Something radical has begun in Iraq, but it has flown under the radar of the media and the public. For the first time since 1970, the U.S. Army is court-martialing a civilian; and not an American civilian, but a Canadian civilian. Charged with aggravated assault, this civilian contractor now faces trial by a military jury, in a courtroom presided over by a military judge, and without the benefit of indictment by a Grand Jury. Accountability for the misconduct he engaged in is important, but at what cost?

Battlefield Accountability for Contractors: At What Cost?

By , , Briefing

Something radical has begun in Iraq, but it has flown under the radar of the media and the public. For the first time since 1970, the U.S. Army is court-martialing a civilian; and not an American civilian, but a Canadian civilian. Charged with aggravated assault for attacking another contractor during an altercation, this civilian contractor now faces trial by a military court, with a jury, judge and defense counsel all in uniform, without the benefit of indictment by grand jury, and with a potential federal criminal conviction awaiting him at the end of the process.

To understand why this is a radical change to the status quo, it is necessary to turn the clock back to the end of the conflict in Vietnam. It was then that the highest military criminal appeals court, relying on a Supreme Court decision from 1957 that struck down the use of military courts to try civilian spouses of members of the armed forces, ruled on a challenge to the court-martial conviction of a civilian working with the military in Vietnam. At that time, trying civilians "accompanying the force in the field" in military courts was not unprecedented, and had in fact been used throughout our history to hold civilian contractors to account during times of war. But by 1970, subjecting civilians to military trials -- even civilians working with the military in a combat zone -- was perceived as an unacceptable deviation from the fundamental rights protected by the Constitution. As a result, the court ruled that the deprivation of the right to trial by a jury of peers and indictment by grand jury was so significant that it could be justified only when Congress actually declared war. ...

To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review

Individual
Free Trial

  • TWO WEEKS FREE.
  • Cancel any time.
  • After two weeks, just $18 monthly or $118/year.
subscribe

Institutional
Subscriptions

Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.

request trial

Login

Already a member? Click the button below to login.

login