Nightingale

he's a civilian. from www.law.com Untested Law Key in Iraqi Abuse Scandal Jonathan Groner Legal Times 05-11-2004 It would apply only to crimes committed abroad that carry at least a one-year prison term. It would affect only civilians working for or connected to the Defense Department. In short, the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act is narrowly crafted and, according to lawyers familiar with it, may not cover some of the abuses -- and abusers -- involved in the torture of Iraqi detainees at U.S.-run prisons. Yet the law could be crucial for federal prosecutors if they pursue cases against civilian employees who participated in the abuse. Passed in 2000, the act permits the Justice Department to go into U.S. district courts to prosecute employees of Defense Department contractors and subcontractors who commit crimes on foreign soil. When it approved the law, Congress knew that it is nearly impossible to charge civilians under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, even if they work alongside active-duty service members. Experts on military law and government contracts agree that this principle rules out courts-martial for the "contract interrogators" at the center of the furor over the humiliation of Iraqis, particularly at the Abu Ghraib prison 20 miles west of Baghdad. The interrogators reportedly worked for two defense contractors, Arlington, Va.-based CACI International and San Diego-based Titan Corp. Other U.S. criminal laws -- including a broad prohibition on torture that took effect in 1994 -- could also play a role in prosecuting civilians. But the 2000 act seems best adapted to the situation in Iraq because it permits civilian prosecutions of persons "employed by or accompanying" U.S. armed forces. Still, many say the law is not a perfect fit. "The law was passed to fill a void," says Michael Nardotti Jr., a partner at Patton Boggs who was the judge advocate general of the Army from 1993 to 1997. "And it does so. But it requires an offense like a serious assault. What if it's a simple assault, which may be punishable under federal law only by six months in prison?" Nardotti, a retired major general, says the 2000 law "doesn't provide the same range of options" as military law would for prosecuting someone in the armed services. "Suppose the behavior involves humiliating the detainee, or stripping him naked," Nardotti says. "What crime would that constitute? You'd have to look at the whole list of federal offenses and find one that is punishable by more than one year." Eugene Fidell, a military law expert at D.C.'s Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell, points out that the law applies only to employees of companies that contracted with the Department of Defense, not those that had contracts with other agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency. U.S. authorities are looking into at least two cases in which Iraqi detainees died after being questioned by CIA contract interrogators. So some cases might turn on the technicality of what government agency signed the contract. The law's history in some ways foreshadows the current scandal. In 2000, top legal officials at the Defense Department testified before a House Judiciary subcommittee in support of the extraterritorial act. They noted that, at the time, more than 2,000 civilian employees and contractors were deployed in combat areas and that additional sanctions were needed to punish those who committed crimes. The law also allows the government to prosecute military spouses and dependents. Today, outsourcing has grown in ways that were unexpected even four years ago, as more than 10,000 contract employees work with U.S. forces in Iraq alone and perform key functions like interrogation and security. In the 2000 testimony, the DOD lawyers said that "the inability of U.S. authorities to adequately respond to serious misconduct" by civilians "presents the strong potential for embarrassment in the international community, increases the possibility of hostility in the host nation's local community where our forces are assigned, and threatens relationships with our allies." The DOD noted that people charged under the act would have the benefits of grand jury indictment, trial by a civilian jury, and other protections. The defense-contractor community seems to have few difficulties with the statute. Alan Chvotkin, senior vice president and counsel of the Professional Services Council, a trade group that represents 165 defense contractors, says, "Congress filled an important gap in 2000, and it did so surgically. It would be troubling indeed to find actions that were criminal and could not be punished." Jeffrey Elefante, executive vice president and general counsel at CACI, says the company still doesn't know what its employees are being accused of in Iraq. "Given the nature of the allegations, any civilized person would be disturbed," Elefante says. CACI, a publicly traded company with $840 million in revenue last year, has brought in an outside law firm to conduct what Elefante calls "a review of every aspect of our operations that relates to this." He declines to name the firm. In circumstances where the 2000 act does not apply, however, the question of criminal liability becomes murkier. Iraqi courts probably don't have jurisdiction. Government contractors are ordinarily protected from being prosecuted by foreign courts by what is known as a status-of-forces agreement -- which defines the legal status of U.S. personnel and property in the territory of another nation, says David Hammond, a government contracts partner at D.C.'s Crowell & Moring. However, other options are available. In 1994, the United States signed an international convention against torture and outlawed torture committed by U.S. citizens outside the United States. Torture is defined in federal law as actions taken "under the color of law" that are "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering" upon another person who is within the custody or control of the torturer. Torture can be punished in U.S. courts by up to 20 years in prison, and torture resulting in death of the victim is a federal capital crime. Gay McDougall, executive director of Global Rights, a D.C.-based human rights organization, says that "the degrading and immoral behavior that we've seen in these pictures" from Abu Ghraib is a clear example of torture. McDougall also says U.S. courts should read the principles of international law broadly to criminalize abuses by government contractors. "This would be a precedent-setting situation [to hold contractors criminally liable]," McDougall says. "But if you look at the Nuremberg trials, there were a lot of people held responsible who were not solely in the military chain of command." In 1998, McDougall wrote a United Nations report on sexual slavery arguing that people who are "civilians and often outside any given chain of command" should be liable to prosecution for war crimes. McDougall says the revelations of mistreatment and exploitation are nothing new to her. "We've gotten consistent reports of prisoner abuse in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the last year and a half," she says. "We have signed on to letters to [President George W.] Bush, [Secretary of State Colin] Powell, and [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld, and we have been told that the reports are untrue or exaggerated, or that they are merely 'stress and duress' tactics of interrogation." Earlier this year, the Defense Department issued a proposed regulation that specialists say might have an impact on the contractor issue. The rule would require DOD contractors to make sure their employees comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice "where applicable." Comments on that proposal are due May 24. Daniel Guttman, a D.C. solo practitioner and fellow at the Center for the Study of American Government at Johns Hopkins University, says he does not fully understand the proposal. "It says the Uniform Code applies where applicable," says Guttman. "But when is that? Can you be court-martialed and put in the brig? What's the analysis here? They seem to be making policy on the run." Guttman adds that the problem with abuses by contract employees "was not only predictable, but was predicted at the highest levels." He says a March 2002 memorandum from then-Army Secretary Thomas White showed that the military was not adequately tracking the work of contract employees. "The DOD has shown a stunning lack of focus on a basic question," Guttman says. Amy Williams, the DOD staffer in charge of the rule, did not return a call seeking comment.

me too.

I think, like many fantasies, that many people don't actually want the reality (and probably wouldn't know what to do with that reality should they get it), but find it nice to think about.

my instructors told me when I did my solos, to spend time looking down, to take note of the ground and how it looked at various altitudes. I did, but I don't know that 12 jumps is enough for anyone to recognize what the ground looks like at 4,000 feet, static line or aff.

ouch! that's gonna HURT!

Opus Dei is a real, catholic based cult. Google it.

it wouldn't bother me at all. I date someone for who they are as a person. I don't give a rat's ass about the plumbing.

Netflix they have CSI

agreed! the cost is irrelevant. get her something you think she'll like.

there was a problem with the altimeter. I'd zeroed it on the ground.

I don't know if that actually qualifies as "water", but they did get fairly liberal with their definitions of "water" now and again.

I demoed one on one of my pre-A license solos, and it saved my ass. I was supposed to pull at 4, so I set the audible at 3.5, so I would pull on my own, and the audible would be a backup. Well, I heard the audible when my visual was still reading 5000 feet. looked at the ground. looked back at the visual. had trouble figuring out which one was right, as I only had about 12 jumps at this time. figured to heck with it and pulled. had I decided to rely strictly on the visual, I'd have pulled AT 2500, which would have been bad. When I landed, the visual was still reading 1500 feet high, so I did choose correctly. at only 12 jumps, I didn't really know what the ground was supposed to look like from different altitudes... just didn't have the experience, because during AFF, I spent so much time looking at the alti and my instructors, that I didn't spend much time looking down. Now, I'm usually reaching for my hackey a few seconds before the pro-track sounds, and I still won't jump without a visual, just in case. backups are good! I don't think that audibles are a good idea on AFF jumps. too easy to get into the "I hear the beep, then I pull" mentality. Even just pre-A license is early, I think. I probably started using them a little early, but I always set them lower than I'm planning on pulling, so I don't rely on them.

my protrack clocked about the same. movie is on www.skydivingmovies.com. search for "amazon"

smoking. smoking is grounds for immediate three-ring activation.

not now. Reagan's legacy can be debated later, when emotions aren't quite so high. Regardless of what he did in office, he was our country's leader. Let people mourn for now.

ROFLMAO! Zan and Jayna were cool!

I've had some good skiing at Durango, Colorado and Brian Head, Utah. There's a lot of other stuff to do in Durango, but in Brian Head, there's pretty much just skiing and snowmobiling. Both are fun places to visit, tho.

I have friends who've spent upwards of $30K on rings, and some that haven't spent anything (heirloom rings, or bride didn't want a ring). I've helped a few friends pick out engagement rings for their ladies, and I must say, its quite a chore! One of the frustrating things about having lots of male friends is that you get dragged along on shopping expeditions for birthday, christmas, and other events. If you can, go somewhere where they have the stones and rings separate, so you can pick and choose. That way, if you like the setting, but the stone's really expensive, you can downgrade the size or quality of the stone and still end up with something pretty that she'll like. Robbins Brothers' is a good place, if there's one nearby. It shouldn't really matter what you spend on a ring, because its what the ring represents that's important, not the ring itself. Just make sure the quality is decent, and its a style she likes, because hopefully, she'll be wearing it for quite a long time. Spend what you're comfortable spending. I don't think any girl who's truly in love with her guy would want him to break the bank over a ring.

hehe... half the fun of EQ, though, is partying with other players. can't do that if its a private server.

I don't run the server, its just the one I log on to! EQ has PC accessible and MAC accessible ones, and I started six years ago on a PC server, so I've got some fairly high end characters there, and they're non-transferrable to MAC servers (plus, then I wouldn't be able to play them on my desktop PC). only sony can run the EQ servers. they don't let private parties do that like you can with Diablo.

I did look at Macs... however, my everquest server is PC only. so, I'm stuck with PC, because I want to keep my EQ characters where they're at.

well, my desktop already kicks ass, and my dad's buying the laptop for me.

I already own microsoft office 2000 professional, so I'm all set in that respect. Chapman's law school is brand new, with tons of individual space... Lots of table space, and two students per table, so no worry there. The only games I'll be installing are Everquest and Diablo II, and neither of those would tempt me in class at all... they require 100% of my attention... not games you can play off and on, like solitaire.

he's been asked, of course!

I don't like the dell keyboards... they just feel wrong.