Unfortunately, today’s editorial at the NY Times, on prosecuting out-of-control, mercenary contractors, is well-meaning, but not dead-on. They should have read Jeremy Scahill’s article, I pointed to yesterday, more closely.
The problem I have with the NYT op-ed is advocating the use of the MEJA.
The legal path will not be easy, but there are options. The government could seek to prosecute the guards under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, or MEJA, which extends American criminal law to contractors overseas. Or it could try to court-martial the guards under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was amended last year to cover contractors accompanying the armed forces in the field.
While this goes on to note the constitutional problem of charging contracted mercenaries working for the State Department under the MEJA, we have to seriously ask, if this is the path we want to go down.
If you had read my previous entry and followed the link to Scahill’s article, you’d understand what I am talking about. For those of you that hadn’t read Scahill’s article, here is the significant part that pertains to the MEJA:
U.S. military law: In late 2006, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) inserted an amendment in the Defense Authorization Act that places all U.S. contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the court-martial system. But this has not been tested, and the Department of Defense has shown no desire to use this option against any security contractors — let alone ones who aren’t working for the military. Facing a military prosecution, Blackwater could even get support from civil libertarians, who would see it as a creep toward applying military law to civilians.
What the hell are they drinking, up there in the NY Times building, to even suggest this option? The last thing I want to do is have military law be applied to civilians. As reprehensible as the actions of Blackwater contractors, and other civilian para-military contractors have been, under no circumstances do I want to see military law being applied to US civilians. It would open up a door, during the last months of the Bush administration, that could lead to the most horrible of situations.
The one option that has not been discussed is International Criminal Court. The ICC has prosecuted other war crimes/criminals. While Bush & Co do not believe in the ICC, and has forced at least 48 nations to “agree” not to send US citizens to be prosecuted by the ICC, I’d say that agreement was made under duress, and therefore not binding.
I think that the ICC would be the best “compromise” between the US and the Iraqi people.
Your suggestion to use the ICC makes perfect sense; it’s simple, logical, and straightforward. Of course, these are precisely the reasons why it’ll never happen.
I’m with you on the “ick” factor of trying civilians under the UCMJ or MEJA. We really don’t want to go there.
Unfortunately, Russ, what often makes the most sense is not the road taken.