Replies

The point that you deftly avoid addressing is the legal system is not adequately covering contractors working overseas.

That's the opinion of some. Contractors occupy an interesting niche. Many of them are US citizens, many of them are not. Those who are US citizens are clearly not on US soil, but on the soil of another sovereign nation, the Republic of Iraq. Yet the Republic of Iraq does not claim legal jurisdiction over them. The US military does not exercise jurisdiction over civilians.

So since the military can't exercise jurisdiction over them, since Iraq won't and since no civilian US jurisidiction covers them, they have arbitration agreements in place instead.

If you want the US citizen contractors governed by US law it will require a major act of Congress with Constitutional implications. And if you want non-US citizen contractors governed by US law you are going to need the agreement of their respective countries.

Your strawman mischaracterization of my position about wanting to treat them unfairly is just that.

You need to reexamine your understanding of the term "strawman." Unless you really believe that calling people mercenaries and adjudging them guilty of rape without trial is treating people "fairly."

I look forward to your next confabulation.

It is no fable that you called contractors "mercenaries." It really happened, I assure you. There is a thread history to prove it.

So since the military can't exercise jurisdiction over them, since Iraq won't and since no civilian US jurisidiction covers them, they have arbitration agreements in place instead.

Arbitration agreements are hardly adequate to deter potential criminal conduct. Iraq's non-jurisdiction was rammed down their throat--that is probably the central problem that would be remedied if the normal Iraqi government sovereignty were in place. I.e. if a contractor civilian of any nationality commits a crime in Japan or Germany or even (gasp) Iran, they are subject to prosecution in those countries.

Unless you really believe that calling people mercenaries and adjudging them guilty of rape without trial is treating people "fairly."

Nowhere did I propose that people not be given trials. My point is about the principles of the situation, whereby contractors have a legal loophole in being invulnerable to prosecution by both Iraqi and US law.

It is no fable that you called contractors "mercenaries." It really happened, I assure you. There is a thread history to prove it.

Yes, he certainly did and I saw it as well. And I have seen no retraction or apology.

Usually people who call others "mercenaries" are people who are bitter losers who work full-time at Taco Bell or Starbucks.

But it's everybody else's fault that they can't attain anything loftier than that, eh, Deathmonger?

Signed,
Allegra
NOT a Mercenary