-->> Sellten so gelacht seit dem letzten Einfuhrungsbeitrag zu Deutschland sucht den Superstar - amerikanische Variante.
Ich hab dir zuliebe mal die Quellen der Quellen durchsucht.- Ist evtl etwas aufgebauscht in der Pravda, aber im Kern richtig:
http://www.spokesmanreview.com/tools/story_pf.asp?ID=169224
<div style="width:8cm; text-align:justify"><h2>Law subjects civilians to military trials </h2><h4 class='deck'>Provision targets war contractors</h4><p class='byline'>Griff Witte<br />Washington Post<br />January 15, 2007
WASHINGTON - Private contractors and other civilians serving with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are subject for the first time to military courts-martial under a new federal provision that legal scholars say is almost certain to spark constitutional challenges.
The provision, which was slipped into a spending bill at the end of the last Congress, is intended to close a long-standing loophole that critics say puts contractors in war zones above the law. But the provision also could affect others accompanying U.S. forces in the field, including civilian government employees and embedded journalists.
<table align='left'><tr><td></td></tr></table>The Pentagon has estimated there are 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, doing such jobs as serving meals, guarding convoys and interrogating prisoners. Critics have long complained that, unlike soldiers, contractors are rarely prosecuted for their actions, even after evidence surfaced that contractors mistreated prisoners or fired on U.S. troops.
"Right now, you have two different standards for people doing the same job," said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who pushed the provision."This will bring uniformity to the commander's ability to control the behavior of people representing our country."
Graham, an Air Force Reserve lawyer, said the change will help morale in the field."If the troops see someone getting away with something that hurts the overall mission, that is a morale buster," he said.
Under military law, known as the Uniform Code of Military Justice, commanders have wide latitude in deciding who should be prosecuted.
Legal experts say that latitude is one reason why attempting to hold civilians to the same standards as U.S. troops could be a messy process. It is also likely to raise constitutional challenges: Civilians prosecuted in military court don't receive a grand jury hearing and are ultimately tried by members of the military, rather than by a jury of their peers. The Supreme Court has struck down civilian convictions under military law, and no conviction of a civilian under the UCMJ has been upheld in more than half a century.
"The Supreme Court has been quite hostile to trying civilians in a court martial," said Eugene Fidell, president of the National Institute of Military Justice."On the other hand, the military justice system is more robust and has more protections in it than it did back in the 1950s."
One additional complication lies in determining to whom the new provision applies. Graham said the change was aimed solely at holding contractors accountable. But legal observers say it could be interpreted broadly to include employees with other government agencies, as well as reporters.
"One could imagine a situation in which a commander is unhappy with what a reporter is writing and could use the UCMJ to pressure the reporter," said Phillip Carter, a contracting lawyer with McKenna Long & Aldridge.
Christopher Anders, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said he understands the desire to hold contractors accountable but thinks the legislation was crafted so broadly that it could have negative consequences.
The Pentagon is still developing guidance on how the new provision will be used.
Contractors have voiced strong opposition to the change. They say that while they support accountability, the use of military law makes the legal framework for private contractors in the field even more muddled. They also have decried the way the change occurred.
"This looks good on the surface, but it creates far more problems than it solves," said Stan Soloway, president of the Professional Services Council, a trade group that represents contractors.
Allegations of contractor involvement in detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib were referred to federal prosecutors in 2004, but there have been no indictments. Late last year, two former employees of a private security firm in Iraq filed suit, alleging a superior had shot at civilians without provocation. There, too, no charges have been filed. There have also been several unconfirmed reports of contractors firing at U.S. forces.
</div>
|
Thread-Ansicht
Board-Ansicht
Thread gesperrt
