|
We’ve read
about this before, especially the legal issues, but with the Pentagon’s
strategy being debated internally and externally and rumors of a military draft
circulating again, this is timely, especially given the source*. This is one way that the Pentagon plans
to keep US military overseas in perpetual battle for the “war on terror”/resource
wars. Tony Karon of
Time was interviewed on CNN from the UK just now, and the concluding remarks
were that terror attacks like today’s in London, every year or so, may be “the
new normal”. Thankfully, Karon suggested that although the attacks won’t affect
British politics as they did in Madrid, to which I alluded earlier by the
British experience in WW2, he also verbalized what I was germinating but failed
to say that the discussion on global anti terrorism strategy will now likely be
renewed. It would surprise me if
Bush changes his mind from the stubborn insistence that full scale war is the
best answer, but Blair might have the good sense to reconsider. KwC Legal Limbo Shadows Civilians in War Zone By Guy Taylor, THE
WASHINGTON TIMES, July 6, 2005 SAN ANTONIO -- The
record number of civilians hired to work in war zones since September 11 is
sparking heated debate over just how far the United States can go to achieve
what some are calling "the
civilianization of the battlefield."
"Nobody really
knows the exact number," says Jeffrey Addicott, head of St. Mary's
University's Center for Terrorism Law, which hosted a symposium,
"Contractors on the Battlefield." "The Pentagon
likes to go with a lower number, but they're
not counting the large number of security personnel hired to provide
security for civilian contractors building bridges, roads and providing
transportation," says Mr. Addicott, who estimates that as many as 100,000 are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The contractors
work in an uncharted
legal universe, say military and legal scholars, who note many are armed and on
the front lines, but are neither protected nor governed by the same military
laws as troops. The rules are
"vague" for contractors, says Geoffrey S. Corn, international-law
adviser to the U.S. Army's Office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG). "The
ultimate issue is what are you allowed to let civilians do in war in support of
your force in accordance with the law of war or international law,"
he says. Lawmakers in
Washington have proposed the Contractors on
the Battlefield Regulatory Act, which calls for a formal accounting
of the number of contractors and stricter guidelines on how they can be used
and what sort of training their companies and the Defense Department must
provide them. Contractors fall
into three categories, says Darrell Phillips, chief of the international and
operations law division of the Air Force JAG. Some maintain helicopters and
other privately built equipment used by the military, some transport fuel and
food, and others -- often locally hired -- help with construction projects.
Many are retired military personnel drawn to pay that often tops $100,000 a
year, considerably higher than that for troops. A separate category
is reserved for private security and private military companies, such as Blackwater Security Services,
whose employees carry weapons to guard aid workers, diplomats or other civilian
contractors. Mr. Phillips, who spoke at last week's conference, says military
officials are authorized to decide who can carry weapons in Iraq, and the
Defense Department attempts to keep track by issuing "weapons cards."
Some military
officials say the Pentagon depends on contractors without defining limits on
how they can be used, how they must be trained and what they're legally
permitted to do. "The
dirty little secret is, these guys are immune to any laws," said one Marine Corps officer who spoke
on the condition of anonymity. The officer said that when they violate
security, "you can't do anything about
it ... the only thing you can do is kick them off your base." That apparently was
the case with 19 security contractors who butted heads with the Marines in
Fallujah in late May. The Marines, who say the employees of North
Carolina-based Zapata Engineering fired on them and civilians, detained the
contractors for three days before taking their weapons and vehicles and
releasing them in Baghdad. The contractors say they were mistreated while in
custody and deny having shot at the Marines. Under U.S. and
international laws of war, "any civilian who engages in offensive
armed conflict is committing a war crime," says Mr. Addicott. Such laws bolster
the Bush administration's use of the term "illegal combatant" to
describe Taliban and al Qaeda fighters who ignore the Geneva Conventions by,
among other things, dressing as civilians. For civilians paid
by the Defense Department to carry weapons but not to wear uniforms on the U.S.
side, Mr. Addicott says, "The point of controversy is where the line
exists between offensive and defensive operations. "Civilian contractors can defend themselves if
attacked, but they're prohibited from engaging in offensive operations,"
he said. "DOD and contracting firms are pressing the envelope in
a manner that is getting closer and closer to offensive operations, in part
because they don't have enough military personnel to ... sustain
operations." Contractors are
"a force multiplier so soldiers can focus on infantry duties," says
retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Alfred A. Valenzuela. But their presence is a
"two-edged sword" because troops have to protect them. Using contractors
to expand the capabilities of a military stretched thin by war, Mr. Corn says,
offers a "convenient way for
policy-makers with a desire to employ military force to do so based on a
perception of minimal political risk." Through the use of
civilians, he
says, "constituents who matter politically are
shielded from a draft." Questions remain
about contractors' training and who is responsible when things go wrong.
Families of four contractors killed in an ambush in Fallujah in March 2004 have
sued Blackwater Security Services. Before going to Iraq, the four signed
paperwork forfeiting their right to sue. But their families accuse Blackwater
of compromising the men's safety for the sake of profit. The pending lawsuit
marks the first wrongful-death case brought against a private contractor. http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050706-123345-1812r.htm * The
Washington Times is considered a “conservative” newspaper, and is owned by the
Rev. Moon, who has long been associated with the Bush family, and suspected of
financial misdeeds that favored the Reagan/Bush and Bush/Quayle administrations,
as well as attempting to influence S Korean elections. |
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] http://fes.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
