Contractors to fall under UCMJ under new law

[Purple36]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,121592,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

[Looon]

The only thing I can see with this, is that they didn't swear the oath that would put them in that jurisdicton.

My.02

[Silverbullet]

This is not a blanket coverage of all contractors. Those that are not on a DOD contract are not covered by this. I see it being very hard to enforce for those that are.

[Argyll 50]

It's a step in the right direction, but my guess it'll only effect US Firms, and that the Brits, South African, and Aussie mobs will need some other jurasdiction over them......No more "Big boys rules", or "if the cap fits", but if Contractors in Warzones fall under this, then lets get the DOD's back, bin this MNFI farse, and I'd like to know who will enforce the stupid things like "swearing in public, whilst wearing Uniform".
I'll not sign anything,or swear any oath at that, as I'm not an American, I'd rather see Brits fall under the 1955 Army Act......Interesting times ahead no doubt.......and I wonder if the Incident over xmas in Iraq has caused this?

[Silverbullet]

Iand I wonder if the Incident over xmas in Iraq has caused this?

Probably not. The Gov't doesn't work that fast.:D

Those on DOD contracts have always been under DOD authority. This change to UCMJ is a bold move but I still see how it can be enforced and at what level it will be enforced.

[godfather]

Why is it that no one is talking about that little "incident"?

[Argyll 50]

I'm sure that we fell under UCMJ on the COE CMC program with Cochise, but cannot be certain.....It's about time there was some sort of regulation governing PMC's and PSC's in Hostile Environments, but it'll only effect Registered firms as well, and it's these small "cowboy outfits" who sneak under the Registered radar that need to be gripped,lots of work ahead, and I wonder if PMC's and PSC's will have some Military Liason Officer attached to these projects, to enforce the UCMJ?

[Silverbullet]

Why is it that no one is talking about that little "incident"?

Guess no one wants to ruin the "mystic". Groupies worldwide would be devastated:D

[godfather]

HAHA, I LOVE that answer.:D

[Argyll 50]

Oh you are cruel and and nasty!!....maybe the pile that was swept under the carpet isn't large enough for someone to notice? :D

[SGTROCK]

Oh you are cruel and and nasty!!....maybe the pile that was swept under the carpet isn't large enough for someone to notice? :DWhat happened over xmas? PM if not to be discussed on open forum.

Rock

[BKK]

Another good reason not to work a DoD contract.

[rgrjoe175]

Seems to me that they should fall under local law not UCMJ. I dont care what citizenship they may hold.

My dos pesos.

JP

[Argyll 50]

Rock........PM Inbound mate

[Ace]

I like this unrelated paragraph, I picture someone whispering in the CINC's ear "No really, you're the POTUS, you can deny anything, anything at all, ahhhh, fuck the internet, half that shit is false anyway, just keep denying stuff and eveything will be fine...:The situation perhaps hit its low-point this fall, when the Under Secretary of the Army testified (http://www.newsobserver.com/114/story/519136.html) to Congress that the Army had never authorized Halliburton or any of its subcontractors (essentially the entire industry) to carry weapons or guard convoys. He even denied the US had firms handling these jobs. Never mind the thousands of newspaper, magazine, and TV news stories about the industry. Never mind Google's 1,350,000 web mentions. Never mind the official report from U.S. Central Command that there were over 100,000 contractors in Iraq carrying out these and other military roles.

[snaquebite]

It would have to be direct support of a DOD contract the way I see it..Those PSCs/PMCs under other contracts even the ones supporting things like LOGCAP who are sub-contracted would not be affected. However from personal experience the DOS/DOD contracted PMCs/PSCs are the biggest "cowboys" and need to be better controlled. This would however protect them from Iraqi laws. Another point is that the media will fall under this also. Wonder if this will pertain to how they report? Will this limit their ability of free speech...could be a good thing...I expect that this will not succeed, although the point about making the media more responsible is certainly good.

[RAT]

If I am not mistaken there was Article 17 of the CPA that covered all contractors and the dos and dont's with weapons and movements. Now I might be mistaken but when we were there in 2003 and I had to go get weapons cards (Not ID cards) I had to get either a USA Officer or a British Officer to Vouch for me and the people getting the WEAPONS Cards.

After speaking with some former Sec of the USA over X-mas they re-affirmed that this was the case when I was there.

RAT OUT!!!

[snaquebite]

It was a memo and was still under effect after the CPA was dissolved...

[DWE]

I wonder if they are going to make this like overseas for family members. Since Family members couldn't be charged under the UCMJ we charged them under the US Code. I am going to go on a limb but I think it was 18 USC or 303.
I was wondering if they do this than DOD will be resonsible for them instead of them being charged under local law. Just like the SOFA is in Germany. Not sure but just wanted to throw that out there.

[SN]

This change will also affect EMBEDDED REPORTERS, should be interesting.

[Miguel]

Why is it that no one is talking about that little "incident"?

That's what I've been wondering, I was waiting for CNN and everyybody else to splash it everywhere.

Just when you think some people had pegged the "stupid meter" they just get a bigger dial. Unbelievable.

[kwityrbitchin]

Can somebody drop a PM and clue me in on the "little" incident? Thanks.

[Max Power]

This change will also affect EMBEDDED REPORTERS, should be interesting.

Oh wow, now that will definitely be interesting.

[godfather]

Just when you think some people had pegged the "stupid meter" they just get a bigger dial. Unbelievable.

So very true.

[Virgil Tibbs]

Better to deal with the US than end up in Abu Garayib for some stupid s#%*. All it takes is one person on your team doing something stupid (yes, it really does happen) to ruin it for everyone else on that team.

[The91Bravo]

So if they fall under UCMJ, then what's next? The US dept of VA will be responsible for their wounds? The US Govt will have to pay their disability? Many are vets of their home countries anyways, but look at the possible litigation... Stupid meter heading to an all time high.. be aware
Steve

[Argyll 50]

I highly doubt this will lead to anything serious, and it will not make the slightest bit of difference to current Situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.....I'm all for legislation to tighten up the Rogue elements in the industry, but you still need somebody to Enforce such changes......who will do this?.....another PMC/PSC or the USG Agencies such as the FBI or whom?

[CAMedic]

Please, not the FBI. They are one of the most biased agencies in existance. When it comes to investigating cops and the like, they work on the "You are guilty unless WE SAY SO" theory. Been there, done that, finally cleared.

[RAT]

We have been saying this for yrs. You had better CYA.

There is no statue of limitations from what I understand. This is not over by any measure. IMHO.

RAT OUT!!!

[iraqgunz]

Did this "incident" in question involve the famous Bear paw and crosshairs?

[godfather]

That's I heard.

[079E/R]

What I don't understand is how a person could possibly get lost trying to find their way back to the WPPS man-camp from the Embassy? Guess land-nav wasn't one of his strengths...........;)

[Miguel]

Well, apparently neither was common sense.

[godfather]

Hell of a shot tho.............

[Argyll 50]

Really, I heard it took 10 rounds!!

[godfather]

Like to see you try that shot drunk with less than 10 rnds! :)

[Argyll 50]

Good point!!........:D

[norts]

That's what I've been wondering, I was waiting for CNN and everyybody else to splash it everywhere.


The AEGIS shooting video took months before disgruntled former employees published it on the web. From there it still took some time before the media got hold of it.

There have been a few other things that the media have published well after the fact that I expected would have come out fast, and quite a few things that have yet to come out at all. It would seem that when it somes to Iraq you need to notify the media direct for them to know about anything and you need to have video for them to really care.

For the most part I don't think stories about contractors sell that well to the general public, possibly because most people really have no idea what security contractors are doing. Hearing we come under UCMJ (regardless of the difficulties in actually enforcing it) will please a lot of people that have been complaining from home there was not enough regulation of people they have never worked with in an industry they know nothing about.

[079E/R]

I agree with you Norts, it took over 5 months for this to hit prime time:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16316248/

As soon as it hit the courts it was reported (and subsequently there was a post in this forum), and I'd say at least until it is resolved it will keep appearing in the media.

Sidenote:
No names/No pack-drills, but it is a shame that the NBC reporter didn't state that the former 'Marine sniper' was on his way out the door anyways after he had numerous counselling statements written up about his work peformance/as well as activities after hours....but I'm sure he didn't let her know about that when he was re-living the horror of that fateful day on July 8. Sounds like a disgruntled former worker to me :rolleyes:

[Argyll 50]

IPOA have released this interesting statement.

IPOA Press Release

11 January 2007

Civilian Contractors in Iraq: Accountability and the Uniform Code of
Military Justice

A recent article by P.W. Singer implies that a change in the U.S. Code
placing civilian contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) will solve accountability issues in Iraq. Ensuring effective and
fair accountability for civilian contractors in conflict and post conflict
environments has long been a key focus of IPOA and we have been quite open
and supportive of the appropriate use of the UCMJ in the past. It would be
helpful to this industry if something as simple as a short wording change
could solve all the complex accountability issues. Unfortunately we are
concerned that the UCMJ approach may not be the promised magic wand that can
provide instant accountability for civilians working in support of U.S.
policies in conflict and post conflict environments.

Many American contractors providing logistics and support in Iraq once
proudly served in uniform and operated under the UCMJ. But the overwhelming
majority of private sector employees supporting Department of Defense
programs are not even American; they come from countries such as
Afghanistan, India, Iraq, the United Kingdom and scores of others.
Requiring all nationalities to be under U.S. military law could be
internationally contentious, and even more difficult to apply. Application
of the UCMJ or any other disciplinary structure requires closer examination
of the relationship to other applicable United States, Host Nation, and
International Laws.

While the wording of the Code has been changed, the Constitution has not,
and many legal experts predict the expanded use of UCMJ to try civilians
will not survive a constitutional challenge. In the meantime the Department
of Defense will be required to assign significant resources to the issue
while at the same time working other avenues to achieve similar ends,
including negotiating appropriate coverage for contactors in Status of
Forces Agreements (SOFAs) and evaluating the coverage under other existing
law, such as the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). MEJA
was created specifically to address these issues. Unlike UCMJ it applies to
all contractors of all nationalities working for the U.S. Government in
areas of conflict. Although MEJA was first enacted in 2000, IPOA members
supported the expansion and improvement of MEJA in 2004 and the Association
is dedicated to working with the U.S. departments of Defense and Justice and
with Congress to address on-going issues with utilization and find ways to
make it fully effective.

Effective accountability is good for good companies, and IPOA continues to
support efforts to improve the law. The private sector is increasingly
indispensable to implementing international peace and stability operations
not just in Iraq, but around the world. We do not expect the statutory
changes to have the dramatic effect predicted, but we are hopeful that the
increased awareness of the problem will stimulate discussions and
constructive solutions. IPOA remains committed to engaging in the important
effort to further develop effective accountability measures for private
sector service providers operating in the post-conflict, stability, and
contingency operations space.

[OtherHalf]

The Norfolk VA newspaper ran an article on this topic today on the front page mentioning said "incident", likely because it's connected to their circulation area.

http://content.hamptonroads.com/story.cfm?story=117400&ran=74075&tref=po

[BKK]

The IOPA press release is more in touch with reality then anything I have heard from anyone yet.

[SWCC18]

How are they going to reduce me in rank when I am late for roll-call? Extra duty and 1/2 pay for 3 months?

Has anyone thought to bring this up with their union representative? ;)

[SOTB]

The Norfolk VA newspaper ran an article on this topic today on the front page mentioning said "incident", likely because it's connected to their circulation area....I'm seeing some writing that is mentioning this incident in conjunction with the recent helo/employees loss. This most recent event (the loss of the helo and KIAs) might be worse for the company than just the loss of men and equipment -- it might bring attention to the incident in Xmas....

[BKK]

Inside the Army
March 5, 2007

UNCERTAINTY STILL SURROUNDS APPLICATION OF UCMJ LAW TO CONTRACTORS

Vol. 19 No. 9

The private military industry is still awaiting Defense Department
regulations for a controversial law that will subject battlefield
contractors accompanying U.S. forces to military judicial codes, even as
industry representatives take part in closed-door discussions on Capitol
Hill to drop the law.

The status of the regulations dictating how the legislation may be applied
to contractors is "pre-decisional," DOD spokesman, Chris Isleib, said.

The job of writing regulations for the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) has been relegated to the office of the under secretary of defense
for personnel and readiness. But Stan Soloway, president of the Professional
Services Council, a Washington-based contractor organization, said he is
unaware of the details of the new regulation. Contractors have no choice but
to wait for the rules, which may be released in months or a couple of years,
he added.

"So, it's not even clear how broadly applicable it would be because . . .
most contractors in Iraq are not accompanying the force. Accompany the force
has traditionally been those providing direct support to the military
mission," Soloway, previously the deputy under secretary for defense for
acquisition reform during the second Clinton administration, told Inside the
Army.

Presumably, he added, the UCMJ will be irrelevant to "tens of thousands" of
contractors doing pre-construction and development aid, "which is really
where the volume of people are anyway."

Cases of contractor abuse, including the torture scandal at Iraq's Abu
Ghraib prison and stories of random, unprovoked shootings of Iraqi
civilians, have never led to contractor prosecutions in U.S. courts.

The apparent lack of discipline on the battlefield is what prompted Sen.
Lindsay Graham (R-SC) to insert an amendment into the fiscal year 2007
Defense Appropriations Act allowing contractors to be subjected to the UCMJ.
It became law in October.

The contentious legislation prompted Soloway's group to begin discussions on
the Hill with lawmakers such as Rep. David Price (D-NC) within the last six
weeks about removing the provision and focusing on strengthening existing
legislation governing contractors.

Price, who is opposed to the proposed UCMJ application, on January 10
introduced the "Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting
Act." It aims to establish an in-theater investigative unit of the FBI to
investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct.

The bill also seeks to expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act
(MEJA) -- which states that contractors working under a DOD contract who
commit a crime anywhere while deployed may be tried in a U.S. court -- by
suggesting that contractors working under any U.S. government contract who
commit a crime while in theater may be tried in a U.S. court, Soloway
explained.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) introduced a similar bill in late February called
the "Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting
Act of 2007." The bill, dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, asks the Defense
Department and other agencies for information including the cost of
contracts, the policies and procedures under which the U.S. government
monitors contractors and any laws that have been broken while carrying out
such contractors, among other things.

"We think that MEJA is a much more logical approach. MEJA . . . establishes
a jurisdiction," Soloway said. "The Uniform Code of Military Justice . . .
subjects you to an entire code of law under which the military exists."

The UCMJ will create problems in places like Iraq because it conflicts with
the Federal Acquisition Regulations, which state a contractor may not
perform a task that is not outlined in his or her contract, Soloway warned.

"It's very common . . . for a commander in the field to say to contractors,
'I know you've got guys working in that satellite station over there but
I've got intelligence that we've got an insurgency coming six clicks to the
south. I need you to move people down there and help us do x, y and z
there,'" he said.

Once the UCMJ applies to contractors, it will, on the one hand, raise
contract violations because only a contracting officer, not a battlefield
commander, has the right to change a contract, he explained. This means that
contractors who comply with a military commander's orders will be "working
at risk" and the government may refuse to pay them and penalize them in
other ways. Under the new rules, a contractor who refuses to follow a
commander's order, he added, may be accused of disobeying a superior
officer.

In the military, the UCMJ law has stirred mixed emotions.

"If you talk to most military people, and I've talked to a lot of them, none
of them can really figure out how you can apply the Uniform Code of Military
Justice to civilians," said Soloway. "Over the last month, I've had lunch
with at least three former senior military folks and they've all looked at
me like, 'You couldn't do it. It's too hard.'"

Peter Singer, senior fellow and director of the 21st Century Defense
Initiative at the Brookings Institution in Washington, told ITA that
military commanders described to him their frustration in dealing with the
existing law.

"It was, in a sense, giving them a dog in the fight that they didn't have
before," Singer explained of the new law. One colonel, who told Singer
stories about witnessing contractors committing crimes, said he was
handcuffed by having only a "coordinating relationship with contractors. Now
he felt he had the ability to do something about these incidents," Singer
said.

As contractors and military personnel question how the UCMJ law will play
out for civilians in theater, the Army is in the midst of writing and
revising doctrine on the use of contractors.

The Joint Staff Operational Plans and Interoperability office, or J-7, has
approved the development of a joint contracting and contractor publication
known as JT4-10, said Chuck Mauer, chief of doctrine development at the
Army's Acquisition, Logistics and Technology Futures office at Ft. Lee, VA.
The office is involved in crafting policies for ALT and contractor training
for the military.

The publication, due to be released in the next few months, will give
commanders guidance on the workings of a contracting organization and
incorporating contractors deployed with a force into military operations,
said Mauer. But because of ongoing policy issues such as the the application
of the UCMJ, the joint doctrine, originally slated for a March release, will
be delayed until May following "more clear guidance," he said.

Although the military has commanders trained in the use of contractors, they
tend not to include maneuver commanders, added Gordon Campbell, deputy
director of the ALT Futures office. He said the new doctrine will attempt to
integrate contracting professionals into the Army's maneuver force.

Another publication, field manual interim 4-93.41 which came out Feb. 22,
discusses a deployable Army Materiel Command unit approved last fall that
assists with contractor management issues for deploying army contractors,
Mauer said.

Mauer's office is also rewriting field manual 100-10-2, a discussion of
contracting support on the battlefield. Originally published in 1999, FM
100-10-2 looks at how contractors on the battlefield are controlled and
managed, the main participants in planning, managing, and providing these
services in theater and the relationship that influences contracting in a
joint and multinational environment.

The ALT Futures office, moreover, may work with the Defense Department to
revise DOD instruction 3020.41. Initially written two years ago, the
instruction dictates which contractor personnel are allowed to accompany
U.S. forces. -- Fawzia Sheikh