Trying the civilian contractors in Iraq

Devilstower, over at Daily Kos, gripes about the fact that the government may be seeking to try civilian government contractors in Iraq under military courts martial.

For a political movement called "the right," it's ironic that the thing they hate most would be... rights. In particular, civil rights.

Holding people forever without charge? That's okay by Republicans. Torturing people until they're too crazy to speak in their own defense? To put it in terms the right would understand, "ditto."

So is it any surprise that Republicans would use a spending bill as cover for allowing civilians to be tried in military trials?

Maybe I've got this wrong, but my understanding of the situation is as follows. For years, the Bush administration has been outsourcing the war by using civilian contractors to do the jobs ordinarily done by our troops. This includes providing security for other contractors. Supplying the troops with food and water. And, a whole host of other activities. Heretofore, these civilians have come under no legal restraints, since military law does not apply to them, and there are no civilian authorities in Iraq who have the right to try them for crimes committed there. Further, local prosecutors in the States either have no jurisdiction to try them for crimes committed in Iraq or have no real interest in doing so.

Consequently, many of the contractors have been behaving very badly. There are many stories of contractors shooting wildly into crowds of Iraqis for no apparent reason. It was contractors who committed many of the Abu Ghraib offenses. And on, and on.

The purpose of bringing them under the rule of the military justice system is to provide some control over this. Perhaps it's not the right way to do it. Perhaps it's unconstitutional. But, let's hear some alternative proposals then.

The system right now is broken and needs to be fixed.