Should contractors be under military control?

Question

In a recent article featured by Yahoo!, it was stated that the Iraqi government wanted to expel the private contracting company called 'Blackwater USA'. It also stated that this would deal a crucial blow to the Coalition in its attempt to rebuild the country, due to the fact that Blackwater provided protection for diplomats, engineers, and other personnel. Should these companies be subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice? (UCMJ), and should they be controlled by the military while in supporting roles, or should they be allowed to work freely and take over positions previously held by the US Military?

Answer 1

Well heres a secret for ya,

Reporters can be wrong.

All Contractors hired by the US Government or by US Corporations are under the UCMJ.

They have been since 2006.

When the FY 2007 Military Authorization Act was passed.

Don't believe everything you see a reporter report.

Answer 2

Holding private security firms to the UCMJ is not possible. It seems like it would simplify things, but the UCMJ ties into international law, to include the Geneva convention and laws of land warfare. These international laws apply specifically to the uniformed military forces of sovereign nations. Therefore, private citizens who operate as contractors to the government cannot qualify for the protections these laws provide. It's is because of these protections that soldiers are not tried for murder when they kill the enemy, or accidentally kill a non-combatant (civilian).

As far as having security contractors controlled by the military... I'm not sure that's any safer than having them run around on their own. There are laws that govern when these contractors can use deadly force, and these laws are different than the rules of engagement that soldier and marines operate under. Iraq had agreed to laws that would hold Blackwater blameless when they followed these regulations, but the Iraqi govt has changed it's mind due to a combination of political opportunity, and Blackwater's history of being a little quick to pull the trigger.

If you put these forces under military control, you'd have two glaring problems. First, most military commanders are not well versed in the rules these contractors must fight by. These commanders would likely feel that they'd been gifted with highly skilled warriors that would not be subject to the same oversights that soldiers deal with. This would lead to more troublesome incidents, not fewer. Secondly, since these contractors have not sworn the oaths that enlisted men and officers have, they would not be legally bound to follow the orders given them by the military commanders they came under. This lack of unity of command would lead to a bunch of highly paid former commandos playing video games all day because they refuse to work for the commanders.

Answer 3

Not military so no UCMJ control but some sort of US federal control for being held responsible for their actions ( not necessarily held or charged as criminal for actions during un-provoked attacks against their assignments). There are a lot of other PMCs that subject their employees to self-governed control through the company own investigations and company instituted rules.

Vet-USAF

Answer 4

If Iraq wants to expel a particular company, they should be allowed to do so. Another company can take its place. No, I do not think that companies be subject to Military Justice. They ain't in the military. However, there is no reason why the military cannot direct them while in Iraq during rebuilding.

Answer 5

Absolutely not. Then we couldn't use them for missions that are against the Geneva Convention

Answer 6

That is a foriegn land and should be treated as such. They should abide by there laws.