babble: Contractors cleared in videotaped attacks

FAQ | Forum Home

»	babble » current events » international news and politics » Contractors cleared in videotaped attacks

Email this thread to someone!

Author

Topic: Contractors cleared in videotaped attacks

nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 June 2006 06:12 AM

The U.S. military has concluded its investigation into a video that appeared to show private security contractors shooting at civilian vehicles driving Iraq's highways. A military spokesman said no charges will be laid.

No security contractor has ever been charged with any violent crime in Iraq, because the occupation armies have made it all but impossible for the Iraqi govt. to do so.

From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004 | IP: Logged

otter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12062

posted 12 June 2006 09:10 AM

Security contractors is just a euphemism for MERCENARY which means people who are only in it for the money.

This way the american government can have all the deniability it wants when it comes to atrocities such as genocide, rape, murder, kidnapping and torture. Bush has done it dozens of times already 'amercian troops have never xxx".

From: agent provocateur inc. | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 June 2006 12:50 PM

I'm trying to find out if the military is the usual arbiter of this sort of investigation. What gives them status to weigh in on civilian criminality?

From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004 | IP: Logged

S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 June 2006 01:20 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nister:
What gives them status to weigh in on civilian criminality?

The lack on anyone else--the rules the US foisted on Iraq specify that US troops and all foreign contractors are beyond the reach of Iraqi justice. They're literally above the law.

As the rules stand only body responsible for the contractors' conduct is their employer--not Iraqi law, not the UCMJ (US military laws), nothing. For contractors from nations which have signed on to the ICC, that is a venue under which they could be charged, but for countries which aren't (take a bow, USA) the contractors can face no consequence worse than being fired.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged

nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 June 2006 01:30 PM

I take your point, Simon, but what I was getting at is a little different. If the contractors are civilian, shouldn't the Iraqi government have sway here? Are they sovereign or not?

From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004 | IP: Logged

nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 June 2006 01:36 PM

To clarify: can't the Iraqi government tell the occupiers that Iraqis make their own decisions on what qualifies as criminality, and what they will do about it?

From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004 | IP: Logged

S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 12 June 2006 01:38 PM

quote:
Originally posted by nister:
I take your point, Simon, but what I was getting at is a little different. If the contractors are civilian, shouldn't the Iraqi government have sway here? Are they sovereign or not?

Not.

The foreign contractors are beyond the reach of domestic Iraqi law, at the insistance of the US.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005 | IP: Logged

nister
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7709

posted 12 June 2006 02:43 PM

Simon, it occurs to me that the contractors are not American..do I remember right? Aegis is a Brit outfit, I think.

From: Barrie, On | Registered: Dec 2004 | IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time

Hop To: