given, at the end

of the day, they’re above the law. So yes, that incident galvanized public

opinion and I think there is a strong sentiment against them.

DAN SAGALYN: For months the press has reported that the U.S. agreed to the

Iraqi demand that American contractors lose their immunity, and fall under

Iraqi law.

The latest draft of the agreement, which was leaked to the Iraqi media, says

that “Iraq has the primary legal jurisdiction over contractors with the U.S.

and their employees.”

However, it also defines U.S. contractors as “U.S. citizens who are in Iraq

to supply goods, services or security to the U.S. forces.” In other words

security contractors supporting the U.S. military would be covered, but not

those under contract to the State Department. A U.S. government official

e-mailed the NewsHour that “As it currently stands, the SOFA does not cover

non-DOD contractors.” And that “this is an aspect of the agreement that

remains under discussion.” Because the talks are in a sensitive stage, the

State Department refused to address this issue on the record.

There are currently around 640 American contractors providing security to

U.S. diplomats in Iraq and another 1,350 working for the Defense Department.

So only about one-third of American security contractors would be affected

by the Status of Forces Agreement as it now stands.

To Feisal Istrabadi this is a problem. He says, most if not all Iraqis

believe the agreement will cover all security contractors.

FEISAL ISTRABADI: It cannot appear after the fact that the U.S. was not

participating in these negotiations in good faith. And that is the way it

will appear in Baghdad. And if there is some sort of a technical flaw that

these contractors are actually contractors with the State Department and not

the Defense Department, that’s a kind of a technical over the legalistic

argument, and I doubt that members of Parliament believe that this agreement

allows Blackwater to have impunity for acts such as were committed in Iraq

in September of 2007.

DAN SAGALYN: But to David Tafuri, there is good reason to not have these

contractors subject to Iraqi law.

DAVID TAFURI: The Iraqi legal system is getting stronger and is maturing,

but there are still problems with the Iraqi legal system. And it would be

very costly and very difficult for a contractor company to defend one of its

employees if that employee ended up in an Iraqi detention center. The courts

have not operated at full capacity in many places, courts were not able to

operate at all for several years because of the security situation. So

there’s been enormous strain on the legal system.

DAN SAGALYN: But Feisal Istrabadi says it’s better to have security

contractors subject to the Iraqi legal system than to no system at all.

FEISAL ISTRABADI: The United States Department of Justice gave the Iraqi

judicial system its seal of good housekeeping, No. 1. In fact, it is a

modern, reasonably sophisticated judicial system. And if the choice is

between a legal system and absolutely no law whatsoever, in which these

private contractors behave in Iraq as though Iraq were the old West and they

are the law because they have guns. I’ll take an imperfect judicial system

over that lawless state of nature.

DAN SAGALYN: As the United States and Iraqis continue to negotiate the

Status of Forces Agreement, how the issue of immunity for the State

Department’s private security men will be resolved remains to be seen.

For the Online NewsHour, this is Dan Sagalyn.