Military contractors lose their “get out of jail free” cards
Peter Singer, blogging from the Brookings Institution next door to FP, just posted a fascinating piece at Defensetech.org. Singer found a tiny clause inserted in the Pentagon's fiscal year 2007 budget legislation that strips contractors of their immunity in the battlefield. The one sentence section (number 552 of a total 3510 sections) states that "Paragraph ...
Peter Singer, blogging from the Brookings Institution next door to FP, just posted a fascinating piece at Defensetech.org. Singer found a tiny clause inserted in the Pentagon's fiscal year 2007 budget legislation that strips contractors of their immunity in the battlefield. The one sentence section (number 552 of a total 3510 sections) states that "Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking `war' and inserting `declared war or a contingency operation'." The measure passed without much notice or any debate. And then, as they might sing on School House Rock, that bill became a law (P.L.109-364).
Here's how the change works: In the past, contractors could only be tried in military courts if war had officially been declared. Since the U.S. has not declared war in 65 years, contractors were able to run amok, with little chance of being brought to justice. But the new law adds military jurisdiction under the new classification of “contingency operation.” Singer explains:With the addition of just five words in the law, contractors now can fall under the purview of the military justice system. This means that if contractors violate the rules of engagement in a warzone or commit crimes during a contingency operation like Iraq, they can now be court-martialed (as in, Corporate Warriors, meet A Few Good Men).
Singer adds:The amazing thing is that the change in the legal code is so succinct and easy to miss (one sentence in a 439-page bill, sandwiched between a discussion on timely notice of deployments and a section ordering that the next of kin of medal of honor winners get flags) that it has so far gone completely unnoticed in the few weeks since it became the law of the land. Not only has the media not yet reported on it. Neither have military officers or even the lobbyists paid by the military industry to stay on top of these things.
Peter Singer, blogging from the Brookings Institution next door to FP, just posted a fascinating piece at Defensetech.org. Singer found a tiny clause inserted in the Pentagon's fiscal year 2007 budget legislation that strips contractors of their immunity in the battlefield.
The one sentence section (number 552 of a total 3510 sections) states that "Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking `war' and inserting `declared war or a contingency operation'." The measure passed without much notice or any debate. And then, as they might sing on School House Rock, that bill became a law (P.L.109-364).
Here's how the change works: In the past, contractors could only be tried in military courts if war had officially been declared. Since the U.S. has not declared war in 65 years, contractors were able to run amok, with little chance of being brought to justice. But the new law adds military jurisdiction under the new classification of “contingency operation.” Singer explains:
With the addition of just five words in the law, contractors now can fall under the purview of the military justice system. This means that if contractors violate the rules of engagement in a warzone or commit crimes during a contingency operation like Iraq, they can now be court-martialed (as in, Corporate Warriors, meet A Few Good Men).
Singer adds:
The amazing thing is that the change in the legal code is so succinct and easy to miss (one sentence in a 439-page bill, sandwiched between a discussion on timely notice of deployments and a section ordering that the next of kin of medal of honor winners get flags) that it has so far gone completely unnoticed in the few weeks since it became the law of the land. Not only has the media not yet reported on it. Neither have military officers or even the lobbyists paid by the military industry to stay on top of these things.
More from Foreign Policy
Can Russia Get Used to Being China’s Little Brother?
The power dynamic between Beijing and Moscow has switched dramatically.
Xi and Putin Have the Most Consequential Undeclared Alliance in the World
It’s become more important than Washington’s official alliances today.
It’s a New Great Game. Again.
Across Central Asia, Russia’s brand is tainted by Ukraine, China’s got challenges, and Washington senses another opening.
Iraqi Kurdistan’s House of Cards Is Collapsing
The region once seemed a bright spot in the disorder unleashed by U.S. regime change. Today, things look bleak.
Sign up for World Brief
FP’s flagship evening newsletter guiding you through the most important world stories of the day. Delivered weekdays.
By submitting your email, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use and to receive email correspondence from us. You may opt out at any time.
