View previous stories
	Ending a Culture of Impunity for Contract Soldiers by Scott Horton Harpers Magazine / Human Rights First   Jan 2008   “These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There’s no authority over them, so you can’t come down on them hard when they escalate force. . . They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath.” – Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, 3rd Infantry Div., USA, July 2005.   Human Rights First has recently released a report “Private Security Contractors at War: Ending the Culture of Impunity”, which I helped write and edit.   The report’s focus is not on the misdeeds of private military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rather it focuses on the United States Government, and particularly the Department of Justice. The Bush Administration has crafted a culture of impunity for contractors in Iraq. This can be seen in a number of acts and in a policy of official indifference towards violent crime involving contractors.   The victims of this policy are Iraqi civilians, coalition military, and members of the contractor force themselves. As a senior general in Iraq recently told one of my colleagues: “The three biggest threats faced by American soldiers in Iraq are IEDs, al Qaeda fighters, and unaccountable contractors.” Repeated hearings and demands for action from Congress are ignored by the Justice Department.   In the spring of 2006, I was asked by a major broadcaster for some advice in connection with a reporter who had gotten into some trouble. In this connection, I spent several weeks in Baghdad, living and working in the “red zone,” and had an opportunity to witness things first hand and to talk with a number of Iraqis and U.S. military figures about conditions.   One of the things that struck me immediately was the high profile role played by private military contractors. Iraqi reporters and staff all seemed to have a story to tell about some unpleasant interaction with security contractors; usually it involved the discharge of firearms, and often it ended with damage to property, a casualty or even the death of a loved-one.   Did you report this incident to the authorities, I asked? I was quickly introduced to the principal of unaccountability. It was impossible to identify the actors, they said. They drive around in unmarked white Toyota SUVs without license plates—we have no idea who they are. And when complaints were lodged, they went into the circular file, because no one had responsibility for investigating and acting on them.   When I spoke with U.S. military, I heard complaints too.   I particularly remember speaking with a young Marine captain, who referred to contractors as “jackasses with guns.” “When my soldiers discharge a firearm outside of open hostilities, there’s an incident report and we look into it. But when contractors use their firearms, there’s no accounting for it.”   Now calling contractors “jackasses with guns” is very harsh language. It’s important to put this into context. The vast majority of contractors serving in Iraq are conscientious, dedicated professionals who serve effectively and courageously under difficult circumstances. They aren’t devils. But they’re not angels either. The purpose of this report is to ask whether the U.S. Government and specifically the Department of Justice is fulfilling one of its core functions—law enforcement with respect to violent crimes.   Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has dramatically changed the configuration of the force it fields in a theater of war.   There has been a dramatic shift to reliance on contractors, and in the current setting the U.S. uses about 160,000 uniformed soldiers in Iraq, but about 180,000 contractors.   The point here is to point to the fact that our accountability system doesn’t follow the configuration.   The accountability system focuses on the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the court-martial system. In the current war, roughly 60 cases have been opened in which a soldier is implicated in a wrongful homicide.   Now let’s compare this with the situation governing contractors. The number is zero. No cases have been brought. Ask yourself whether it’s plausible that with a contractor population of 180,000 over a period of five years, there could be zero prosecutable violent crimes?   And even if we consider only the Americans within this total—20 to 30,000 people on a steady basis, though the actual number is much higher because the contractors cycle in and out on a regular basis—still this figure is impossible. It reflects an official policy of indifference.   A few years ago, Secretary Rumsfeld was asked by a bright graduate student at Johns Hopkins how contractors were being held to account for violent conduct in Iraq? He responded that it was “the contractor’s responsibility.” Now, in a certain sense of course contractors have to account internally and to their contract officer.   But Rumsfeld was dead wrong. Contractors are not responsible for enforcing the criminal law. That’s the responsibility of Government.   A few weeks ago, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, grappling with the controversy surrounding the Nisoor Square incident on September 16, 2006, explained that there was a “gap in the law” and that as a result contractors could not be held to account.   That statement was profoundly irresponsible. The conditions of immunity didn’t just fall from the sky. They resulted from carefully considered policies of the Bush Administration—starting with the decision to issue CPA Order No. 17, granting immunity to expat contractors in Iraq.   We are saying, the U.S. Government–and specifically the Department of Justice–assumed a heightened responsibility to provide for accountability in the form of law enforcement for violent crimes.   As the report shows, the law provides numerous tools that prosecutors can use to hold contractors to account. The problem is not the law. The problem is that the Department of Justice has gone AWOL, that it is ignoring its core responsibility for law enforcement with respect to violent crime.   There may well be a number of legislative “fixes” that are appropriate. But we would be deceiving ourselves if we were to place the blame for the current problem on Congress. It belongs squarely at the doorstep of an agency which is shirking its responsibilities, the Department of Justice.   * Visit the link below to access the Human Rights First Report. Visit the related web page
	Iran''s use of extreme punishments deepens concern for situation of human rights by Omid Memarian Inter Press Service   Jan 2008   Iran''s recent use of extreme punishments such as amputations and public executions has deepened concerns about the situation of human rights amid the strict enforcement of Islamic law, which has worsened since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad''s hardliner government came to power in June 2005.   "We''ve been concerned about the rise in executions in Iran in the past year, and we are very alarmed to learn about the recent case of amputations, which are a particularly cruel and brutal form of punishment," said a specialist on Iran at the New York-based Human Rights Watch, who preferred not to be named.   Just last week in southern Iran, the right hands and left feet of five convicted robbers were amputated. The government argues that such severe sentences act as a deterrent, although no correlation between these unpopular punishments and a decrease in crime has been proven.   Iranian human rights activists have vigourously protested the new wave of state-sanctioned violence. However, the government has largely ignored domestic and international objections.   On Nov. 20, 2007, the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning Iran''s human rights record and calling upon the Iranian government to eliminate all such cruel practices. The resolution was adopted by 72 votes in favour, with 50 against and 55 abstentions.   In its resolution, the General Assembly expressed "its very serious concern" at a range of egregious human rights violations, including torture, flogging, amputations, public executions, stoning, execution of minors, and violent repression of women.   "These rulings show a digression of the situation with human rights in Iran," Shirin Ebadi, winner of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, told IPS in a telephone interview from Tehran.   "I would like to remind all that such laws and options to exercise such sentences were approved after the Islamic Revolution," she said, adding that, "We have repeatedly asked for a review of Iranian Penal Code. Unfortunately there has been no reaction from the authorities to change those laws."   Judicial officials have rarely publicised these sentences because of their unpopular nature. But the more the government insists on expanding the use of Islamic law in Iranian social life, the more radical elements within the judiciary feel free to carry out such punishments. The government argues that human rights is a domestic issue and has nothing to do with other countries and organisations.   But activists disagree. "Human rights is an international matter which transcends borders," said Ebadi. "Just as the Iranian government feels justified to express opinions about human rights violations in Palestine and in other countries, other people of the world are also justified in expressing their opinions about human rights violations in Iran."   Many observers in Tehran believe that the expanded use of unusually harsh punishments should be seen in the larger perspective of Iran''s political structure, which is facing social, political and economic crises.   "The current government fully believes in the Islamic teaching of ''leading by fear.'' They are also afraid of a velvet revolution," said Issa Saharkhiz, a prominent journalist and political analyst, in a phone interview from Tehran. "The government thinks that only through establishment of a state of fear, political oppression, and limitations on publications and cultural activities can it overcome the increasing dissatisfaction, ensuring and extending its own existence."   "This thinking explains the heavy and violent sentences, such as an increase in imprisonment verdicts, heavy bails, prison terms for political, journalist, and activist prisoners, sometimes adding floggings to their sentences, and in the case of ordinary convicts, stoning sentences and most recently, ''death by hauling from height''," added Saharkhiz. "We can conclude that fearing eruption of unrest and uncontrollable protests due to increasing dissatisfaction, the political decision has been to intimidate."   "President Ahmadinejad''s cabinet''s structure suggested a change in policy and strategy from the beginning, but no one could predict the extent," he said. "This is why many political activists raised concerns about the emergence of an military intelligence environment during the presidential elections, encouraging everyone to vote. This call to vote was not received well by people due to widespread disappointment among civil society activists, urban voters, middle class voters, and those supporting protest elections boycott."   Asieh Amini, a women''s rights activist and a member of the Stop Stoning Forever Campaign in Tehran, told IPS, "I believe institutionalised violence promotes violence amongst the citizens, especially among those who are stronger against those who are weaker."   "When I look at events of the past year, I see an overall increase in violence in the society, not limited to ordinary citizens," said Amini. "Part of these violent events takes place in the hands of government, such as an increase in the number of executions of individuals below the age of 18."   "The same is true of confrontations taking place on the streets, physical violence against civil society activists, students, workers, teachers, and especially women activists who are expressing their demands within legal frameworks, facing extremely violent public treatment," she said.   Iran hanged more than 298 people in 2007, a large increase compared to the 177 hangings in 2006.   In a report released on Jan. 7, Human Rights Watch condemned the Iranian government for relying on broadly worded "security laws" to suppress virtually any public expression of dissent.   The 51-page report, "You can Detain Anyone for Anything'': Iran''s Broadening Clampdown on Independent Activism," documents the expansion in scope and number of the individuals and activities persecuted by the Iranian government over the last two years.   * Omid Memarian is a peace fellow at the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley. He has won several awards, including Human Rights Watch''s highest honour in 2005, the Human Rights Defender Award.
	View more stories