Following the death of a dozen civilians in Iraq at the hands of Blackwater employees, the truth is starting to come out – but will the U.S. government acknowledge that the system is broken?

The State Department has acknowledged, as James Risen reports in the New York Times, that Blackwater is by now responsible for 56 civilian deaths to date in Iraq, the most of any U.S. contractor.  Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times about Blackwater contractors firing on U.S. servicemembers.

Why can nothing be done to punish those responsible, or to limit the damage they can do?  Sudarsan Raghavan and Thomas E. Ricks in the Washington Post point out a regulation known as "Order 17, crafted by Iraq’s overseers after the 2003 invasion," that apparently gave contractors like Blackwater immunity.  Tom Engelhardt, writing for The Nation, notes that Order 17, put in place by Paul Bremer and extended as one of his last acts before leaving Iraq, is essentially a "get-out-of-jail-free card in perpetuity."

Order 17 states that all foreigners employed in Iraq in governmental functions authorized by the Iraqi Provisional Authority (diplomats, soldiers, provisional authority staff members) are "immune from Iraqi legal process."  Contractors employed by "Sending States" are also immune.  All these people may be subject to prosecution in their states of origin, and in addition, regarding contractors Order 17 states that immunity may be waived based on the decision of the Sending State.

Some questions:

• If we are supposed to be turning over power to the Iraqi government, at what point will the Iraqi government have the right to prosecute all non-government and non-military individuals in Iraq who break the law?
• How did this order evolve?  Who were the drafters?  What were the discussions among contractors (in particular, since immunity for military service members and diplomats among an occupying force have a certain, if unfortunate, logic) and the U.S. government before the order was signed?  What about a year later, when problems with contractors were already emerging:  who pushed for Bremer’s decision to extend the order?
• Will the U.S. government waive immunity for contractors guilty of crimes committed in Iraq during the performance of their duties under contract?  If not, what difference is there between a contractor in a security detail and a U.S. service member?  And if there is no difference, why are contractors outside the laws and practices that govern the U.S. military?
• What are the financial and political connections between the owners of the large contractors who are subject to this immunity and the Bush administration?

Questions without answers are no way to end this.  But what remains if the Bush Administration refuses to change the way we conduct our nation’s business overseas?  We hope journalists will continue to investigate.

Comment RSS - Trackback URI