Linda Lowen reports the distressing story of Jamie Leigh Jones, 20, who was reportedly raped by co-workers in 2005; to date, nothing has happened to the men involved. Even worse, the Army rape kit -- which contained semen from "multiple uknown men" -- was lost "after Army investigators turned it over to KBR officials."
Justice Seekers adds more: the Halliburton/KBR human resources officer said that "Halliburton/KBR permitted or encouraged a 'sexually lawless environment' and uses arbitration as a means to 'circle the wagons' to protect their financial interests, rather than fairly treat their employees."
This is the latest Iraqi contractor indicident involving employee actions which would be criminal had they happened on US soil.
At least 14 of the civilians killed by Blackwater contractors in September were unjustified shootings that "violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case." An earlier military review panel found all 17 deaths unjustified.
But in the vague legal climate created by our government-written contracts -- and our government's wordsmithing of Iraqi law -- these men will probably never face a jury.
The Jones case differs in that the victim is a US citizen, not an Iraqi. However, the contractor reactions seem to be taken from the same playbook: both are sheltering the men accused of criminal behavior.
Halliburton/KBR is arguing that Jones must submit to "mandatory binding arbitration," based upon language in her employment contract.
And according to Pierre Tristam, "private security contractors [like Blackwater] could not be tried by Iraqi courts if they were involved in a shooting incident in the course of fulfilling their contractual obligations."
Should criminal acts in Iraq that are committed by, or against, US citizens in Iraq be exempt from US criminal law? What example does the US government want to show the rest of the world? What is the role of Congress in the Halliburton/KBR and Blackwater cases?
Comments
I’d be cautious of rushing to judgment on any of this. In many, perhaps most, of the high-profile cases reported in the press over the last year or two, the actual facts have eventually proven to be far different from what was initially breathlessly portrayed. Think Duke Lacrosse, Haditha, a number of fictional “Massacres” in Iraq . . . etc. This is particularly true when there’s money & political hay to be made by pushing one side’s narrative.
Whats to be expected from a war based on lies between oil revenues and murder for hire lies our blood thirsty republicans rape is of their least worries she is only another american after all,or does anybody really believe halliburton or bush really care he was pretty blunt about how he does not have to answer to anybody in this administration .
Tino: That was either (1)brilliant satire mocking foaming-at-the-mouth leftists, or (2) one of the least coherent I’ve read in the past couple of weeks.
Hi, Fred:
You and I must have different definitions for the word “rush.”
The Jones case is two years old. The fact that Halliburton “lost” the rape kit *has* to be viewed with a jaundiced eye. Why did the Army dispatch this evidence to Halliburton, anyway?
RE Blackwater, there is no “rush” going one. The FBI and the US military have *separately* determined that Blackwater contractors committed “unjustified” and “possibly criminal” killings in Iraq. Neither institution is particularly *liberal* and no one in either institution runs for election (unlike DAs).
Please, show me the “rush” to judgment.
Tino, I’d prefer that people stay on topic with comments, so that the commentary is *relevant* and conducive to productive discussion. Flames and rants are, usually, neither.
Since this only came to light recently, and your blog jumping on board the hate anything military wagon, I think it’s appropriate to say you’re rushing to convict KBR/Halliburton. All part of the plan aint it Kathy?
There seems to be a history of the left coming at people they deem unsavory and convicting them before all the facts are known. Just look at what Mitchell did to dozens of baseball players with no proof. A presumption of guilt certainly isn’t very constitutional now is it?
C
I think nobody hier – egal leftie or rightie – want to decide and to declare, in which cases who is guilty or not guilty.
In one democracy, We just accept – egal lefties or righties – the judgment – of an independent judge if the events comes as far as that.
But sometimes the events dont reach the judge…
The death of one or more persons is a reason for one presumption/suspiction. This is not a prejudice. In civil life
the police makes so too. If you kill somebody, this is enought suspiction for making an inspection, for purpose to decide are you guilty or not.
If there is a suspiction, hier you are the suspect. After the inspection comes the judicial process. Hier are you the
accused. An hier you have right for legar representative, for legal remedy, ecc. And hier will you be happy about
“principle of division of power” and about independent judgment, that the organisation for inspection and the
organisation for judgment are not the same.
Only after, if a Judge founded you guilty, are you declared guilty, and must you be punished.
This is the full legal process to decide, if is somebody – after one suspiction – real guilty or not.
The problem is, that in some case the goverment has presuption of guilty, and without making the rest of the above
described complete legal proces, he self declares some people guilty. In this cases the suspects are mostly not
american citizens.
In other cases if one suspiction emerge, – and death of one or more persons is a reason for that – the above described complete legal process does not go from begin to end – and god know why. In this cases the suspects are mostly people of goverment, or in contract with goverment.
And so the problem is not that somebody between us – egal leftie or rigtie – will say who is guilty who is not, however the problem is that we – egal lefties or righties – dont see a legal process from begining at the end, and at the end an independent judge with his independent judgment.
If were so, I think we were satisfied, – egal lefties or righties – of course.
Ah, I see, Chuck. I’m not supposed to write about anything controversial when it’s ‘new’, is that it?
Look, Halliburton/KBR is not arguing that Jones was not gang raped. It’s arguing that she doesn’t have a right to have her case heard in COURT.
Do you have a problem with her case being heard by a jury? Do you have a problem holding US citizens accountable to US law, despite the fact that they are “contractors” working in Iraq?
THOSE are the questions I’ve raised here. Not whether or not the rape accusation is valid.
This explains all of Dick Cheneys secret trips to Iraq!
Ms Gill’s words:
” i don’t normally write about “crime” (we have a crime guide here at about).”
What does this crime have to do with Washington politics? Women are being raped all over the country, why this one? I look forward to your spin.
C
DUH!
“Jones’ congressman, Ted Poe, R-Texas, also testified at the hearing and told the committee how he has not been given any answers as to the status of the investigation by DOJ or the State Department.
“The Department of Justice has not informed Jamie or me of the status of a criminal investigation against her rapist if any investigation exists,” Poe said today. “It is interesting to note that the Department of Justice has thousands of lawyers but not one from the barrage of lawyers is here to tell us what if anything they are doing. Their absence and silence speaks volumes about the hidden crimes in Iraq. Their attitude seems to be one of blissful indifference to American workers in Iraq,” said Poe.
Jones told Congress that it wasn’t until after she was interviewed by “20/20,” that an assistant U.S. attorney in Florida questioned her about her case.”
Walt,
“Egal” is not a word FYI. I don’t get it again?
C
egal
One entry found.
egal
Main Entry: egal
Pronunciation: \ˈē-gəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin aequalis
Date: 14th century
obsolete : equal
Are you a perp? I think so!
Hello chuck.
Thanks for comment.
Really I dont use the word egal correct. Is is from origin as you described. The german form is “egal” instead of equal
and because german is a strong language in Europe, the word is used in other languages as slang.
I has two means:
1. equal to, same to
2. it is all the same, it does not matter…
So if I said egal leftie or rightie, I meaned: This things are “egual” important for lefties and righties,
this things are important for everybody, it does not matter he is leftie or rightie.
I heard, that it is possible to learn the well-formed expression, only from born american.
And hier ask you for your help. I never meet simile means, expressed well-formed.
What were if you – instead of “you lefties” – will use the expression what i need to learn.
So simile:
This is a democratic value for us, it does not matter who is leftie and who is rightie.
or
This is an equal democratic value for lefties and righties.
But not so gramatically fals, however well-formed.
Only in purpose to teach a good english to me, of course.
————————————–
Let me answer an other your ask.
You wrote:
“Women are being raped all over the country, why this one?”
I think all crimes are a tragedy. But in mostly-mostly cases – America is a democratic country – the process of
suspiction – investigation – judicature, goes on his own way. From begining at the end.
The public must give a signal, if he thinks, in some case, the needed judicial process goes not well. This is his right and his obligation.
If you knows about other cases, where you think, maybe it would there to be a problem, please speak about.
Thanks.
Walt,
You missed the point. The point is, why is a political blog concerned with a crime committed thousands of miles away? It has no place here except to further the author’s agenda of demonizing companies associated with the war in Iraq.
Simile = similar???
C
Hello Chuck!
Simile? similar? Yes I, see now:
simile is a substantive, similar is adjective, yes I mean similar, thanks for correction!
A suspect of terroristic act in USA would be a crime, with his own suspiction – investigation – judicature process.
Hier are you right.
But suspects of terroristic acts in foreign countries is a big part of foreign affairs of USA. Resolutions in UN, war in Iraq and Afganistan, UK for war , Germany in opposition of war, many declarations of politicians about gitmo and human rights, and about others … Yes you are a very very good observer … you have right, really a crime in one or more foreign countries is politics.
Othervise in one free democracy the citizen can express an opinion on all things. We can express our opinion on administration of justice and nobody will say that we are not jurist…we can express our opinion on environmetal protection, on finance …ecc
That is our civil right.
you said “demonizing”. This seems to me to be an international word as “equal”, but i had an error already with “equal”, so it is better to ask you what you exact mean…
“The left’s hatred of any and all things military almost always illicits a negative response”
Is the “demonizing” something similar?
By
egal
One entry found.
….
Are you a perp? I think so!
Comment by bw —
Hello bw!
I concentrated on Chuck, now I see that this is your comment.
Perp? I am a hungarian from Budapest with bad english. The world is small…
Demon= evil
Demonizing = making someone or thing appear to be evil.
Merry Christmas Walt
C
Hello Chuck!
No, we are not making someone or thing appear to be evil. Especially not at Christmas.
Merry Christmas to you too, Chuck.
By
language correction:
(oh, the english language…)
Hello Chuck!
No, we dont making someone or thing appear to be evil. Especially not at Christmas.
Merry Christmas to you too, Chuck.
By
Any US Military base anywhere is considered US soil and therefore, US laws apply…
Walt,
The first version #(19) was correct. #(20) is very incorrect. FYI
C
Thanks Chuck!
I was to speedy to correct the first version without “rethinking”
by