Mercenaries of USA in Iraq and ...

[pelastration]

USA uses a large number of mercenaries in the Iraq war. Bush idea is that 50% of tasks of the USA Army should be taken over by 'private contractors', and they are not listed as serving military personnel. Of course at a very high price (taxes), opening ways of bribery and favors.

One of the ethic problems is that mercenaries are not bound to military and political rules. Many of the heavily armed Western "security men" are working for the US Department of Defence - and most of them are former Special Forces soldiers. Their losses are hidden from public view.

What is the Geneva Conventions telling? and are they POW?

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Part III : Methods and means of warfare -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status #Section II -- Combatant and prisoner-of-war status


[p.571] Article 47 -- Mercenaries


[p.572] General remarks

1789 The problem of mercenaries was first raised at the United Nations in1961 in connection with the Katangese secession. (1) Later on, in 1964, the Congolese government itself recruited mercenaries to suppress an insurrection. When they were subsequently instructed to lay down their arms, most of them refused to do so and openly rebelled against the government (1967). The latter then called upon the Security Council, as well as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), to which it had already appealed in 1964. The Security Council (2) and the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the OAU requested States to prevent the recruitment of mercenaries in their territory for the purpose of overthrowing the governments of foreign States. The epilogue to this unhappy affair took place in Rwanda, where the mercenaries eventually sought refuge. They were repatriated with the help of the ICRC, on condition that they undertook not to return to the African continent. (3)

1790 Since then, there has scarcely been any conflict involving military operations in which the presence of mercenaries has notplayed a part in one way or another. Nevertheless, since 1968 the United Nations General Assembly has adopted a firm position stating that the practice of employing mercenaries against national liberation movements is a criminal act, (4) and the mercenaries themselves are criminals. In 1977 it was once more the Security Council which adopted, by consensus, a resolution condemning the recruitment of mercenaries with the objective to overthrow governments of Member States of the United Nations. (5) Also in 1977 the Council of Ministers of the OAU adopted a Convention for the Elimination of Mercenarism in Africa at its 29th session in Libreville. (6) Based partly, as regards the definition of the term "mercenarism" as such, on previous [p.573] drafts, (7) and, with the exception of the problem of payment, on the definition of the term "mercenary" given in the present Article 47 , this Convention was a response to the concern of those who see the text of the Protocol as paving "the way for the conclusion of more stringent regional instruments", (8) on the assumption that Article 47 was only "the first, and that other more satisfactory international texts would follow". (9) In fact, this OAU Convention of 1977 was an attempt to respond to the wishes of some delegations who had participated in the Diplomatic Conference, wishes which could not be met by the demands of the inevitable compromise. It condemns the mercenarism as such, and not only the mercenary himself (Article 1 , paragraph 2). It contains a pure and simple prohibition on according a mercenary the status of combatant and prisoner of war (Article 3 ). Finally, the definition of the term "mercenary" diverges from that of the Protocol on one point, as stated above. (10) At the time of writing, a draft of an "international Convention against the recruitment, use, financing and training of mercenaries" is being formulated within the United Nations. (11)

.... snip

1796 The effect of the denial of the status of combatant and prisoner of war ( to the mercenaries) in case of capture is to deprive the mercenary of the treatment of prisoner of war as laid down in the Third Convention, and to make him liable to criminal prosecution. Such prosecution can be instigated both for acts of violence which would be lawful if performed by a combatant, in the sense of the Protocol, and for the sole fact of having taken a direct part in hostilities (paragraph 2(b)). This is where the crucial question of guarantees arises.

1797 Deprived of the status of combatant and prisoner of war, a mercenary is a civilian who could fall under Article 5 of the fourth Convention. It is precisely this article which removes an important part of the guarantees from any person under legitimate suspicion of being engaged in an activity endangering State security.

....

more: http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/0/ffc84b7639b26f93c12563cd00434156?OpenDocument

[phatmonky]

"In 1977 it was once more the Security Council which adopted, by consensus, a resolution condemning the recruitment of mercenaries with the objective to overthrow governments of Member States of the United Nations"

But the private contractors weren't used to overthrow Saddam. They are be used in operations AFTER the fact.

[pelastration]

But the private contractors weren't used to overthrow Saddam. They are be used in operations AFTER the fact.
How would you know? :rolleyes:
Do you think they would publish it on the web?

[Adam]

Australia was given a trade deal worth four billion per year, in return for getting involved in Iraq. Wouldn't that make Australia mercenaries?

[schwarzchildradius]

Hmrmph, I thought it was to honor the alliance from WW2... guess that wouldn't work unless there were an honest threat. Guess that can't happen in the future thanks to our Lord GWB. F**k

[kat]

Australia was given a trade deal worth four billion per year, in return for getting involved in Iraq. Wouldn't that make Australia mercenaries?

Lol, so in the world according to "Adam" the Australian armed forces are mercenaries and not POW's but the Al Queda are part of the regular armed forces and are POW's. *boggle*

[pelastration]

Budget and contractors. Isn't this interesting?

"According to some experts the US Defence Department is spending about $20bn, one third of the military operating budget in Iraq and Afghanistan, on contractors.

Korb estimated that about $15bn of the $18bn in the US budget for Iraq's reconstruction will go on security. He added that about one in 10 Americans working in Iraq is a civilian contractor - between 10*000 and 15*000 people.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1507269,00.html

Amazing: $15bn of the $18bn in the US budget for Iraq's reconstruction will go on security.

Somewhere I read that also budget of Afghanistan was used in Iraq.

[Adam]

Lol, so in the world according to "Adam" the Australian armed forces are mercenaries and not POW's but the Al Queda are part of the regular armed forces and are POW's. *boggle*

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[phatmonky]

How would you know? :rolleyes:
Do you think they would publish it on the web?

OHhhhhh okay! So now it's true because I can't find an article saying that something with no evidence didn't happen??!

The burden of proof falls on you sir. Otherwise, this is nothign more tha you trying to steer this to a foil hat conspiracy theory.

[phatmonky]

Australia was given a trade deal worth four billion per year, in return for getting involved in Iraq. Wouldn't that make Australia mercenaries?


Only if you consider every single soldier that is getting paid a mercenary - which is not the case.

[phatmonky]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


Hardly, you've made asseration after assertion that al quaeda captives are POW's, and thus guantanamo detentions are illegal for them.
You are now implying that Australian forces are mercenaries, and by simple logic of putting this implication with the above article, Kat is RIGHT on with your view - the views you have posted onthis board.

[Adam]

Another straw man. Read again, and more carefully.

[phatmonky]

Another straw man. Read again, and more carefully.
Whatever Adam. If you aren't here to talk about the issue at hand, go play semantics somewhere else.

[Adam]

Pathetic. Three posts from phatmonky, and one from kat, full of straw men. Not one fact or accurate citation.

[hughes johnson]

The US is currently hiring private contractors in Iraq. If you make the grade, it is exciting and rewarding work. Profitable too. It's a chance to make a difference in the world, and have an adventure at the same time.

[pocebokli]

yeah, especially if you get caught by some militiamen and burned alive.
quite an adventure, i would agree, too bad you don't live to tell about it hehehe

on the other hand you can be extra cautious and slaughter the militiamen that attacked you, + 20 bystanders, some of them aged about 4 or 5 years old.

in that case you can boast about it.

[pelastration]

OHhhhhh okay! So now it's true because I can't find an article saying that something with no evidence didn't happen??!

The burden of proof falls on you sir. Otherwise, this is nothign more tha you trying to steer this to a foil hat conspiracy theory.
Don't over-react phatmonky.
US has a long tradition of working with mercenaries, in most cases they were called 'technical advisors' (i.e. Vietnam, South America). There are plenty examples. And still US-contractors in for example Columbia.
Under Clinton this practice started under specialized 'private companies', but the goal was to 'privatize' only some high tech activities (max 10%). It was not initial the goal to attract mercenaries. US had enough 'special forces'. But under Bush the privatization of the war-power grow, and with it the new type of mercenaries (cfr. from Chili, exits of US special forces, east-block soldiers, South Africans, etc) , and on the long run 50% should be privatized (goal of Bush). Thus a US president will have (has) his private army, just like Bremer has private contractors as bodyguards. Aren't special forces good enough? Regular troops will be there for the dirty work and lowest possible wages.

BTW why US wouldn't have used contractors before it attacked Iraq. The preparation started already before Bush was installed as president by Mr. Almighty.

Added: Didn't Cheney organized private armies in Nicaragua? And how did the financing happened?

[russ_watters]

How would you know? :rolleyes:
Do you think they would publish it on the web? That's pretty weak, pelastration - you're insinuating that since we can prove neither, we should assume that mercinaries were used as front-line soldiers.

Sorry, you'll need to do better than that.

[russ_watters]

Don't over-react phatmonky.
US has a long tradition of working with mercenaries, in most cases they were called 'technical advisors' (i.e. Vietnam, South America). There are plenty examples. And still US-contractors in for example Columbia.
Under Clinton this practice started under specialized 'private companies', but the goal was to 'privatize' only some high tech activities (max 10%). It was not initial the goal to attract mercenaries. US had enough 'special forces'. But under Bush the privatization of the war-power grow, and with it the new type of mercenaries (cfr. from Chili, exits of US special forces, east-block soldiers, South Africans, etc) , and on the long run 50% should be privatized (goal of Bush). Thus a US president will have (has) his private army, just like Bremer has private contractors as bodyguards. Aren't special forces good enough? Regular troops will be there for the dirty work and lowest possible wages.

BTW why US wouldn't have used contractors before it attacked Iraq. The preparation started already before Bush was installed as president by Mr. Almighty.

Added: Didn't Cheney organized private armies in Nicaragua? And how did the financing happened? Those are some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of the US military you are working under:

The "technical advisors" we used in Vietnam were regular military - that was a way for the government to initially cloud the fact that we had troops in Vientnam.

"Special forces" always have been and still are regular military.

"Private contractors" by and large are maintenance and service personnel. The Navy (for example) doesn't operate full-service shipyards anymore. Private contractors do a better job for less money.

That 50% number: source? I bet if you'd look at it a little more closely, you'll find that every one of those jobs is non-combat. Most people don't realize it, but the vast majority of military jobs are non-combat. And I don't mean the Jessica Lynch maintenance battalion non-combat, I mean pushing papers on a desk in an office building in Virginia non-combat.

As far as security forces go, I don't agree with it, but its not the big deal you're making it out to be. Even a private swat team or two does not constitute a mercenary army.

This issue is simply being blown out of proportion because of the knee-jerk reaction the word "mercenary" gives people.

[russ_watters]

Lol, so in the world according to "Adam" the Australian armed forces are mercenaries and not POW's but the Al Queda are part of the regular armed forces and are POW's. *boggle* That little double-standard (non-standard?) aside, it is an interesting moral/ethical question as to military pay. In the US we avoid the issue by paying the military with bags of dirt.

Btw, Adam, from your link: The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.[emphasis added] As you can clearly see, in order for a person to be guilty of a straw-man, they have to ignore your position. Since you didn't state your position, there was nothing for kat to ignore.

So far, this has been an effective tactic for you. It is somewhat clever, but relatively transparent to those who have been paying attention to your posts (phat- you need to stop falling for it and start demanding right up front that Adam state his position explicitly before you respond. Do not take the bait). Its basically an inverse straw-man. I'll be sure to keep pointing it out for those who may miss it.

edit: incidentally, this fallacy, though not on the site you like to link, is discussed HERE (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_complex.htm). Its called the "Complex Questions" fallacy. It falls under the heading "Fallacies of Presumption" - the general type you go for (along with "Fallacies of Ambiguity" of course).

Incidentally, Amp - you're operating under the Burden of Proof (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html) fallacy in this and other threads.

[schwarzchildradius]

I'm sure its wonderful, plus you don't have the problem of having to obey any of the laws of war. sign me up.

[pelastration]

Those are some pretty fundamental misunderstandings of the US military you are working under:

The "technical advisors" we used in Vietnam were regular military - that was a way for the government to initially cloud the fact that we had troops in Vientnam.

"Special forces" always have been and still are regular military.

"Private contractors" by and large are maintenance and service personnel. The Navy (for example) doesn't operate full-service shipyards anymore. Private contractors do a better job for less money.

That 50% number: source? I bet if you'd look at it a little more closely, you'll find that every one of those jobs is non-combat. Most people don't realize it, but the vast majority of military jobs are non-combat. And I don't mean the Jessica Lynch maintenance battalion non-combat, I mean pushing papers on a desk in an office building in Virginia non-combat.

As far as security forces go, I don't agree with it, but its not the big deal you're making it out to be. Even a private swat team or two does not constitute a mercenary army.

This issue is simply being blown out of proportion because of the knee-jerk reaction the word "mercenary" gives people.

From motherjones.com:
quote:
The use of private military companies, which gained considerable momentum under President Clinton, has escalated under the Bush administration. "There has been a dramatic increase in the military's reliance on contractor personnel to provide a wide range of support services for overseas operations," one Washington law firm advises its defense-company clients in a recent briefing paper. "In addition, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, resulted in a rapid expansion of U.S. military activity in many areas of the globe, and President Bush's ongoing war on terrorism will likely require even greater contractor support for military operations in the future."

Because the Geneva Convention expressly bans the use of mercenaries -- individual soldiers of fortune who fight solely for personal gain -- private military companies are careful to distance themselves from any associations with such hired guns. To emphasize their experience and professionalism, many firms maintain websites brimming with colorful PR material; the industry even funds an advocacy group, the International Peace Operations Association, which portrays military firms as more capable and accountable than the Pentagon. "These companies want to run a professional operation," says the group's director, Doug Brooks. "Their incentive is to make money. How do you make money? You make sure you don't screw up."

When the companies do screw up, however, their status as private entities often shields them -- and the government -- from public scrutiny. In 2001, an Alabama-based firm called Aviation Development Corp. that provided reconnaissance for the CIA in South America misidentified an errant plane as possibly belonging to cocaine traffickers. Based on the company's information, the Peruvian air force shot down the aircraft, killing a U.S. missionary and her seven-month-old daughter. Afterward, when members of Congress tried to investigate, the State Department and the CIA refused to provide any information, citing privacy concerns. "We can't talk about it," administration officials told Congress, according to a source familiar with the incident. "It's a private entity. Call the company."

The lack of oversight alarms some members of Congress. "Under a shroud of secrecy, the United States is carrying out military missions with people who don't have the same level of accountability," says Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a leading congressional critic of privatized war. "We have individuals who are not obligated to follow orders or follow the Military Code of Conduct. Their main obligation is to their employer, not to their country."

...

Such incidents point to the greatest danger underlying the increasing push to privatize war. Soldiers who disobey orders or violate standards of conduct can be court-martialed and incarcerated; their supervisors can be reassigned or forced to retire. Private companies, by contrast, are able to operate in almost complete secrecy, with little accountability to civilian or military authorities. Consider the case of two DynCorp employees who exposed a sex-trafficking scandal in Bosnia, where the company was assisting the American military with peacekeeping operations during the late 1990s. According to court documents, DynCorp employees bought and sold local Bosnian girls, some as young as 13, for use as sex slaves, often confiscating the passports of victims so they couldn't escape. The men were not subjected to local or U.S. criminal charges; DynCorp simply whisked them home -- and fired the two whistleblowers.

The lack of accountability could have grave consequences in battle. The Pentagon has become so dependent on private military companies that it literally cannot wage war without them. Troops already rely on for-profit contractors to maintain 28 percent of all weapons systems, and the Bush administration wants to increase that figure to 50 percent.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/05/ma_365_01.html

---
Defending Bremer!
Hired guns: Blackwater has a $US21 million contract to guard US adminstrator Paul Bremer (far left) and five outposts.
:biggrin: Russ! "Private contractors do a better job for less money."???. Sure! :biggrin: ... and you love to pay this bribe with rocketing taxes. :biggrin:

Ex-military commandos armed with M4 rifles are fighting insurgents in Iraq as part of a private contracting force, many of them hired by the US-led coalition, raising some deep concerns.

About 15,000 personnel from private military firms (PMFs) were operating in Iraq, making them more numerous that even the biggest US ally, Britain, estimated Peter Singer, author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry.

At least 30 to 50 had been killed in action, he wrote in a report for the Internet news magazine Salon.com.

Among the companies, Mr Singer said, Erinys was charged with guarding Iraqi oil fields, while Northrop Grumman subsidiary Vinnell, MPRI and Nour USA had been training and equipping the new Iraq army.

"It is more a coalition of the billing than of the willing," Mr Singer said. :biggrin: :biggrin:
----

Also this is a nice one! The Pentagon's solution to the "oversight crisis" has been to outsource: private firms have just been awarded $120 million to oversee other contractors -- raising serious questions of potential conflict of interest. "You could easily imagine one private contractor having other business dealings with the company over which they're supposed to be conducting oversight," Congressman Henry Waxman tells Schapiro.
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040419/cgm042_1.html

Russ, You may applause ... I have no problem with this ... it's your money.
:biggrin:

[Adam]

Btw, Adam, from your link: As you can clearly see, in order for a person to be guilty of a straw-man, they have to ignore your position. Since you didn't state your position, there was nothing for kat to ignore.

My position has been stated in other threads. My alleged position asserted by Kat was false. Thus the fallacy.

[ptex]

Why don't you just ask someone how it is? I have two friends and a brother in Iraq and a friend who just left for somewhere in that part of the world he was not sure as part of a refueling-wing. So when my brother came home for a very short time he had told me that when he gets out he is a MP in the USMC he wants to work for one of these companies and the companies pay from $500 - $1000 a day and the jobs from what he has seen have been guarding things, places, and people. Now private contractors also run highly specialized equipment such as missile systems which the companies have developed just like anything else. I will have to find out who is running the targeting systems in the back of those AC130 gun ships because those things are incredible being able to shoot at and sent targeting information to other planes and weapons in the area simultaneously.

[russ_watters]

My position has been stated in other threads. Could you quote yourself for me?

Amp, same problem as before - the article you posted makes no distinction between different jobs being performed. Also, the article is not by a real journalism outlet (not even alternate media) - its a political action group.

[Adam]

The Australian government, and through them our military, are a mercenary force, since they went to war in return for money (the aforementioned trade agreement).

Some of the abductees held illegally at Guantanamo Bay may be Al Qaeda, but there has been nothing to say they all are. Many were captured Taliban, and other forces.

[hughes johnson]

yeah, especially if you get caught by some militiamen and burned alive.
quite an adventure, i would agree, too bad you don't live to tell about it hehehe

Remember your OWN quote the next time you hear some IDIOT whine about contractors overcharging in Iraq. Tell me, how much would you charge to drive a gasoline tanker across Iraq? Would $25.00 do it? :rolleyes:

[Adam]

Funny. Halliburton is currently under investigation for overcharging. But I guess you know better, right?

[hughes johnson]

Funny. Halliburton is currently under investigation for overcharging. But I guess you know better, right?

If you think that contractors in Iraq are overcharging, why don't you take advantage of the situation, go to Iraq, and make yourself some easy money? How much would you charge to drive a gasoline tanker across Iraq? Perhaps you would like to underbid one of the contractors. LOL

[pelastration]

Maybe out of topic here.
US Oil companies and Halliburton type companies always win in the Iraq occupation.
First there is extra profit when world price go up + They get control over the Iraq fields. A win-win situation.
If OPEC members would use the 'oil weapon' (Oil embargo like in the 70's) due US's Iraq policy and favoring Israel, oil companies make even higher profits.

If Bush continues upsetting Arab countries (like he did recently) it's possible that Islamic countries will start to use the 'currency weapon': using Euros instead of US$. That would topple the imperial aspirations of the neocon's.

[Adam]

If you think that contractors in Iraq are overcharging, why don't you take advantage of the situation, go to Iraq, and make yourself some easy money? How much would you charge to drive a gasoline tanker across Iraq? Perhaps you would like to underbid one of the contractors. LOL
Wow. Way to go. You're really great at completely missing the point.

Watch closely. Pay attention.

A company given a contract in Iraq (a company with Bush and Cheney as investors, which did not even have to bid for the contract) is being investigated for overcharging. Got it? It's very simple. It's not a matter of "If you think that contractors in Iraq are overcharging"; what I think has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they are being investigated for overcharging.

As for making money, there are two problems with your "go drive a truck" idea:
1) I would not want to profit from a war spawned by lies which has killed over 8,000 innocent civilians.
2) I simply don't require the money.

[amp]

Another issue I think is that these 'companies' are paying such large saleries to former service men and the military is paying them so why are there pay cuts going against our current US service men who are in harms way, who are in at least as much peril as the mercenaries but getting nowhere near the money.

[hughes johnson]

1) I would not want to profit from a war spawned by lies which has killed over 8,000 innocent civilians.
2) I simply don't require the money.


These are good excuses, and I will accept them.

[Adam]

That, and I'm right.

[hughes johnson]

You're not right, but I am accepting your excuses; as a courtesy of course. I think you deserve the benefit of the doubt this time.

[Adam]

And I'm just plain right. Deal with it.

[phatmonky]

Wow. Way to go. You're really great at completely missing the point.

Watch closely. Pay attention.

A company given a contract in Iraq (a company with Bush and Cheney as investors, which did not even have to bid for the contract) is being investigated for overcharging. Got it? It's very simple. It's not a matter of "If you think that contractors in Iraq are overcharging"; what I think has absolutely no bearing on the fact that they are being investigated for overcharging.

As for making money, there are two problems with your "go drive a truck" idea:
1) I would not want to profit from a war spawned by lies which has killed over 8,000 innocent civilians.
2) I simply don't require the money.

So, Bush and Cheney sneak Halliburton in. Then, to cover up their sneakery, they investigate the company for overcharging to make it look like they don't have an interest in the company making a healthy profit!!! It's brilliant! Why let Halliburton get away with it, when you could make sure they are sticking to the rules!!! :eek:

[russ_watters]

...why are there pay cuts going against our current US service men who are in harms way... What pay cuts?

Also, before I enlisted, I assumed the low pay for the military that everyone always talks about was accurate. Its much more complicated than that.

Most places you hear that cite the pay scales and ignore the extras. A housing allowance (if you qualify) is enormous for example. I lived in about the poorest section of the country (southern MS) and it was $600/month for a junior enlisted. You also get additional allowances for hazard pay, flight pay, sea pay, etc. (though probably not enough for combat).

Also, while new enlistees start off making dirt, that's all they are qualified to make. The biggest problem I saw was with people just plain not doing what they needed to do to advance. It really isn't that hard. One guy on my ship, for example, was an E-5 at age 32 - 4 promotions in 14 years. Anyone with half a brain should be an E-5 in 3 years in the Navy. His biggest problem was he liked to fight, so he got knocked down a rank every couple of years. He was not an unusual case though. We had even a 30 year old E-7 and a 50 year old E-6. Not nice to say, but the 50 year old E-6 wasn't smart enough to advance any further.

Where pay really was insufficient was in the skilled fields - computers, telecommunications, etc. That's a problem with the inflexibility of the military for dealing with that type of thing. And they pay for it with retention problems. They offer a big signing bonus, but it isn't even close to competitive with the outside.

One caveat: I get the impression that advancement is much more difficult in the Marine corps and possibly the army. I don't know enouh about them.

[hughes johnson]

I get the impression that advancement is much more difficult in the Marine corps and possibly the army. I don't know enouh about them.

Look sharp, and accomplish the mission every single time no matter what. The Army wants you to succeed. It's easy.

[Njorl]

What pay cuts?


Where pay really was insufficient was in the skilled fields - computers, telecommunications, etc. That's a problem with the inflexibility of the military for dealing with that type of thing. And they pay for it with retention problems. They offer a big signing bonus, but it isn't even close to competitive with the outside.

One caveat: I get the impression that advancement is much more difficult in the Marine corps and possibly the army. I don't know enouh about them.

I heard recently something about combat pay being reduced, or a scheduled increase being delayed.

One problem the military faces is that it is hard to pay a subordinate more than his commander. It is not that uncommon in technical fields for a valuable, highly skilled worker to make more than their boss. It has always been the case where I work that a few of our scientists make more than their supervisors.

I think the Air Force started doing this a few years back. It makes sense to me that the guy who fixes a jet engine should make more than the guy who tells him to do it. Then again, you're not going to convince the Marines by telling them, "This is how they do things in the Air Force."

Njorl

[Adam]

So, Bush and Cheney sneak Halliburton in. Then, to cover up their sneakery, they investigate the company for overcharging to make it look like they don't have an interest in the company making a healthy profit!!! It's brilliant! Why let Halliburton get away with it, when you could make sure they are sticking to the rules!!! :eek:

It isn't Bush and Cheney doing the investigating. Thus, we can consider your entire response an irrelevent waste of bandwidth.

[phatmonky]

It isn't Bush and Cheney doing the investigating. Thus, we can consider your entire response an irrelevent waste of bandwidth.

So Bush and Cheney don't have the power to hide this?

[Adam]

Apparently someone found out, since it is being investigated. Nor do they have the ability to hide their dodging out from Vietnam. Nor do they have the ability to hide the breaches of the US constitution they have made.

[RageSk8]

Read this! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html)

Graphic photographs showing the torture and sexual abuse of Iraqi prisoners in a US-run prison outside Baghdad emerged yesterday from a military inquiry which has left six soldiers facing a possible court martial and a general under investigation.

The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees.

According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon...

"We know that CACI and Titan corporations have provided interrogators and that they have in fact conducted interrogations on behalf of the US and have interacted the military police guards at the prison," he said.

"I think it creates a laissez faire environment that is completely inappropriate. If these individuals engaged in crimes against an Iraq national - who has jurisdiction over such a crime?"

"It's insanity," said Robert Baer, a former CIA agent, who has examined the case, and is concerned about the private contractors' free-ranging role. "These are rank amateurs and there is no legally binding law on these guys as far as I could tell. Why did they let them in the prison?"

This is a much bigger problem than I preveously thought.

[phatmonky]

Apparently someone found out, since it is being investigated. Nor do they have the ability to hide their dodging out from Vietnam. Nor do they have the ability to hide the breaches of the US constitution they have made.
So they hid the involvement in 9/11, an even recorded all over, but can't keep the paperwork right to help out halliburton? I don't buy it ;)

[pelastration]

Read this! (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1206725,00.html)
This is a much bigger problem than I preveously thought.
I agree. It's a big ethic problem ... and tells us something about ... USA. The 'elixir of power' ... the power of projecting the Almighty in yourself.
It's a drug. Some of the top-top guys have something similar, GW Bush is one of them.
Do you like that? Yes? Then vote for Bush. He will bring you in heaven.

[phatmonky]

I agree. It's a big ethic problem ... and tells us something about ... USA. The 'elixir of power' ... the power of projecting the Almighty in yourself.
It's a drug. Some of the top-top guys have something similar, GW Bush is one of them.
Do you like that? Yes? Then vote for Bush. He will bring you in heaven.

There's already a thread for this.

[pelastration]

There's already a thread for this.

and does it tells about: "
The scandal has also brought to light the growing and largely unregulated role of private contractors in the interrogation of detainees.

According to lawyers for some of the soldiers, they claimed to be acting in part under the instruction of mercenary interrogators hired by the Pentagon."

and:
"Lawyers for the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability.

A military report into the Abu Ghraib case - parts of which were made available to the Guardian - makes it clear that private contractors were supervising interrogations in the prison, which was notorious for torture and executions under Saddam Hussein."

---

"One civilian contractor was accused of raping a young male prisoner but has not been charged because military law has no jurisdiction over him."

No jurisdiction: good news!
Why have jurisdiction? For sure the civilian contractor followed his 'instinctive' and honnest feelings about how the 'good' guys must teach the 'bad' guys. This are the natural values GW Bush talks about ... freedom, democracy, ... let them feel what "justice" is all about!
And lets be reasonable: When "the soldiers argue they are being made scapegoats for a rogue military prison system in which mercenaries give orders without legal accountability", this is because they are pussies. The real solution is the use of tough guys. When they get $1,000- 1,500 a day ... they deserve that. These guys have the balls. And they use them! Let's go back to the American roots where native Indians learned their lesson, like now Iraqi indians will learn their lesson. Oil them.

I am so happy phatmonky understands this.

[Adam]

Now that is a straw man. Who said anything about Bush and Cheney hiding paperwork about 9/11? Yes, a straw man. Thus, you are again wrong and have again wasted bandwidth.

[ptex]

Do you like that? Yes? Then vote for Bush. He will bring you in heaven.

Why would I want to go to "heaven"??? :confused: I think that’s the problem here. I want to be safe and pay low taxes. I don't understand go to "heaven" what's going on?? Heaven is a place for suicide bombers and people who kill the people who perform abortions oh and maybe people who smoke crack. :rolleyes:

[pelastration]

In my opinion the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the torture of detainees in Iraq. Is such abuse 'isolated'? Maybe, I don't know. We only know what has become public. We have seen some photo's, but are there video's too? And Pentagon tried to stop but because of Internet (some sites began to publish ...) we know it.

There is something really wrong on the structural level however. And there he - Bush - is also responsible for.
Allowing private contractors to interrogate prisoners is shameful and illegal. Private contractors have no rules of conduct. When mercenaries have human beings under there hands inside a protected environment - and they have the 'freedom' to do whatever they can imagine with these prisoners - you open the door for all types of sadistic actions and sexual aberrations. Who controls the mental health of these private contractors?

Just think how private contractors of DynCorp (actual CSC http://www.csc.com/solutions/businessprocessoutsourcing/ ) organize prostitution with Bosnian girls of 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml: Quote: "The women who refused were locked in rooms and withheld food and outside contact for days or weeks. After this time they are told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients. If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant." end of quote.

Can you imagine if such type of private contractors have almost unlimited power in a prison?
This sick situation should stop asap.
US regulations should make such practices or possibilities impossible. As long it doesn't stop ... this system is characteristic of U.S. forces, since it creates the structural framework to make abuse possible, and that will tell us something about the nature of the American leaders ... and 'the way we do things in Iraq".

Outrage in Iraq and Arab countries? Yes. And can you imagine when some of your relatives are actually a prisoner in Iraq?

http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/news/story.html?id=1de49146-ea60-492f-bb5f-b68c09d22933
President George W. Bush expressed personal disgust Friday with photographs detailing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American troops and vowed swift punishment to soldiers found responsible for any mistreatment.

With Arab television networks broadcasting the images throughout the Middle East, Bush called the abuses isolated and uncharacteristic of U.S. forces.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said at a Washington news conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. And so I didn't like it one bit."

[ptex]

organize prostitution with Bosnian girls of 13. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/04/25/wbos25.xml: Quote: "The women who refused were locked in rooms and withheld food and outside contact for days or weeks. After this time they are told to dance naked on table tops and sit with clients. If the women still refuse to perform sex acts with the customers they are beaten and raped in the rooms by the bar owners and their associates. They are told if they go to the police they will be arrested for prostitution and being an illegal immigrant." end of quote.

US regulations should make such practices or possibilities impossible. As long it doesn't stop ... this system is characteristic of U.S. forces,
Could you please post the title of this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml) article.
Here is a quote "The former American policewoman claims she was sacked because she sent an email to Jacques Paul Klein, the chief of UN mission in Bosnia-Hercegovina, which highlighted the sexual exploitation of women by those who had been sent to protect them from the sex trade.

Details of the email, sent in October 2000, were given to the tribunal at Southampton, Hants, yesterday.

In it, Mrs Bolkovac, a mother of three from Lincoln, Nebraska, claims that bars were frequented by UN police officers and other humanitarian workers who availed themselves of women forced into prostitution."

Damn Americans???? :cool:

I think that you take much of the stuff you post out of context and much of the links when read fully contrdic your stace. But hey I would do it also if I no real facts. You would make a great politician you should move to the US and run for office you are on the right track.

[hughes johnson]

In my opinion the Commander-in-Chief is responsible for the torture of detainees in Iraq. Is such abuse 'isolated'? Maybe, I don't know.

That is correct, you don't know. Your opinion has no effect on the facts. We are currently running an official investigation to find out what the facts are. You are not.

Allowing private contractors to interrogate prisoners is shameful and illegal.

Is it?


President George W. Bush expressed personal disgust Friday with photographs detailing the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners by American troops and vowed swift punishment to soldiers found responsible for any mistreatment.

"I share a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated," Bush said at a Washington news conference with Prime Minister Paul Martin.

"Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people. That's not the way we do things in America. And so I didn't like it one bit."

That's good enough for me. If it's not good enough for you, do something about it (other than whining). When you see things like this happening, and you don't do anything about it, that makes you guilty as well. Your country should be doing a lot more about this sort of thing in countries all over the world. How come you haven't been? You are not pulling your weight. Perhaps there's no profit in it for you?

[pelastration]

If it's not good enough for you, do something about it (other than whining). When you see things like this happening, and you don't do anything about it, that makes you guilty as well. Your country should be doing a lot more about this sort of thing in countries all over the world. How come you haven't been? You are not pulling your weight. Perhaps there's no profit in it for you?
I don't ask you to defence yourself.
You have nothing to do with those facts.
Do you feel attacked personally?
And why point at me?

What I see is a sick mentality in treating these prisoners.
I ask in first instance: What are private defense contractors doing there?

I put this link already on another post http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040510fa_fact but here I put some lines again.

In letters and e-mails to family members, Frederick repeatedly noted that the military-intelligence teams, which included C.I.A. officers and linguists and interrogation specialists from private defense contractors, were the dominant force inside Abu Ghraib. In a letter written in January, he said:

I questioned some of the things that I saw . . . such things as leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants, handcuffing them to the door of their cell—and the answer I got was, “This is how military intelligence (MI) wants it done.” . . . . MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days.

The military-intelligence officers have “encouraged and told us, ‘Great job,’ they were now getting positive results and information,” Frederick wrote. “CID has been present when the military working dogs were used to intimidate prisoners at MI’s request.” At one point, Frederick told his family, he pulled aside his superior officer, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Phillabaum, the commander of the 320th M.P. Battalion, and asked about the mistreatment of prisoners. “His reply was ‘Don’t worry about it.’”

....

Taguba’s report, however, amounts to an unsparing study of collective wrongdoing and the failure of Army leadership at the highest levels. The picture he draws of Abu Ghraib is one in which Army regulations and the Geneva conventions were routinely violated, and in which much of the day-to-day management of the prisoners was abdicated to Army military-intelligence units and civilian contract employees. Interrogating prisoners and getting intelligence, including by intimidation and torture, was the priority.

------
To me: " MI has also instructed us to place a prisoner in an isolation cell with little or no clothes, no toilet or running water, no ventilation or window, for as much as three days. " is a systematic policy, known and approved by superiors. That means 'war-crimes'.

This case of abuse in Iraqi prisons brings again attention to the letter to the United Nations delivered on Monday May 6, 2002 ,(where) the US says it will not consider itself bound by the treaty (to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC)- even though Bill Clinton signed up to it in 2000.
The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1970312.stm.
It seems to me that the "nature of Mr. Bush" is at such a mental and intellectual level that "war crimes" are allowed and justified. And that means no 'justice' for the victims (if they are still alive).

[hughes johnson]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances. I really don't mind if sadaam is wearing panties, they probably look nice on him if he has the legs for it.

[pelastration]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances.
:cool: sure. We know those type of investigations. I'm sure everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances to cover as much as possible.

[hughes johnson]

:cool: sure. We know those type of investigations. I'm sure everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances to cover as much as possible.

If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.

[pelastration]

If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.
If there is a problem? If there is a problem?
See ... you also would prefer a cover-up. Do you question too that there is the Taguba report?

A fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February. Its conclusions about the institutional failures of the Army prison system were devastating.

Specifically, Taguba found that between October and December of 2003 there were numerous instances of “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” at Abu Ghraib. This systematic and illegal abuse of detainees, Taguba reported, was perpetrated by soldiers of the 372nd Military Police Company, and also by members of the American intelligence community. (The 372nd was attached to the 320th M.P. Battalion, which reported to Karpinski’s brigade headquarters.) Taguba’s report listed some of the wrongdoing:

Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee.

There was stunning evidence to support the allegations, Taguba added— “detailed witness statements and the discovery of extremely graphic photographic evidence.” Photographs and videos taken by the soldiers as the abuses were happening were not included in his report, Taguba said, because of their “extremely sensitive nature.”
....
Taguba backed up his assertion by citing evidence from sworn statements to Army C.I.D. investigators. Specialist Sabrina Harman, one of the accused M.P.s, testified that it was her job to keep detainees awake, including one hooded prisoner who was placed on a box with wires attached to his fingers, toes, and penis. She stated, “MI wanted to get them to talk. It is Graner and Frederick’s job to do things for MI and OGA to get these people to talk.”

Another witness, Sergeant Javal Davis, who is also one of the accused, told C.I.D. investigators, “I witnessed prisoners in the MI hold section . . . being made to do various things that I would question morally. . . . We were told that they had different rules.” Taguba wrote, “Davis also stated that he had heard MI insinuate to the guards to abuse the inmates. When asked what MI said he stated: ‘Loosen this guy up for us.’ ‘Make sure he has a bad night.’ ‘Make sure he gets the treatment.’” Military intelligence made these comments to Graner and Frederick, Davis said. “The MI staffs to my understanding have been giving Graner compliments . . . statements like, ‘Good job, they’re breaking down real fast. They answer every question. They’re giving out good information.’”

General Taguba saved his harshest words for the military-intelligence officers and private contractors. He recommended that Colonel Thomas Pappas, the commander of one of the M.I. brigades, be reprimanded and receive non-judicial punishment, and that Lieutenant Colonel Steven Jordan, the former director of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center, be relieved of duty and reprimanded.

He further urged that a civilian contractor, Steven Stephanowicz, of CACI International "CACI, Ever Vigilant" (http://www.caci.com/business/intel.shtml), be fired from his Army job, reprimanded, and denied his security clearances for lying to the investigating team and allowing or ordering military policemen “who were not trained in interrogation techniques to facilitate interrogations by ‘setting conditions’ which were neither authorized” nor in accordance with Army regulations. “He clearly knew his instructions equated to physical abuse,” Taguba wrote.
He also recommended disciplinary action against a second CACI employee, John Israel. (A spokeswoman for CACI said that the company had “received no formal communication” from the Army about the matter.)

“I suspect,” Taguba concluded, that Pappas, Jordan, Stephanowicz, and Israel “were either directly or indirectly responsible for the abuse at Abu Ghraib,” and strongly recommended immediate disciplinary action.

The only thing you can say is: If there is a problem, it will be straightened out in time.

[kat]

fifty-three-page report, obtained by The New Yorker, written by Major General Antonio M. Taguba and not meant for public release, was completed in late February
Whenever I read something like this I begin to question whether we're being selectively fed information.
I think there IS a problem, and I think it is serious. I also think that we have safeguards set up to catch (obviously it's been caught, albeit better by far to not have happened at all) and then to prosecute. I don't foresee this being dropped. The American public is outraged.
The fact that the U.S. media along side the government is the device that is working through the process...is one more example of the difference between a democratic country and those run by tyrants.

[studentx]

Pelastration, im glad your beginning to discover the horrors that can go on behind closed doors and it finally touching you. I thought with Dutroux and all these belgian perverts you wouldnt have slept thru Saddam, but it took a few Americans to finally wake you up:wink:

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?

[pelastration]

Pelastration, im glad your beginning to discover the horrors that can go on behind closed doors and it finally touching you. I thought with Dutroux and all these belgian perverts you wouldnt have slept thru Saddam, but it took a few Americans to finally wake you up:wink:

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?
Studentx, please feel free to start a thread on Dutroux. A lot of people believe there in also a network behind and want that investigated, and I agree on that. The Dutroux case is a criminal case.
The Iraq case show that there is a systematic attitude behind. It's a mixure of military, political and criminal attitude. The offenders are in this case people having a type of authority and they should handle conform a number of rules in respect with human rights. It's significant that now also Gen. Georges R. Fay is involved since his MI guys are part. http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.warrennj.org/images2/bg_fay.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.warrennj.org/pages2/grfay.htm&h=212&w=170&sz=7&tbnid=zsaZb76Z8q0J:&tbnh=99&tbnw=80&start=13&prev=/images%3Fq%3DGeorge%2BFay%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3 DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26sa%3DG%26edition%3Dus.

[hughes johnson]

Dont you think we should wait for the UN to agree before we take any action?

Absolutely. A full investigation by the UN is in order here, eventually there should be a vote by the security council. Patience is important here, we should all work together on this.

[schwarzchildradius]

We're investigating it. If some things need to change, then I'm sure we will change them. Everyone is doing the best they can under the circumstances. I really don't mind if sadaam is wearing panties, they probably look nice on him if he has the legs for it.
Oh I'm sure at least one of their names was "Sadaam." In fact, there's a basketball player named "Saddam Muhammad," new jersey nets is it?
Yes lets put you in charge and all the Muhammads will be wearing panties and live in dog cages. That's reeel mentaly healthy.

[hughes johnson]

Oh I'm sure at least one of their names was "Sadaam." In fact, there's a basketball player named "Saddam Muhammad," new jersey nets is it?
Yes lets put you in charge and all the Muhammads will be wearing panties and live in dog cages. That's reeel mentaly healthy.

What do basketball players have to do this? Why would you want to have them live in dog cages? What are you talking about?

[kat]

***boggle****

[pelastration]

1. Another POW prisoner was killed at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib jail in November 2003 by a private contractor who worked as an interrogator for the CIA.

2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
4. And a POW. This should be a ICC case.

[Adam]

Well, there's a reason why the USA refused to sign up for the ICC. Because they knew they would be invading and killing here and there.

[selfAdjoint]

No, the antiwar senators refused to approve it just as much as the prowar ones. It would have become the "law of the land" and completely overridden our own court system with an arbitrary legal system where anybody can be hailed into court by anybody, without safeguards.

[Adam]

That's kinda the point. It deals with INTERNATIONAL activity, rather than activity within US jurisdiction. If the USA wants international relations, and wants to roam around blowing stuff up, they must grant some authority to outside powers. The only other option is to say "We have all the guns, we can do what qwe like, and the rest of the world can get stuffed", which results in the situation we actually have now, in which nobody trusts the USA, and it is ONLY tolerated because it has such a friggin huge military.

[hughes johnson]

That's kinda the point. It deals with INTERNATIONAL activity, rather than activity within US jurisdiction. If the USA wants international relations, and wants to roam around blowing stuff up, they must grant some authority to outside powers. The only other option is to say "We have all the guns, we can do what qwe like, and the rest of the world can get stuffed", which results in the situation we actually have now, in which nobody trusts the USA, and it is ONLY tolerated because it has such a friggin huge military.

If you like international relations, I have good news for you. So do we.

If you like to roam around and blow stuff up, I have more good news for you.

[pelastration]

No, the antiwar senators refused to approve it just as much as the prowar ones. It would have become the "law of the land" and completely overridden our own court system with an arbitrary legal system where anybody can be hailed into court by anybody, without safeguards.
1. And now we see in Guantanamo:
a. completely overridden the own US court system
b. with an arbitrary non-legal system
c. where anybody can be held, even US citizen
d. without even minimal safeguarding law
e. trials with no right of appeal to any court.
f. future trials with a lower standard of evidence than in ordinary courts
e. in inhuman conditions
http://web.amnesty.org/pages/guantanamobay-index-eng

But we should also talk about the two next points in my previous post on the private contractors.
2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
----
4. A lack of jurisdiction means or:
a. badly organized
b. intentional vacuum
But is clear that the criminal acts of the private contractor were done in an compound under US control and authority. So also criminal offends should accountable under US law or under Iraqi law (just like al-Sadr was accused of murder).

5. On the simple 'common sense" level of human reasoning: Is it acceptable that a fellow human is killed in a prison - at the mercy of his interrogator - and that the interrogator is no punished? Is this "normal"?

[kat]

But we should also talk about the two next points in my previous post on the private contractors.
2. No legal action was taken because of a lack of jurisdiction, but the CIA and Justice Department were investigating.

3. Is this normal? No justice?
----
4. A lack of jurisdiction means or:
a. badly organized
b. intentional vacuum
But is clear that the criminal acts of the private contractor were done in an compound under US control and authority. So also criminal offends should accountable under US law or under Iraqi law (just like al-Sadr was accused of murder).

5. On the simple 'common sense" level of human reasoning: Is it acceptable that a fellow human is killed in a prison - at the mercy of his interrogator - and that the interrogator is no punished? Is this "normal"?

2. You seem to contradict yourself here. I believe it's because you're taking a portion of a statement out of context. The military legal system has no jurisdiction ove the private contractor. That is why the CIA and Justice Dept. are investigating. Maybe it's not normal for your country to investigate a crime before making arrests?

3. "being investigated" does not equal "No Justice". It usually means..they're investigating...you know, finding out who is guilty and then building a case...isn't that how you do it in your country? Or even in the ICC?

4. A lack of jurisdiction..means...just that...it's not our jurisdiction..it's another departments...The military has an internal legal system that does not apply to civilians. This does not rule out civilian law applying to military personal, only that military law does not apply to civilians, that includes contractors...who would be charged under civilian laws.

5. again, investigating...does not equal ignoring. The wheels of the justice system are often slow but that does not mean they do not serve justice. In comparision, the ICC is particularly slow..(except in the case of Israel, but that's another story) or haven't you noticed?

[Njorl]

Actually, a bill passed in 2001 explicitly gave the US jurisdiction to proscecute contractors hired by the defense department for crimes committed outside normal US jurisdiction. It is a condition of their employment that they agree to submit to this jurisdiction. I don't know if it is equivalent to the UCMJ, which is sometimes more harsh and sometimes less harsh than civilian justice, but they are not going to evade proscecution for lack of jurisdiction.

Here is a link.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary/paul0330.htm

Edit - this just describes the opening of debate of the bill. It did pass eventually, but I don't know exactly what it will cover. Seeing as how its intent was to cover exactly what happened in Iraq, I think any civilians involved will be prosecuted.