I get what you’re saying. it appears the loophole for criminal prosecution is one of law, in that jurisdiction is not conferred for such a prosecution by any statute.
Dean John Hutson of the Franklin Pierce Law Center: The way the law presently stands I would say that they dont have, at least in the criminal system, the opportunity for justice. ...See, he states it is the law, not the contract that creates the loophole for avoiding criminal prosecution.
The civil litigation “loophole” is governed by the contract, which limits her legal recourse to arbitration and does not authorize a jury trial for monetary damages.
Frankenschmuck’s bill does not seem to address the criminal jurisdiction issue- it just states that federal funding will not be given to contractors who have contracts that limit access to the “courts”. She is trying to get past the arbitration provision, which is a civil remedy.
Now, if the bill also stated that the parties to a defense contract must stipulate to US criminal court jurisdiction of any contractor who breaks US criminal laws, then he would have accomplished something worthwhile.
Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, mind if I ask your take on this?
“(b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.”
I agree with you there. Certainly, such crimes should be tried in US courts-not Iraqi or Afghani courts.