Defining the Boundaries:
The Use of Private Contractors in Contingency
Operations
American Bar Association
Annual Meeting
August 9, 2008
Contractors on the Battlefield:
What Laws Apply?
Karen L. Manos
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Contractors on the Battlefield:
What Laws Apply?
 Potential Sources of Applicable Law
– Host Nation Laws
– U.S. Laws
– Law of Armed Conflict
3
What Laws Apply?
Host Nation Laws
 Absent a status of forces agreement (SOFA) or
other international agreement specifically
addressing civil and criminal jurisdiction over
contractors, contractors and their employees
are subject to all of the host nation’s laws
– Problematic when host nation government is not
functioning
 Most SOFAs do not address contractors
4
What Laws Apply?
U.S. Laws
 U.S. criminal laws generally do not have extraterritorial effect.
– Most federal criminal laws cover only those offenses committed within
the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States as
defined in 18 U.S.C. § 7
 Both the US War Crimes Act and the federal anti-torture statute
permit the prosecution of crimes committed either by or against US
nationals abroad.
– The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal
offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit grave
breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and specified violations of
Common Article 3 to the conventions, including torture and cruel and
inhumane treatment.
– The federal anti-torture (18 U.S.C. § 2340A) provides for the
prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States
who, while outside the United States, commits or attempts to commit
torture.
 Recent legislation has expanded reach of federal criminal laws.
5
What Laws Apply?
MEJA
 2000: Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (18 U.S.C.
§§ 3261 – 3266)
– Establishes federal criminal jurisdiction over felony-level
offenses committed outside U.S. by DoD civilian employees,
DoD contractors and subcontractors and their employees, and
dependents residing with the foregoing
 2004: National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005
– Redefined MEJA definition of persons “employed by the Armed
Forces outside the U.S” to include employees and
contractors/subcontractors and their employees of any federal
agency or provisional authority whose employment relates to
supporting the DoD mission overseas
– Dependents not included
6
What Laws Apply?
USA PATRIOT Act
 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001
 Expanded definition of “special maritime and territorial
jurisdiction” to include:
– premises of U.S. diplomatic, consular, military or other U.S.
government missions or entities in foreign states; and
– residences in foreign states and land used for purposes of the
missions or entities, or used by U.S. personnel assigned to the
missions or entities
 This was the jurisdictional basis used to convict David
Passaro – a contractor working for the CIA – of assault
for killing a prisoner at Asababad Asababad Base in
Afghanistan in June 2003.
7
What Laws Apply?
UCMJ
 2006: John Warner National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 amended
10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(10)
– “The following persons are subject to this chapter:
– (10) In time of declared war or a contingency
operation, persons serving with or accompanying an
armed force in the field.”
8
What Laws Apply?
Law of Armed Conflict
 LOAC coverage is unclear
 What laws apply?
 What is the status of private security
contractors?
9
What Laws Apply?
Applicability of LOAC
 9/11 attack by non-state actors
 War in Afghanistan produces al Qaida and Taliban
detainees who are captured and transported to
Guantanamo Bay
 Proper legal status for detainees is debated
– Geneva Conventions applicable?
– Prisoners of war?
– Unlawful combatants?
 Scenes at Camp X-Ray stirred allegations of inhumane
treatment, intimations that might makes right, etc.
10
What Laws Apply?
Defining “Armed Conflict”
 International Armed Conflict
– Defined by Common Article (CA) 2 as declared war
or any other armed conflict between two or more
“High Contracting Parties”
 Armed Conflict Not of an International Character
– Conflict that does not meet CA 2 definition
– CA 3 applies
11
What Laws Apply?
Common Article 3
 Applies to “persons taking no active part in hostilities”
– includes members of armed forces who are hors de combat
 Such persons must be treated humanely
 The following acts are prohibited:
– violence to life and person
– taking of hostages
– outrages upon personal dignity
– punishment without judicial process
12
What Laws Apply?
1977 Geneva Protocols
 Protocol I Relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflict
– Signed, but not ratified by U.S.
– Many aspects represent customary international law
 Protocol II Relating to the Protection of Victims
of Non-International Armed Conflicts
13
What Laws Apply?
Protocol I
 Expands CA 2 to include
– “armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against
colonial domination and alien occupation and against
racist regimes in the exercise of their right of selfdetermination”
 U.S. does not agree
14
What Laws Apply?
Status of Private Security Contractors
 Are private security contractors covered by the
Law of Armed Conflict?
 What is their status?
– Are they combatants?
– Are they noncombatants?
– Are they unlawful combatants?
15
What Laws Apply?
POW Status Under Art 4
 To qualify, need four indicia:
– Commanded by a person responsible for
subordinates
– Have fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance
– Must carry arms openly
– Must conduct operations in accordance with the laws
and customs of war
16
What Laws Apply?
Unlawful Combatants
 Persons taking an active part in hostilities, who
are not lawful combatants (i.e., satisfy the 4
criteria) are unlawful combatants
– May be directly targeted
– Not entitled to prisoner of war status
– May be prosecuted as war criminals
17
What Laws Apply?
Peter Singer’s Views
 Private military firms “comprise one remaining industry whose
behavior is not dictated by the rule of law, but by simple
economics.”
 “In fact, the only real sanction available applies not to the firms, but
only to their employees, and only in very limited circumstances. If
individuals working for the firms are captured, they might lose their
rights provided in the general laws of war.”
 “The end result is that the status of PMF’s under international law is
ambiguous in that there are no regimes that exactly define or
regulate them.”
P.W. Singer, War, Profits, and the Vacuum of Law: Privatized Military Firms and
International Law, 42 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 521 (2004)
18
What Laws Apply?
U.S. Obligation to Enforce LOAC
 GC IV, Art. 146: High contracting parties must enact
legislation to provide effective penal sanctions for
persons committing or ordering “grave breaches”
 GC IV, Art 147: Grave breaches are any of the following
acts committed against protected persons or property:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
willful killing
torture or inhuman treatment
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury
unlawful deportation, transfer or confinement
forced conscription in hostile forces
willfully deprivation of rights of fair and regular trial
taking of hostages
extensive destruction and appropriation of property
19
Civil Lawsuits Against Private
Contractors in Contingency
Operations: Available Defenses
Peter H. White
Mayer Brown LLP
Civil Suits vs. Private Contractors:
Available Defenses
Types of Civil Lawsuits Against Contractors
 By Detainees/Civilian Victims
– Political Attack on Iraq War/War Against Terrorism Through Litigation
– Represented by CCR/ACLU
 By Employees of Contractors/Personnel Working Alongside
Contractors
– Right forum?
– Application of civil standards/procedures to war zones? By the
Government
 By the Government
– False Claims Act/Qui tam relators
– Civil/criminal investigations
– Inspectors General
21
Civil Suits vs. Private Contractors:
Available Defenses
Issues Raised by Suits Against Private Contractors
 Sovereign Immunity if Against US/US Officials
– FTCA exceptions (discretionary function, foreign country,
combatant activities, intentional tort)
 Potential Immunity Arguments for Private Contractors
– Shared common-law immunity for discretionary acts by federal
officers
– Government Contractor Defense
– Preemptive effect of combatant activities/foreign country
exceptions
– Derivative Feres immunity for suits by members of military
– Immunity under foreign law
22
Civil Suits vs. Private Contractors:
Available Defenses
Policy Questions/Defenses
 Political Question Doctrine
– Is decision constitutionally committed to Executive Branch?
– Lack of judicially discoverable and manageable standards?
 State Secrets
– Reasonable danger disclosure will expose matters
important to national security
– Cannot be raised by contractor directly
– Requires intervention by DOJ
23
Civil Suits vs. Private Contractors:
Available Defenses
 Civil Suits Against Military Contractors Impose Substantial Costs
– Hinder effectiveness of war effort?
– Hinder government’s ability to control contractors ?
– Raise cost to retain contractors?
 Result in Disputes Resolved in Ill-Equipped Forum?
– Lack of institutional experience/constitutional authority
– Application of civil rules and procedures to battlefield problematic
– Public airing of sensitive information
 Practical Issues
– Conducting Investigation/Discovery in a War Zone
– Scope of Jurisdictional Discovery
– Cultural issues
24
Civil Suits vs. Private Contractors:
Available Defenses
Are Contractors Otherwise Accountable?
 Subject to:
–
–
–
–
–
Detailed government contracts rules and regulations
Direct agency oversight
Suspension/debarment actions
Non-renewal of contracts
Civil suits by US government
 FCA, fraud, non-performance, breach of contract, etc.
– Criminal prosecutions by US government
– Congressional Oversight
 No Essential Right to Compensation in US Courts
– No compensation if injuries caused by government officers
25
Lawsuits Against Private Contractors:
A European Perspective on
Immunities
James MacGuill
President,
Council of the Law Society
of Ireland
Foreign Contractors:
Jurisdiction, Internal Investigations
and Congressional Oversight
David Hammond
Crowell & Moring LLP
Jurisdiction Over Foreign Contractors
 Foreign contractor with no U.S. offices
 U.S. government contracts performed outside of
the United States
 Alleged tort occurred outside the United States
 Is there personal “general” jurisdiction within
any U.S. state or federal district?
28
General Jurisdiction
 Does the forum state’s long-arm statute
authorize jurisdiction?
 Due process analysis
– Minimum contacts in the forum state?
– Does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice
29
General Jurisdiction
 Lessin v. First Kuwaiti Gen. Trading & Contracting Co.,
No. H-05-1953 (S.D. Tex. 2007)
– U.S. soldier injured in Iraq after being stuck in the head by a
truck’s ramp assist arm
– Default judgment
– Motion to vacate under FRCP 60(b)(4)
– Jurisdictional facts:
 Defendant hired by Huston company
 Contract identified Texas law as governing law for disputes
 Dismissed: not sufficient minimum contacts; burden on
the foreign defendant; all evidence and witnesses in Iraq
30
General Jurisdiction
 Baragona v. Kuwait Gulf & Link Transport Co., CA No.:
05-cv-1267(WSD) (N.D. GA)
– U.S. soldier killed in traffic accident in Iraq
– Show cause re jurisdiction
– Alleged jurisdictional facts:
 U.S. government contracts formed between defendant and DoD
entity located at Ft. MacPherson, GA
 Contracts administered from Ft. MacPherson
 Payments from Ft. MacPherson
 Court found “personal jurisdiction”
 Default judgment
 Motion to vacate under FRCP 60(b)(4)
31
General Jurisdiction
 Baragona case currently undergoing narrow
jurisdictional discovery
– Does merely entering a contract with the USG
subject a foreign contractor to jurisdiction of the U.S.
courts?
– Does unilateral action by the USG re where it
administers a contract and pays a foreign contractor
establish sufficient minimum contracts in the US?
32
Practical Issues
 Responsible contractors embrace accountability
 The human condition
– Multiple stressors
– Cultural differences
– Language barriers
33
Practical Issues
 Internal Investigation
– War zone
– Who do you send?
– Prepare a written report?
– Rely on law enforcement report?
– Evidence spoliation
– Controlling events 7,000 miles away
 Communications with injured parties or relatives
of victims (a.k.a., future plaintiffs)
34
Practical Issues
 Congressional oversight
– Plaintiff lawyers request and obtain hearings and
meetings with Members
– Hearings provide aid to the plaintiff and detriment
to the defendant
 Free discovery and discovery before dispositive motions
 Unfavorable forum for defendant
 Public relations and reputation implications
– Committee may issue report of factual findings
before trial
– Parallel civil or criminal proceedings
35
Practical Issues
 Congressional oversight (continued)
– Congress does not recognize the attorney-client
privilege or work product doctrine*
*except in Congressional proceedings
against Members
36
Practical Issues
 United States v. Phillip Morris, Inc., 212 F.R.D.
421 (D.D.C 2002)
– Committee issued subpoena for documents
– Committee chairman threaten to seek contempt
– Phillip Morris produced documents
– Subsequent civil litigation
 PRIVILEGED WAIVED
– Company “failed to make efforts reasonably designed
to protect and preserve the privilege”
37
Practical Issues
 Phillips Morris did not:
– Meet with the Chairman or committee members to voice
concerns
– Request an opportunity to submit arguments on the merits
of the privilege claims to the committee
– Make arguments to the committee as a whole regarding
the merits of the claim
– Obtain a ruling from the Chairman on the privilege claims
– Obtain a vote by the Committee to enforce the subpoena
38
Practical Issues
 How do you prepare the company?
 Plan ahead and think through legal issues
 Create an infrastructure
 Form a rapid response team
– PR, legal, investigators, lobbyists
 Run simulations with the team
 Expect the best from your personnel, but plan
for the worst
39
“Tools in the Toolbox”:
The Government’s Civil and
Administrative Remedies Against
Contractors Performing In War Zones
Ronald A. Schechter
Arnold & Porter LLP
Enforcement Tools:
What Are They?
 Provisions that can put a contractor’s survival as
a business in jeopardy
– Civil False Claims Act
– Suspension & Debarment
– Proposed Mandatory Self-Reporting Regulations
41
Enforcement Tools:
Civil False Claims Act
 Penalizes contractors that knowingly present false or
fraudulent claims for money to the government.
 “Knowingly” broadly defined
– Actual knowledge of the information; or
– Deliberate or reckless disregard of the truth or falsity of the
information.
 Subcontractors can be directly liable for presenting a
false claim to a prime contractor.
 Prime contractor can be responsible for presenting a
subcontractor’s false claim to the government.
42
Enforcement Tools:
Civil False Claims Act
 Why does the government use it?
– Companies can’t go to jail
– Lower burden of proof
– Treble damages and civil penalties
 $12,000 in actual damages = $168,000 in
Civil FCA damages
 Qui Tam/Whistleblower cases
 Cases brought directly by the government
43
Enforcement Tools:
U.S. ex rel. DRC v. Custer Battles LLC
 Qui tam case brought case, arising out of conflict in Iraq,
by subcontractor and former employees of Custer
Battles and the subcontractor
 Contracts were with Coalition Provisional Authority
 Key Rulings
– Only claims for U.S. government funds actionable under FCA
 CPA was “custodian” of Iraqi funds; FCA not applicable to these
funds
– To be actionable, claims had to be presented to U.S.
government official acting in official USG capacity
– CPA not a U.S. government entity; U.S. officials acting in CPA,
not U.S. government, capacity
 JNOV overturned $10 million jury verdict, Court rejected
other claims
44
Enforcement Tools:
False Claims Act Correction Act
 Sen. Grassley “correcting” errors in eight court
cases, including Custer Battles
 “Corrects” definition of “claim”
– U.S. government funds not required
– FCA applies to funds controlled or administered by
USG on behalf of a third party nation
 “Corrects” presentment requirement
– Presentment of false claim to any person, so long as
claims is “regarding government money or property.”
 Various other “corrections”
45
Enforcement Tools:
Suspension & Debarment
 Government will do business only with “presently
responsible” prime and subcontractors
 Suspended/debarred companies cannot receive new
prime or subcontracts/options
– Debarment is for fixed period, up to 3 years
– Suspension is an interim remedy based “adequate evidence,”
pending the completion of investigation or legal proceedings
 Notice of proposed debarment operates as immediate
suspension
46
Enforcement Tools:
Suspension & Debarment
 Grounds for Debarment:
– Conviction or civil judgment for
 Fraud or a criminal offense in connection with obtaining or
performing a government contract or subcontract;
 Embezzlement, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, false
statements, without regard to whether related to a government
contract or subcontract;
– “Serious” violations of the terms of a government contract or
subcontract; or
– “Any other cause of so serious or compelling a nature that it
affects the present responsibility of the contractor or
subcontractor.”
 Grounds for Suspension:
– “Adequate evidence” of any of the above.
47
Enforcement Tools:
Proposed Mandatory Reporting Rules
 In November 2007, the Government proposed a
sweeping rule requiring mandatory self-reporting:
– A contractor must notify the Inspector General and Contracting
Officer if it has reasonable grounds to believe there has been a
violation of Federal criminal law in conjunction with a
government contract or subcontract.
– A contractor can be suspended or debarred for failing to timely
disclose reasonable grounds to believe that there has
overcharging on a government contract or a contract-related
violation of Federal Criminal law.
– Proposed rule contained exemptions for commercial item
contracts and contracts performed exclusively overseas.
48
Enforcement Tools:
Proposed Mandatory Reporting Rules
 On May 18, 2008, the Government dramatically
expanded the scope of the proposed rule:
– Eliminated the exemptions for commercial item
contracts and contracts performed overseas.
– Expanded the mandatory disclosure requirement to
include reasonable grounds to believe that there has
a violation of the civil False Claims Act in conjunction
with a government contract or subcontract.
– Failure to timely disclose such grounds a basis for
suspension or debarment.
49
Enforcement Tools:
Proposed Mandatory Reporting Rules
 On June 30, 2008, the “Close the Contractor Fraud
Loophole Act” was signed into law.
– Apparent response to Nov. 2007 proposed rule.
– “The Federal Acquisition Regulation shall be amended . . . to
include provisions that require timely notification by Federal
contractors of violations of Federal criminal law or overpayments
in connection with the award or performance of covered
contracts or subcontracts, including those performed outside the
United States and those for commercial items.”
 Actual “violations,” rather than “reasonable grounds to
believe” a violation, and including overseas contracts
apparently advertent changes.
 Failure to include civil FCA probably a matter of timing.
50