CACI Allegedly Targeted For War Crimes

Congress retroactively passed an illegal bill saying contractors cannot be held accountable for prisoner abuses.

Strange, CACI defense contractors might have a problem when it comes to the Geneva Conventions: Nuremburg is precedent for lawfully executing civilian contractors convicted of war crimes. [ Ref ]

* * *


it doesn't matter what excuse Congress gives to not enforce the laws of war; or what rules Congress say do or do not apply.

When US Contractors are acting outside the laws of war, foreign fighters may lawfully target them.

The US cannot define the "relationship" with contractors as purely contractual: The relationship is a legal one: A responsibility on the US government to effectively discipline all US forces acting under the US flag.

Granting Contractors a "free card" means the US is, in effect, an uncontrolled pirate-mercenary army, little different than AlQueda.

When Congress and the President jointly agree to let US forces -- contractors or not -- violate the laws of war, the US government has failed to remain accountable to the Geneva Conventions. The US Government cannot create a contract that, in effect, violates the Geneva Conventions: Fails to regulate combat forces. Calling them contractors is meaningless and an illusory defense.

The US government is the contracting party when it hires contractors. The oversight system ultimately falls back on the US government to ensure combat operations are lawful.

When US contractors arbitrarily use force, foreigners will remember, and can lawfully target US contractors for any reason.

The failure is to not have a credible oversight system and system of justice to lawfully prosecute contractors hired to conduct combat operations.

Nuremburg shows us that Geneva does not recognize "gaps in the law" as a defense to war crimes against civilians.

One argument for the UCMJ was that a specific set of justice was needed. Yet, when combat raged, US force planners had insufficient supporting staff counsel to prosecute war crimes. In effect, because the US government poorly planned the war, it wanted the world to accept that it was poorly prosecuting war crimes.

The problem has blossomed. Not only is a poorly planned war used as an excuse to engage in and not prosecute war crimes, but the distance is used as an excuse to argue the opposite: That the conditions are grave and contractors cannot afford the distraction of judicial oversight, in effect rewarding illegal activity with excuses not to enforce any laws of war as required.

DoJ staff counsel who failed to enforce the Geneva Conventions against US combatants, contractors, and other personnel, could be prosecuted for failing to prevent war crimes, per Article 82.

The US Army has no discretion on whether it does or does not enforce the required Geneva Conventions. These are not "messy" or "distractions" but requirements. By refusing to create laws that regulate all US combatants, the US government has exposed itself to lawful retaliation.

US Flag Officers can be impeached for lying to Congress about what was or was not in the contracts language.

All contractors are presumed to know the law. If they fail to enforce the laws of war, these violations are attached to the planners and leadership, both civilian and military.

Firms which "lobby" to get immunity could be subjected to lawful attack by Foreign Fighters, as permitted under the laws of war. Congress defines the war zone, not the CEO who is contracted to conduct combat operations using a contractor. Congress cannot make a law that retroactively changes the combat zone to something that is small, while actual combat operations are spreading.

The US defense contractor industry needs another Elliot Spitzer, one who is willing to call the CEOs what they are: Alleged war criminals, and ship them and their evidence to The Hague.

The law has been passed. It is the burden of the US government to enforce the law; without enforcement, the US citizens do not have a republic and have been denied a Republican Form of government.

The legal precedent for lawfully executing any and all alleged civilian war criminals is Nuremburg. It is meaningless to say these issues related to civilian involvement in combat operations are not regulated or unprecedented. Civilians, including the President of the United States, can be lawfully executed for failing to follow and enforce the Geneva Conventions.

As long as civilians do not engage in combat, they retain their protected status. When they take up arms, they are bound to the Geneva Conventions, and no contract can immunize them.

You can call it what you like: The laws of war are applicable to all combatants, regardless their military or civilian status.