U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

47–686 PDF 2009

S. HRG. 110–744 

CLOSING LEGAL LOOPHOLES: 

PROSECUTING SEXUAL ASSAULTS 

AND OTHER VIOLENT CRIMES COMMITTED 

OVERSEAS BY AMERICAN CIVILIANS 

IN A COMBAT ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS 

AND ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 9, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: 

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana 

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska 

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Staff Director 

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS AND 

ORGANIZATIONS, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

BILL NELSON, Florida, Chairman 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Feingold, Hon. Russell D., U.S. Senator From Wisconsin .................................... 40 

Fidell, Eugene R., Esq., President, National Institute of Military Justice and 

senior partner, Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell, LLP, Washington, DC, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 26 

Kineston, Mary Beth, former KBR contractor, Camp Anaconda, Balad, Iraq, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 3 

Leamon, Dawn, former KBR contractor, Camp Harper, Basrah, Iraq, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 11 

Mandelker, Hon. Sigal P., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, prepared statement ................ 41 

Nelson, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator From Florida ....................................................... 1 

Reed, Robert, Associate Deputy General Counsel, Military Justice and Personnel Policy, Office of The General Counsel, Department of Defense, Washington, DC, prepared statement ......................................................................... 34 

Starr, Gregory B., Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, 

and Acting Director of the Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State, 

Washington, DC, prepared statement ................................................................ 31 

Wiegmann, John B., Assistant Legal Advisor For Management, Department 

of State, Washington, DC, prepared statement ................................................. 48 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Response to An Additional Question Submitted for the Record to Acting 

Assistant Secretary Gregory Starr by Senator Feingold .................................. 56 

Responses to Additional Questions Submitted for the Record to Robert Reed, 

Associate Deputy General Counsel, Military Justice and Personnel Policy, 

Office of the General Counsel, Department of Defense, by Senator Feingold 57 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator From Illinois .......... 61 

Prepared Statement of Jamie Leigh Jones ............................................................ 61 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Ted Poe, U.S. Representative From Texas ............ 67 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Louise M. Slaughter, U.S. Representative From 

New York .............................................................................................................. 67 

(III)

(1) 

CLOSING LEGAL LOOPHOLES: PROSECUTING 

SEXUAL ASSAULTS AND OTHER VIOLENT 

CRIMES COMMITTED OVERSEAS BY 

AMERICAN CIVILIANS IN 

A COMBAT ENVIRONMENT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 9, 2008 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL

OPERATIONS AND ORGANIZATIONS, 

DEMOCRACY, AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:33 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Bill Nelson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Nelson and Feingold. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL NELSON, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM FLORIDA 

Senator BILL NELSON. Good morning. We are having a hearing 

of the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

We want to take this opportunity to hear some witnesses that 

can bring to light a number of circumstances that are occurring, 

and we are very pleased to have witnesses from the Department 

of Justice, the Department of State, and the Department of Defense 

here, as well, so that they can lend their expertise to the circumstances that we find ourselves in, in order to determine an outcome of whether or not the law, in fact, is being obeyed, and, if not, 

what to do about it, or, if the law does not, in fact, cover some of 

these circumstances, should there be an additional law. 

So, let me begin by recalling some stories that have been found 

on the newspaper pages recently. 

One involves a Texas woman who was working as a civilian contractor in Iraq about 2 years ago. She was drugged, she was gangraped, and it was gang-rape by coworkers. She was held against 

her will in a storage locker. And yet, her assailant remains free. 

Another story involves a woman from my State of Florida. She 

worked in Iraq for the same American company, and she also reported that she was sexually assaulted by a male coworker, and he 

wasn’t charged either. 

More recently, just a couple of months ago, a Midwestern 

woman, working for the same employer, reported that she was 

2 

gang-raped by a coworker and a soldier at a U.S. base in Iraq, and 

her bosses, she says, discouraged her from reporting the assault. 

And the latter, more recent case is among our witnesses who will 

testify today to help bring into sharper focus the problem of sexual 

assaults against American women working in Iraq and Afghanistan 

and the question about their ability to find justice. 

Since last December, this subcommittee has been in contact with 

the Departments of Defense, State, and Justice, trying to ascertain 

the scope of this problem. And I’ve asked for the number of sexual 

assaults that have been reported to these departments. I’ve asked 

for an explanation of the policies in place to respond effectively to 

the allegations of sexual assault. And I’ve asked what steps the respective Departments are taking to ensure the full investigation 

and prosecution of these cases. And, although the Departments 

have, on the whole, certainly cooperated with my request, I think 

we have to paint the full picture of the number of sexual assaults 

perpetrated against these American contractors. And I don’t believe 

that the respective Departments have clear policies in place to address the crimes committed by and against American contractors 

working alongside our troops. 

We have an unprecedented number of contractors posted in war 

zones, and if they are victimized by their colleagues or by soldiers, 

then the concern of this committee is that they will end up in legal 

limbo. For example, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response 

Office of the Department of Defense says it is not even aware of 

the procedures that the military criminal investigative services 

would take if they encountered a civilian sexual assault or harassment case, except for referring the victim to medical treatment. 

Now, that’s disturbing. We’ve got a law. As a matter of fact, we’ve 

got three laws on the books. We have procedures. And it needs to 

be clearly understood by the Departments what the procedures are 

and what actions should be taken. 

And that’s the whole purpose of this hearing, in our oversight 

role of the legislative branch overseeing the executive branch. 

Now, one of the other things we’re going to look into is what appears to me to be an apparent lack of determination or desire on 

the part of the Justice Department to seek criminal prosecution of 

these crimes, when, in fact, the laws on the books that gives the 

Justice Department that authority. 

And I’m told that, together, the Departments of State and Defense have referred numerous cases to the Justice Department, but, 

to this day, not a single one of these cases has been prosecuted. 

And it’s certainly not that there are no legal mechanisms in place 

because there are. On the contrary, the Justice Department possesses the ability to prosecute such cases under the Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, M-E-J-A, MEJA. And that was 

passed into law in the year 2000. This law provides that persons 

employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces overseas may be 

prosecuted for any offense that would be punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year. The law’s on the books, ‘‘employed by 

or accompanying the Armed Forces,’’ overseas may be prosecuted 

for any offense that would be punishable by a year or more. That’s 

the law. 

3 

I am deeply concerned with the Justice Department’s limited use 

of this law. And we’re going to explore that today. I’ve asked the 

Department to address the adequacy or inadequacy of the existing 

legal authorities and policies; and if there’s something inadequate, 

we need to know about it and correct it. 

In the absence of criminal charges, the only option for these victims is the civil system. But, in the few cases that have come to 

light, the victims’ employers have moved to be heard in private arbitration; and, under this system, the victims’ stories never see the 

light of day. There’s no jury, there’s no public record. And so, the 

bottom line is, American women working in Iraq and Afghanistan 

continue to be sexually assaulted while their assailants go free. 

This injustice results simply because these crimes happen abroad 

within the theaters of operation of our Armed Forces. 

Now, when similar crimes are committed anywhere within the 

United States, on or off a permanent U.S. military base or at one 

of our embassies overseas, the authority and responsibility to prosecute is clear. Any legal loopholes that strip American citizens of 

their access to justice have to be closed. And the Departments involved—State, Defense, Justice—we need to come to terms and put 

policies and procedures in place to ensure the close coordination 

and cooperation. And hopefully that’s what we’re going to try to get 

at today. 

And so, what I’ve asked is, I’ve asked the second panel to start 

first. And this is because I wanted to set the table—we have an expert on the law, Mr. Fidell—am I pronouncing that right? 

Mr. FIDELL. I prefer Fidell. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Fidell. OK, Mr. Fidell. We have an expert 

on the law, and we’ll get into that. 

And then we have two very courageous witnesses who are victims, one of whom I’ve already referred to as the assault having 

taken place just 2 months ago. 

So, let me start first with Mary Beth Kineston. 

Ms. Kineston, tell me where you live and tell me something 

about your family, your marriage status, et cetera. 

STATEMENT OF MARY BETH KINESTON, FORMER KBR 

CONTRACTOR, CAMP ANACONDA, BALAD, IRAQ 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Kineston follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY BETH KINESTON, FORMER KBR CONTRACTOR, CAMP

ANACONDA, BALAD, IRAQ

I open by thanking Senator Bill Nelson of Florida and his staff for inviting me 

to come to testify before this honorable body to offer any assistance I can in helping 

the Foreign Relations Committee further its important legislative goals. 

I hold a commercial truckdriver’s license and my husband John and I joined KBR 

on January 19, 2004, in order to go to Iraq and work for KBR at Camp Anaconda 

in what appeared to be an exciting and well paying truck driving job. I would earn 

compensation at the rate of about $84,000.00 per year tax free when employed at 

KBR. When I was hired I expected that KBR would protect my physical safety while 

working as far as it was able and I did not expect any special treatment merely 

because I was a female. I am a hard worker and a loyal employee and can deal with 

my share of hardships as evidenced by the fact I voluntarily agreed to work for KBR 

at a forward combat base in a war zone in Iraq as a condition of my employment. 

It is undisputed I was qualified for KBR employment as a truckdriver at all times 

relevant. However, that being said, I was not expecting to trade my self-respect or 

right to be free from sexual assault as a condition of continued KBR employment 

4 

and I did not view myself as selling my human dignity as a female employee when 

I accepted KBR paychecks. I also expected that when I made a complaint about such 

activity, it would be thoroughly investigated in good faith, that is, with an intent 

to resolve the problem immediately, and that I would be protected from the perpetrator in the mean time. I also expected that if the laws were broken by KBR 

relative to gender discrimination or if I were a victim of a crime I would have an 

adequate legal remedy for the offense. I expected that given KBR had a sexual harassment policy and given KBR was obligated to abide by Federal civil rights laws 

regarding gender discrimination it would protect me in the event I was a target of 

any sexual misconduct by coworkers. 

I can assure this committee that none of my expectations about KBR were fulfilled. 

What I endured at KBR was sexual harassment by my coworkers including their 

openly asking me if I shaved my pubic hair or was having sex with my husband, 

to managers urinating in front of me when I needed restroom breaks on the job, 

or denying my fellow female drivers and I food and water in 120 degree heat while 

the men had these things and the females waited thirsty and hungry in convoy lines 

that were not moving for hours on end. Moreover, I was a victim of two sexual assaults, one by a third country national who raped me in the cab of my water tanker 

truck while I was waiting in a refilling line, and another by a coworker who decided 

it was funny if he put his hands down my pants, after he knew about my first sexual assault, when I was riding with him and another male employee at the base. 

This comes after hand-drawn pornography was placed into the cab of my truck 

showing a woman with her legs spread and I made numerous complaints about that 

and the way I was being treated to higher KBR management at Anaconda and in 

Houston, TX, via the Internet. My complaining about the way I was treated to to 

KBR male managers over 10 times ultimately lead to my termination of employment by my supervisors for retaliatory and false reasons, after a secret meeting was 

had between a KBR human resources officer and over 20 KBR men in attendance, 

including a man who sexually assaulted me, and who incredibly complained that I 

was discriminating against the men because I and another female were given a 

pickup truck to transport ourselves around the base for our own safety, after the 

second sexual assault took place. 

With respect to my attempts at criminal prosecution of my tormentors at KBR; 

after I was raped in the cab of my water tanker truck, I reported the matter to a 

U.S. Army JAG Corps officer at Anaconda and the Military Police. I asked for help 

and was politely told that the JAG does not support civilians on the base. Having 

nowhere else to turn, I sought help with KBR management, and as noted, I was 

either ignored or disciplined in retaliation and nothing was done to bring the perpetrators of any sexual assault to American justice. Indeed, the investigators at 

KBR agree in a written report I was sexually assaulted in my water tanker truck, 

but then did not release their investigation results to me until after I was terminated and brought a civil action against the company which I was forced to 

arbitrate rather than try to a jury in open court. Although I eventually won the arbitration claim with the assistance of my counsel; I was hardly made whole for my 

suffering and pain. 

In my opinion based upon my experience, this result is no doubt the consequence 

of a policy that delegates protection of the safety of civilian KBR workers by Army 

soldiers to KBR criminal investigators. Yet any person looking at my case can see 

that delegating the job of making a criminal investigation to the supervisors of 

criminal suspects yields predictable results as one who sits in judgment of themselves rarely finds fault. Moreover, I am not aware of any KBR–U.S. Army contract 

provision that requires KBR to turn over the results of its employee investigations 

to the Army or the Department of Justice. I am also not aware of KBR employees 

who commit criminal acts being subject to public confrontation and prosecution and 

the record of their conduct being made open for review by any nongovernment civilian institution. 

The net result is that when a civilian woman has been sexually assaulted at a 

U.S. military base in Iraq, she has nowhere to turn for a meaningful remedy and 

her safety is therefore not assured. The perpetrators in my case have not spent a 

day of time in jail although they committed crimes on what amounts to, in effect, 

U.S. soil and committed acts that in this country would never be tolerated. I did 

not sign on for this kind of treatment when I joined KBR. I did not waive my civil 

rights or surrender my dignity because I wanted a job. I trust this committee has 

been convened to do something about the injustice people like me have experienced 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

This concludes my opening remarks. Thank you. 

5 

Mrs. KINESTON. I live in a city—which is a little suburb outside 

of Cleveland, OH. And I was born and raised in Ohio. And I’m— 

I’ve been married to my husband for 10 years, and I have three 

adult children. And I’ve been a truckdriver for over 30 years. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And it was in that capacity that you were 

sent to Iraq as a civilian contract employee as a truckdriver? 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. My husband is—my husband is 

also a truckdriver, and we were doing team driving back and 

forth—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Would you make sure that microphone is 

turned on? 

Mrs. KINESTON [continuing]. Across the United States. And we 

both decided that if we both went over to Iraq and worked, for that 

large salary, we could do a lot of things. We had a couple of weddings that we needed to pay for, and we felt we could pay off our 

mortgage and—truckdrivers don’t get retirement, so that’s—was 

one of our—another one of our biggest goals, was to collect some 

money for retirement. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you went over as an employee of 

what company? 

Mrs. KINESTON. KBR. Kellogg Brown and Root. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you were over there in about 2004? 

Mrs. KINESTON. I was employed at—on January 19, 2004. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, on a particular night in 2004, you 

were driving your truck. It was a water truck, and you were lined 

up in line to take on water—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. On your tanker truck. 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell us what happened. 

Mrs. KINESTON. And it’s just—it happened just to be that I had 

to take the night shift that night, and we had to do round-the-clock 

watering and supplying the troops with water on Camp Anaconda 

in Balad. And that particular night, I was—there’s no lights on the 

base after dark, so everything was pretty well pitch black, except 

there was one light that was on the pump. And what it is, is there’s 

a hose that goes into the Tigris River, and it—they pump it out of 

the Tigris River, and then they filter it, and then they put it into 

our trucks. So, I was on top of my water truck with a flashlight, 

because that’s how you had to do it. And then, when you truck was 

full, then you had to signal the pumper to shut the water off. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Let me set this setting, here. You’re in a 

camp, which is a part of the bigger base of Balad. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And at night they turn the lights out. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yeah; there’s no lights on the base after dark. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And why was it that you were pumping your water at night? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Because it was a 24-hour service that we did for 

the military. We had to do whatever they asked us to do. They put 

work requisitions in, and then that was part of the—my job, to do 

that. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. So, you’re up on top of your truck—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. And—— 

6 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. On top of the tank, and you’re 

pumping this water, that’s coming out of the Tigris River—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell us what happened. 

Mrs. KINESTON. And then, once it’s full, then we have a ladder 

on the back of the truck, and I’m coming off the back of the truck, 

stepping down the ladder, and all of a sudden I feel these hands 

on my legs and on my butt. And I’m, like—you know, I turn 

around, like, shocked, because I didn’t know what was going on, 

and it was the man that had his truck right behind me waiting to 

get filled up. And I quickly jumped off the truck and said, ‘‘No, no, 

no, stop.’’ And he continued his aggression toward me, and he—I— 

this is a semitruck, so I had to walk all the way up the side of my 

truck and get into the cab of my truck, and he followed me all the 

way up the side of my truck and into the cab of my truck. Once 

the door was open to the cab of the truck, he blocked it so I couldn’t 

shut it. And there—he pinned me down in the cab of my truck, and 

I can remember, I was trying to fight him off so badly that I hit 

the steering wheel of my truck so hard that the—my side of my 

arm was all black and blue for several days. And—oh, he pinned 

me down. He took my—I had shorts on. He took my shorts off. And 

he raped me. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, this is a large truck. This is an 18- 

wheeler. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, did you cry out? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Oh, yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. For help? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yeah. I was screaming and yelling the whole 

time. The only other person that was around that area, because we 

were right next to the Tigris River, was the pump operator, and he 

was Filipino, and I don’t think he was—didn’t either care to know 

what was going on, or he just didn’t understand what was going 

on. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And were there any other trucks in line? 

Mrs. KINESTON. No. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you were out there alone, with this 

one other truck behind you. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Can you describe your assailant? 

Mrs. KINESTON. He was a Turkish nationalist. He got a job 

through KBR as a subcontractor for Kulak. And they were another 

contracting company that they hired to come on the base and also 

do watering. And he was a Turkish man. He was big and bulky, 

and he overcame me. And they told us, when we went over there, 

that if you point to your wedding ring and say ‘‘married, married,’’ 

that they would—sometimes they would leave you, just, alone and 

they would walk away. And I remember distinctly saying that over 

and over again, ‘‘No, no, no,’’ and—but he wouldn’t stop. He just 

kept—he was there for a purpose. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, he raped you and left you there in the 

cab. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yeah, he—I finally had—got my leg—I wiggled 

my legs out, and I pushed him—you know, when you climb up a 

7 

cab of a truck, you’re up—you’re up pretty high, so I kicked him 

out of my truck with my legs. And as soon as the door was cleared, 

I slammed the door shut, I locked the door, and I drove away. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Tell us what happened after 

that. 

Mrs. KINESTON. As I was—the KBR sleeping area was on the 

other side of the base—I’m sorry. 

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s OK. We want to hear the story, and 

we want to hear, now, what happened in your attempts to report 

this rape. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Well, this is part that I get upset about, because 

I was—they get—everybody on the base gets a radio, and that’s 

solely for your safety. And so, I was driving back to my sleeping 

quarters as fast as I could, and on—I’m yelling and screaming on 

the radio, over and over and over again, for my supervisors or 

somebody to answer, and nobody would answer the radio. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And all the time you are driving back to 

your part of the camp, the base. And once you get back there, nobody has responded on the radio to your cries for help, and then 

what happens? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Well, when I got—when I finally did pull in, I 

got, like, a worker that is, like, three levels down from my supervisor, and he picks up the radio, and he says, ‘‘What do you want? 

You woke us up.’’ And I said, ‘‘I need to speak to you immediately. 

And I need to talk to you right away.’’ And he goes, ‘‘Well, give us 

a couple of minutes, and’’—and he goes—I go—‘‘Where are you?’’ 

And I said, ‘‘I’m in front of the administration office, and I need 

to talk to you right away.’’ 

Senator BILL NELSON. About what time at night is this? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Well, it’s—now it’s about 10:30, quarter to 11. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And then what happened? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Then my supervisor showed up and this other 

guy that answered the—finally answered the radio, and he—I 

just—I’m just so upset about the way they treated the whole incident. They—I told them everything that had happened, and they 

said, ‘‘Oh, OK, well, we’ll just call security and you can tell your 

story again.’’ And they called security, and I was inside this room 

for, like, over 2 hours, and I—and I was telling them everything. 

And the thing of it is, Senator, that there were women on that security team, and they didn’t bring one of those women in there to 

listen. And I was just so embarrassed about saying it over and over 

and over again. And then, the—they didn’t offer to take me to the 

hospital, they didn’t offer to—they didn’t even walk me back to my 

sleeping container. They didn’t even offer to walk me back. I had 

to walk back, in the dark, by myself. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell us, where was your husband? 

Mrs. KINESTON. He was out on convoy. He was down by Baghdad. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And so, he was gone for several days. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And they had allowed you and your husband to have a residential area together. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

8 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you had to walk back, by yourself, 

through the dark—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. Right. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Back there. How many people 

on the all male security team did you meet with that night? 

Mrs. KINESTON. There was—I would say there was about five, all 

together. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And did they say that they were going to 

do anything about this? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Oh, yeah, they promised to—you know, they 

said, ‘‘Oh, we’ll take care of it, don’t worry about it. Don’t worry 

about it, we’ll take care of it.’’ And I just went back to—you know, 

I was so in shock, and I just couldn’t believe that I’m in a war zone, 

and I had to worry about my coworkers. I should have been worried about getting hit by incoming attack, and now I have to worry 

about being attacked by my coworkers. 

Senator BILL NELSON. After you went back to your place where 

you lived, your residential-like trailer, what happened then? 

Mrs. KINESTON. I—you know, they didn’t even say, ‘‘Oh, well, 

Mary Beth, you go ahead and take the next couple of days off, don’t 

worry about it. We’ll—you know, you need to take’’—they didn’t 

even say that to me. I had to say to them, ‘‘Don’t expect me at work 

tomorrow, because I’m not coming in.’’ And so, I went back to my 

quarters, and I just—I think I stood in the shower for, like, 3 

hours, and then I just—I just was in shock the whole—the rest of 

the day, the next day. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Did you return to work shortly thereafter? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yeah, I was off the next day, but the following 

day, I did report to work. And I did all the—my whole routine, including the fact—getting back into the water line to fill up my 

truck. And when I was back in the water line, two trucks behind 

me was the man that raped me that—that very next day. So, KBR 

didn’t do anything about anything that I had reported. And when 

I saw—when I saw him in the line, I immediately locked all the 

doors on my truck, and I got on the radio, and I don’t care what 

KBR said, because when you hit the ground at KBR, they tell you, 

‘‘You’re not allowed to talk to the military, and you’re—and we’re 

a separate entity, and if you have any problems, then you call 

KBR.’’ Well, I ignored that, because I was scared to death about 

this man being in the same water line again with me. So, I immediately got on the radio and I called for the MPs, and I called, and 

they were there immediately. And, Senator, they were not only 

there immediately, they—I told the man—I told the officer, I said, 

‘‘That man that’s in that truck two doors—or two trucks behind me 

raped me, two night ago.’’ They immediately dragged him out of 

the truck, put handcuffs on him, and took him to jail. 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is the Military Police at the base? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. What happened then? 

Mrs. KINESTON. They took him to jail, and then the officer said 

to me—and by that time, now, all of KBR is there, and they’re all 

saying, ‘‘Oh, what’s wrong? What’s wrong?’’ And I wouldn’t even 

talk to the KBR people. I only did exactly what the Military Police 

9 

were telling me to do. And they said that I needed to come and give 

a statement of what was going on. And that’s what I did. 

Senator BILL NELSON. To the Military Police. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Now, where in the process was 

that reported or not reported to some authority that ought to investigate this, as to whether or not a crime has been committed? What 

do you know about that? 

Mrs. KINESTON. All I know is that he told me—the Military Police told me that their statement—my statement—I had to—I had 

to identify him, also. And that, because he was a contractor, that 

they had the right to kick off—anybody off the base immediately, 

and that’s what their—that’s what they were going to do. I guess 

it had to go through the commander on the base, because he’s the 

one that tells you that you have to get off his base. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Have you ever had any indication that 

this was referred for prosecution against that contract employee—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. No. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. The Turkish national? 

Mrs. KINESTON. No; never. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Was the Turkish national—was there 

done anything to him, that you know of? 

Mrs. KINESTON. All I know is that he was kicked off the base, 

because after that day, I never saw him again, and he was doing 

the same job that I was doing, so—I never saw him again. 

Senator BILL NELSON. In your statement, you state, ‘‘I reported 

the matter to a U.S. Army JAG Corps officer at Anaconda.’’ Anaconda is your camp at Balad Air Base. 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. ‘‘I reported the matter to a U.S. Army 

JAG Corps officer at Anaconda and the Military Police. I asked for 

help and was politely told that the JAG does not support civilians 

on the base.’’ 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you tried to contact JAG to know your 

rights, and they told you that they didn’t support civilians on the 

base. 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. After I was raped, the sexual harassment in my department of 45 men and two women just intensified, to the point where me and this other woman, we were, like— 

we didn’t know where to turn, so one day after work I sought out 

the JAG office, and I politely waited my turn for—to talk to him, 

and I told him that the sexual harassment and the things that we 

had to go through—like, we had supervisors pulling down their 

pants and urinating in front of us, I had pornography put in my 

truck all the time, and just different things like that, that we had 

to deal with on a daily basis. And he politely told me that they 

were there to support the military, and that the only thing he could 

do was fly in a civilian attorney out of Baghdad. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Going on, you say, ‘‘Having nowhere else to turn, I sought help with KBR management, and, as 

noted, I was either ignored or disciplined in retaliation, and nothVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
10 

ing was done to bring the perpetrators of the sexual assault to 

American justice.’’ 

Mrs. KINESTON. That’s correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Is there anything more that you want to 

tell us about this issue that we’re trying to address? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Well, I just—you know, my husband and I are 

good people. We’re—we go to church every Sunday, and we just 

wanted to go over there to better our lives and the lives of our children. And KBR ruined that for us. And they put up with this—the 

behavior of those men. And I strongly believe that they put up with 

it because, not only did—I was raped, but I was also sexually molested 2 months before I left KBR. And so, they just put up with 

that behavior, and there was nothing ever, ever done about that. 

They say that pornography on a military base is a firing offense, 

and they didn’t even do that. They didn’t even bring—they didn’t 

even question the man, when I told them about the—being molested. So, it was like KBR ignored it. And then there was just nowhere else for us to turn to. 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is several months after the rape, and 

you are in a truck with other contractor employees—men—— 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. And you were being transported from one place to another. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell the committee what happened. 

Mrs. KINESTON. I was—before we reported to work, I went to— 

over to the gym to work out, and on the way over to the gym, I 

was walking, and two of my coworkers that I worked alongside 

every day with pulled up next to me and said, ‘‘Where are you 

going?’’ And I told them, and they said, ‘‘Oh, we’re going there, too. 

Do you want a ride?’’ And I said, ‘‘Yeah, I’ll take a ride.’’ So, I got 

into the truck with them, and they were laughing and carrying on, 

and I kind of sensed that they had been drinking. And when—so, 

I just sat there, and the man next to me decided that it was going 

to be real funny for him to put his hand in my pants. And the 

minute he did that, I pushed him away and opened up the door 

and jumped out of the truck, and the truck was still moving while 

I jumped out of it. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And were the others engaged in this activity? 

Mrs. KINESTON. No; just that one guy. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Were they all noticing what he was doing? 

Mrs. KINESTON. The other guy that was in the truck was the 

driver of the truck, and he was just laughing, and he just—he just 

thought that was really funny. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And both of them were Americans. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. They were employees of KBR, as well? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Had they been ones that had made sexual 

references to you, verbally, before? 

Mrs. KINESTON. No; they—nothing before that point. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Did you report that incident? 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yes, I did, sir. I immediately reported it. 

11 

Senator BILL NELSON. To? 

Mrs. KINESTON. James Kalinowski, who was a—he was, like, the 

head of the camp management. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And—a KBR employee. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. And then, about a couple of 

months later, you left. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell us about that. 

Mrs. KINESTON. Well, I continued to do my job; but every day, 

they would find something wrong with me, with my job. They were 

really giving me a hard time every day. And one night I had come 

home late from work, and I parked my truck close to my sleeping 

quarters, because I was afraid to walk in the dark. And—after the 

rape, my husband would walk out to the my truck every day and 

walk me back to my door, because I was so afraid. And that particular night, my husband was gone, so I parked my truck kind of 

close to my building, and they wrote me up for that. And then, 

they—all the men in my department got together and had a meeting with HR representative, Aiden Stockton, and they all got together and told them that we were getting special treatment because we were females, and that they were being discriminated 

against. And the only special treatment I ever remember getting 

was that they let us use a pickup truck at the end of the day to 

go home from work so we wouldn’t have to ride with men that were 

going to put their hands in our pants. And that was the only special treatment we ever got. And 4 weeks after that meeting, I was 

terminated. I was fired, for ridiculous reasons. 

Senator BILL NELSON. They said you were speeding. 

Mrs. KINESTON. I was speeding, and I passed a truck on the 

base. 

Senator BILL NELSON. If you could just hold on, Ms. Kineston, 

let’s talk to Ms. Leamon. 

Ms. Leamon, up to this point, has been known with a pseudonym, ‘‘Lisa Smith.’’ She has not gone public, until this morning. 

Her real name is Dawn Leamon. 

Ms. Leamon, tell me something about your family. 

STATEMENT OF DAWN LEAMON, FORMER KBR CONTRACTOR, 

CAMP HARPER, BASRAH, IRAQ 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Leamon follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAWN LEAMON, FORMER KBR CONTRACTOR, CAMP

HARPER, BASRA, IRAQ

My name is Dawn Leamon, and I am the mother of four children and stepmother 

of two additional children. I am employed as a civilian contractor in Iraq. Approximately 64 days ago, two men working at my camp near Basra sexually assaulted 

and raped me in the civilian living area. One man is a member of the U.S. military, 

and the other I know as an employee of KBR. 

Because of the effect it will have on my family’s life and my life, it is extremely 

difficult to come forward and identify myself to you and the American public. I hope 

that by telling my story here today, I can keep what happened to me from happening to anyone else. 

My two sons are in the military. Both have served in active duty overseas; one 

in Iraq and one in Afghanistan. Because I also wished to be of service to my country, I applied to KBR as a paramedic. 

12 

In July, 2007, I went to KBR in Houston, where I signed a 17-page employment 

agreement with a company called SEII, an offshore company which everyone commonly referred to as KBR. I then flew to Iraq to work as a paramedic assigned to 

Camp Cedar. On January 26, 2008, I was transferred to Camp Harper, near Basra. 

There, I was the only medical professional for 60 KBR employees. 

On or about the night of February 3, 2008, they raped me. I will not go into the 

details here, but it was brutal and horrific. I awoke to find an unknown military 

personnel in my living area. I made the KBR camp manager and the military liaison 

to the Army aware that there was a member of the Armed Forces passed out in 

my living area the morning after the assault. The camp manager identified the soldier by name. They told me not to tell anyone about what had happened the night 

before. 

Being the only medical personnel on the base, I treated myself for potential STD’s. 

There were no procedures for sexual assault in the medical protocol guidelines. 

It was over a month later, after I ‘‘officially’’ reported the rape, that CID informed 

me that the camp manager had actually been there that night. It appears that other 

people know more about what happened to me that night than I do. I believe that 

I was drugged by my assailants. 

Camp Harper is small and totally isolated. Travel to and from the camp is difficult and takes several days. There are frequent rocket attacks. There are only 

three telephones, and I believe all communications are monitored. There is no ability to have private communication with the outside world. I believed I wouldn’t be 

safe if I filed an official report while I was there. Anyway, there was no one there 

from HR or Employee Assistance to notify, or from whom to seek help. I felt completely alone, and I was scared. 

I was also the only medical person there for 60 civilians, and their safety was my 

duty. In fact, several days after the rape, I treated the KBR rapist for an occupational injury. He gave me some photographs, one of which I bring you today. You 

can understand why I feared for my safety when I tell you who these men are. The 

man on the right is the head of security for KBR in southern Iraq; the man in the 

middle is the only KBR security for Camp Harper, and the other is a KBR employee. 

This photograph reinforced their message: Don’t report anything. 

Around February 21, a KBR Employee Relations investigator showed up at Camp 

Harper on an unrelated matter. He questioned me about general issues in the camp, 

and I did not feel safe reporting to him as long as I was assigned to Camp Harper. 

I did send him a written disclosure about the rape after I left Camp Harper and 

was assured I would not be returning. 

I finally got to Camp Cedar on February 27, 2008. That is when I was able to 

contact the KBR employee assistance person I knew and tell her about the assault. 

She discouraged me from reporting it, saying, ‘‘You know what will happen if you 

do.’’ She did give me an 800 number for KBR-sponsored counseling. I called that 

number; they offered six half-hour telephone counseling sessions, as long as I met 

their strict availability requirements. They also directed me to a Web site where I 

was prompted to put in my Zip Code for the rape crisis center nearest me. 

By this time, a friend in Iraq told me that I should talk to an attorney. I contacted 

Daniel Ross’s office in Texas to seek assistance and legal advice. I then retained him 

as my attorney. 

I was contacted by a woman from KBR’s Global Investigations Group. She asked 

to meet with me at Camp Adder on Tallil Air Base. There, she questioned me about 

the sexual assault and I was examined by a military doctor. The doctor stated she 

believed I was drugged the night I was raped. I was also taken to the combat stress 

unit where I met with an Air Force Captain. He was encouraging and told me I 

had done the right thing by reporting it. I spoke with him and with a psychiatrist. 

I was given medication to help me sleep and I spent the night at Adder. 

The next morning I was given an eight-page statement that had been prepared 

for me to sign. Even though I did not have the opportunity to read the entire statement, I read enough of it to see that there were parts I did not agree with. When 

I brought them to KBR’s attention, they said that as soon as I signed the statement, 

I could leave Adder and go back to Cedar. So I signed it. Although KBR promised 

me they would give me a copy of my statement, they refused. 

I was finally able to speak with one of my sons. I wanted to know if he would 

be ashamed of me if I reported the rape to the military. He told me that it was 

not acceptable for someone who wore his same uniform to behave that way, and he 

would expect me to report it. 

Upon my return to Cedar, I again contacted my attorney, Daniel Ross, and told 

him what had happened. His office sent me an e-mail with a copy of the letter they 

intended to send to KBR on my behalf. About 10 minutes later, KBR security conVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
13 

fiscated the computer I was using. Within minutes, I received a phone call from 

KBR security telling me I had to be on the next hard car to Adder. 

When I got to Adder, I was taken to CID, where I was interrogated from 2 p.m. 

until midnight by two special agents. I advised them that I had an attorney, and 

they convinced me to sign a waiver of my rights. The agents were very intimidating 

and their questions and demeanor suggested strongly that they thought I was lying 

about the rape. 

I had no way of communicating with anyone while I was at Adder. My movements 

were restricted and I was accompanied everywhere. I later learned that was because 

the men who had attacked me were also at Adder and their movements at the camp 

were unrestricted. I was told that my safety was in jeopardy if I was alone. 

The next day I was questioned by CID again and given a 14-page statement and 

another waiver to sign. I signed them. Once again I was sent back to Cedar. 

The only thing that gave me hope was knowing that I was scheduled to go home 

for R&R on March 23. I was supposed to leave Camp Cedar on March 22, but instead I was sent back to Adder again to give swabs for DNA. 

Once again, while I was at Adder, I was accompanied everywhere by personnel 

from KBR and CID security. My attackers were still at Adder and still had unrestricted movement. The day I left, I was taken to the airport by security, given an 

assigned seat on the plane, met in Baghdad by more security personnel, and taken 

to Dubai. Finally I arrived home. 

This experience has shattered my faith and trust in things that were part of my 

belief system. In the dangerous and volatile environment we inhabited as employees 

in Iraq, I would never have dreamed that I faced an attack from the people I was 

there to work with and care for. I would have thought that if KBR knew this had 

happened to their employees before, they would have warned me. I would never 

have expected that when I told the people who were supposed to be there to help 

me that I had been brutally violated, they would tell me to stay quiet about it or 

try to make it seem as if I had brought it on myself or lied about it. 

Despite the fact that KBR knew that I had been raped, and knew that I was in 

continued physical danger in Iraq, they insisted that I return to Iraq at the end of 

my R&R. Since then, I have been able to seek treatment here and I have received 

a medical leave of absence. 

In response to the committee’s specific questions: 

• KBR’s first response upon learning that I has been sexually assaulted was to 

try to keep it quiet. KBR then performed an investigation that I feel was intended to blame me for being raped. 

• KBR did little or nothing to restore my sense of safety after I reported being 

raped. 

• I am unaware of any measures to date being taken against the KBR employee 

or the member of the U.S. military who attacked me. 

• The initial response of the U.S. military representatives was that the medical 

personnel were kind and supportive; however, CID was intimidating, suspicious, 

and accusatory. CID interrogated me and essentially accused me of lying. 

• My attorney, Daniel Ross, has had contact with the U.S. Department of Justice 

on my behalf. I intend to cooperate fully and in any way necessary to assist the 

Justice Department in the prosecution of this matter. 

• I would prefer to defer to my attorney, Daniel Ross, to comment on the obstacles I have encountered in pursuing justice in this matter. I don’t really understand all of the legalities of this situation, but I understand that there is an 

arbitration clause in the employment agreement I signed with Service Employees International that KBR claims prevents me from seeking civil justice in a 

court of law. 

Ms. LEAMON. I have—I’m married and have four children of my 

own, and two older stepdaughters. Two of my children are both in 

the armed services, they’ve both done tours, one in Iraq, one in Afghanistan. We have a fairly military-minded family, and very patriotic, and a very overwhelming sense of duty to our community and 

to our country. That—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And—— 

Ms. LEAMON [continuing]. Prompted me to attempt to work in 

Iraq and provide service, both to the military and to the contractors 

that are there. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And back home your home is where? 

14 

Ms. LEAMON. I live in a small town in northern Illinois. It’s 

called Lena, IL, just west of Rockford, IL. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And your training is as a paramedic? 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes. I’ve been a Illinois State certified paramedic 

for 19 years. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you signed up as a paramedic to go 

and help out the war effort in Iraq, and you signed up with a contractor. And who was the contractor? 

Ms. LEAMON. I signed up through KBR, and on the—our contract 

is actually a SEII, but I assume that that’s also KBR. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And tell us about your deployment. You 

were first deployed in Iraq where as a paramedic? 

Ms. LEAMON. I was first woman paramedic in Camp Cedar, 

which is in southern Iraq—and it’s basically the largest truckstop 

and the fueling point in southern Iraq—and provided medical care 

to the contractors and the subcontractors, and then would provide 

support to the military, if ever needed. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you were there some 8 months or so 

at Camp Cedar. 

Ms. LEAMON. I was there from July until January 26. 

Senator BILL NELSON. From July of 2007 until January 26 this 

year. 

Ms. LEAMON. Of this year, correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And then, they sent you to a Forward 

Operating Base further south, near Basrah. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell us about that. 

Ms. LEAMON. That is in a—what’s known as a Red Zone. It’s 

highly active base, as far as incoming fires. It’s a very small FOB. 

There’s approximately 60 KBR employees on that FOB. And it is 

part of a British—overall British base. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And describe for the committee the quarters of this particular base, the structure of how the residential and 

office units were lined up, and describe the protections from the incoming rounds of mortars and so forth. 

Ms. LEAMON. Our living quarters are similar—if you can imagine 

a mobile-home park, but they’re all connected. There’s a row of 

12—similar to mini—a motel, with a interior hallway and doors 

that would connect into the hallway, and then you would walk to 

your living areas. There was four rows of these, which would comprise of eight total trailers. And the office spaces would be in the 

front part of the—and then there would be living quarters toward 

the back area. This was connected to two other camps, one being 

a military camp. There was T-walls, which are large protection barriers that help protect from the indirect fire that we received, that 

surrounded this area; however, everyone could walk through all the 

living—all the living areas; there was no restrictions at that point. 

We did have security that came down in February to help with 

force protection and to help get the bunkers more stable and to provide a little bit more protection for the incoming fire that we were 

getting. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And in this particular unit, about how 

many people are located there? 

15 

Ms. LEAMON. In our living area, there is approximately 60 people. 

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s Camp Cedar. 

Ms. LEAMON. At Camp Harper. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I mean Camp Harper. 

Ms. LEAMON. Right. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And it was your responsibility to be the 

medical person on the scene. If anyone received any incoming rockets and were hurt, you were the person that would first administer 

medical treatment to them. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, tell us about how Iraqi troops had 

access to this area. 

Ms. LEAMON. They were allowed—because of other circumstances—and I really would want to be careful, as far as jeopardizing anyone’s safety or security for that area—but they were 

allowed to walk through that area for their particular job. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. So, it’s the end of January—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Of this year. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And tell us what happened on this particular night. 

Ms. LEAMON. The night that I was assaulted, we had had quite 

a bit of indirect fire throughout that week. I had only been there 

7 to 10 days. I was asked by a KBR employee if I wanted to go 

have a drink. We did go to another KBR employee’s living area. 

There were five of us and myself. We had a drink of Absolut vodka 

and orange juice mixed in a Gatorade bottle. From that point, I had 

been drinking, we had talked about it, people were going to get up 

at 4 o’clock to watch the live broadcast of the Super Bowl. So, we 

had just been talking. I had went to my room for a moment. I had 

set my drink down when I went to my room. I came back and finished my drink. At that point, I started to feel strange, but I wasn’t 

unconscious. I just didn’t feel right. I wanted to step outside and 

have a cigarette. I asked one of my friends if he’d go outside with 

me. Said it was too cold. And I stayed in that room. 

At some point thereafter, we left and went to another employee’s 

room. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, how many people were in the room 

with you when you’re having the vodka and orange juice? 

Ms. LEAMON. There was four to five people in there, and the 

camp manager had stopped in and said goodnight to us and went 

on to his room. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And this is—the room that you’re in is the 

living quarters of one of the employees? 

Ms. LEAMON. Of KBR employees, yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Were we going to name these people, or 

are we not going to name the people? Is there any problem with 

naming—putting the specific names on these people? 

Ms. LEAMON. I don’t know, because of the investigation. 

Mr. ROSS. I don’t have any problem with it. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. All right. Whose room had you gone 

to with regard to the drinking of the vodka and orange juice? 

16 

Ms. LEAMON. Jamie Smallman’s. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And what was his position? 

Ms. LEAMON. He was a power-gen operator for—power generator 

mechanics. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I see. He was a KBR employee. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. All right. Pick up the story from 

there. You said you remember then going to another person’s room, 

but you were feeling unusual. 

Ms. LEAMON. I felt very unusual, and I don’t—I can’t honestly 

say that I remember walking to that room, but I remember being 

in that room. In that room—and, Dan, do you want me to 

name—— 

Mr. ROSS. You can—just tell the truth, Dawn. 

Ms. LEAMON. OK. In that room, William Risener was with me, 

as well as a Special Forces soldier that I did not know at that time. 

That’s—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And was that the room of William 

Risener? 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And so, you have a memory of going down 

to his room—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Describe how you’re feeling. 

Ms. LEAMON. It’s more of being in a fog. And from everything 

that I’ve gone over in my head, over and over and over again, there 

are blurps that I remember, and there’s things that I remember absolutely nothing of. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Well, tell us what happened next that 

you remember. 

Ms. LEAMON. The soldier was kissing on my neck, and they—I 

was sitting at the end of this bed, and I remember trying to push 

him away, but I wasn’t being forceful with anyone. I—and I remember being laid flat on my back at the end of this bed and holding onto Andy’s hand. And—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And Andy is William Risener? 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And then what happened? 

Ms. LEAMON. I remember just thinking in my head, ‘‘He’s going 

to make this stop. He’s going to make this stop.’’ The soldier then 

anally penetrated me and I screamed, and, at that time, Andy put 

his penis into my mouth. 

Senator BILL NELSON. William Risener. 

Ms. LEAMON. Right. William Risener. When he let go of my hand, 

I felt the whole thing was—there was nothing, at that point, that 

I was going to do. He was my lifeline. He was my coworker. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Had he made any kind of advances to you 

prior to this? 

Ms. LEAMON. No. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Then what happened? So, your 

scream was basically stopped when he did the act that you just described. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Then what happened? 

17 

Ms. LEAMON. I vaguely remember them switching places. I remember feeling like somebody was holding my legs up. That’s the 

last memory I have in that room. 

I woke up the following morning in my room, in a chair, naked. 

The soldier that was in William’s room earlier was in my bed. 

There was feces on him. There was blood on him. There was feces 

on my floor. There was feces in my mouth. I—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you were in the chair, and this soldier was in the bed. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. What did you do then, when you looked 

at the soldier? 

Ms. LEAMON. I had been awakened by indirect—by outgoing fire. 

We were sending out rockets, and that’s what woke me. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Was the soldier naked? 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Where were his clothes? 

Ms. LEAMON. His clothes were between the chair and the bed, as 

well as his weapon was next to his clothes. At that time, I went 

and showered. I started trying to clean up the floor. I was using 

Soft Scrub on the floor, and it started to fade the carpet. I had tried 

to wake up the soldier. He didn’t wake up. I started washing 

things, and noticed, at that time, that he had a red mark on his 

penis. I don’t know, because I did not look that closely, if it was 

a scar, a birthmark, or if he does have some type of a sexually 

transmitted disease. 

I had to report to a meeting, which began at 7 o’clock that morning. I went to that meeting. Coming back from the meeting, the 

camp manager pulled me into his office. He told me, at that time, 

that what happened last night will never happen again. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And what’s the camp manager’s name? 

Ms. LEAMON. Larry Martin. 

Senator BILL NELSON. He’s the camp manager for KBR of that 

camp—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Harper. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Harper. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. At that time, I thought he was referring 

to me having a drink. It’s strictly against KBR’s policy that you 

drink in theater. I offered, at that time, to pack my room up and 

go home. He said, ‘‘No; that’s OK, sweetie, we’ll take care of it. It’ll 

be all right.’’ And I’m, like, completely confused by his behavior, at 

this point. I said, ‘‘Larry, he’s still in my room.’’ And that is when 

the soldier was identified to me as a first name of Jason. Larry 

said, ‘‘Jason’s in your room? He just broke my trust.’’ 

At that point, I went back to my room to try to get him out of 

my room. Larry went to get the liaison for the military. I came out 

of my room, and the liaison from the military talked to me, and he 

said, ‘‘Dawn, don’t worry about it, I’ll take care of it. Just—we’re 

not going to speak of this ever again. I’ll take care of it.’’ 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is the camp manager. 

Ms. LEAMON. That was the military liaison that said that, that 

he was going to take care of it and I was not to speak of it. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Is he a KBR employee? 

Ms. LEAMON. No. 

18 

Senator BILL NELSON. No. This is—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Military. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Military. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you know who he is? 

Ms. LEAMON. I know his first name, of ‘‘DJ.’’ I don’t know 

any—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, he was part of the military contingent 

that was there. 

Ms. LEAMON. Was there. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

After that timeframe and that morning, I never had conversation 

with Jason again. I did speak with DJ on a daily basis, not regarding that incident, but regarding operations of daily camp living. I 

did speak with William Risener on a daily basis. I did treat him 

for an occupational injury. 

Where I was, to leave that camp you had several factors—first 

of all, you could only get a flight 3 days a week. On those 3 days, 

if incoming or security issues were concerned, they would not fly. 

With it being springtime in Iraq, and our winter was incredibly dry 

this year, the dust storms were horrendous, which also would prevent flying. 

The T sites normally are slated for 11 paramedics. Currently, we 

have five, to cover all of the T-site camps in southern Iraq. There 

was difficulty getting a replacement for me. There was also difficulty for me to get out of Iraq. 

The reason I want you to be aware of this is to understand, to 

report this, first of all, I didn’t have Military Police there. We had 

British. And even for me to take a KBR employee to the British 

hospital, you have to receive the permission to get care for them. 

It is very easy in that part of Iraq for someone to disappear. It’s 

very easy for accidents to happen. My communications were, I believe, monitored for—not as an intentional act against me, but for 

safety for the camp. I believe all the communications were monitored. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, other than talking to the camp manager and the military liaison—— 

Ms. LEAMON. It was never brought up again—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. It was never—— 

Ms. LEAMON [continuing]. Until I left. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Brought up again. 

Ms. LEAMON. Until I left. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you had nobody that you could report 

this to, and you feared—since there were no Military Police there— 

and you just described that it was the British—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. And so, you were fearful of 

reporting this to someone that was there, because—tell us again 

what you just said, about people disappearing. 

Ms. LEAMON. I could disappear, in a heartbeat. I could fall, I 

could have a head injury, and it could be explained, it could be logically explained with the type of activities we have there. 

19 

Senator BILL NELSON. And, for example, tell the committee how 

it would be logical to explain the disappearance of some—of an 

American from a Forward Operating Base. 

Ms. LEAMON. Because of the type of base that it is, because of 

the purpose of that base, because of the area that we’re in, and because of the amount of indirect fire and the unrest in Basrah, in 

general, just the—that specific environment and the lack of organization, as far as structural organizations compared to other bases 

similar to Camp Adder or Anaconda or—you know, where you have 

all the departments available to your services. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you tried to get out of Camp Harper, 

and it took you how many weeks to be flown out of Camp Harper? 

Ms. LEAMON. I was able to get out of Camp Harper by complaining about wearing my vest. We were in bulletproof vests and 

helmets from 5 o’clock in the morning until midnight. My vest 

weighed between 35 and 45 pounds. Trying to operate in that was 

very difficult on me. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you were the only paramedic—— 

Ms. LEAMON. I was the only paramedic there. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. In Camp Harper. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And so, they had to get a replacement for 

you. 

Ms. LEAMON. They had to have someone come down for me. I had 

to spend 2 days with that person, at least. And then I was allowed 

to leave. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And how long did it take you to get 

out of Camp Harper? 

Ms. LEAMON. My replacement came in, the end of February. My 

travel process out of Camp Harper was—we did fly to Kuwait. 

From Kuwait, we fly up to Baghdad. You spend the night in Baghdad. And then you fly to Camp Adder. And then I traveled by a 

hard car, which is an armored vehicle, over to Camp Cedar. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And tell us what happened at Camp 

Cedar. 

Ms. LEAMON. At Camp—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is 3 weeks later, after the assault? 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. 

Ms. LEAMON. When I got to Camp Cedar, I—my manager was 

there. She’s normally stationed at Camp Adder. I told her that I 

was assaulted and that I just needed to talk to Employee Assistance, that I just needed to deal with this. In speaking with Employee Assistance, there was a concern, as far as reporting it at all, 

because of the history of harassment and retaliation on KBR’s part. 

I went back and talked to my manager a little more, without giving 

her specific details, and then wrote a revised statement to Employee Relations explaining my assault. 

Employee Relations had me sign documents stating that I would 

not speak of this to anyone. If I spoke of it, I would be terminated. 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is a KBR employee—— 

Ms. LEAMON. KBR Employee Relations. He—over a couple of 

day’s time, he did have e-mail conversations with me, requesting 

additional information, requesting a different—different informaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
20 

tion regarding the camp, the situations at Camp Harper. I did provide those statements for him. When I asked him what was going 

to happen, he couldn’t give me an answer at that time. 

Later, I was contacted by Global Investigations, which is also a 

part of KBR. I was asked to come over to Camp Adder and speak 

with them. I explained the situation. Because the T sites were so 

short on paramedics at Camp Cedar, I was only the only paramedic 

there. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, while all this is going on, you’re still 

performing your duties—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Absolutely. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. As a paramedic. 

Ms. LEAMON. Absolutely. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Did they transport you by vehicle 

over to Camp Adder? 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes; they did. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And what happened over there? 

Ms. LEAMON. At Camp Adder, Global Investigations started by 

asking several questions regarding the statement I wrote to Employee Relations, and asking for specific details. And we spent 

quite a bit of time that day talking, and then she—I had asked to 

be able to have a physical exam to rule out any sexually transmitted diseases, even though I had treated myself, while in Harper, 

for potentially sexually transmitted diseases. 

Senator BILL NELSON. By taking what? 

Ms. LEAMON. Doxycycline, which is an antibiotic. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I see. So, you did not see a doctor until 

you got over to Camp Adder. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. Tell us about that. 

Ms. LEAMON. Global Investigations said that it would be much 

better if I was seen by the military doctor; that way, it would not 

cost me anything. I had asked to be able to do it on my way, on— 

I had a scheduled vacation coming up, if I could have an extra day 

to have it done at the International Clinic. She advised it would 

be much better for me to be seen at the military—and that way, 

we would get the results and have everything right there, and it 

also would be no cost to me. 

I agreed to do this. They took me over for coffee. They took me 

over to the Combat Support Hospital. And she went in and talked 

to the officer in charge of the Combat Support Hospital. I stayed 

outside. Approximately 30 to 40 minutes later, the investigator, as 

well as a physician, came out and spoke with me. The physician 

brought me into the clinic. We spent a great deal of time talking. 

She was very kind. She asked me to describe what happened. And 

she spent a lot of time telling me that, from what I could describe 

to her, that it sounded like I had been drugged and that I was 

raped. 

Senator BILL NELSON. This is the doctor? 

Ms. LEAMON. This is the doctor. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And it is a military doctor at Camp Adder. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And this is now more than 3 weeks after 

the assault. 

21 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes; this is closer to almost 5 weeks. 

She’s—she was very, very supportive of my situation. She encouraged me, at that time, to report it, as well, further. She asked 

if I would see the combat stress personnel. And she did her exam 

and collected her samples. 

Since the assault, I sleep about an hour to an hour and a half 

at a time, if that long. The physician wanted me to see combat 

stress in order to get some medication to go to sleep, at least to get 

one night—good night of sleep. I did follow those steps. I did speak 

with combat stress. I did see combat stress psychiatrist, who prescribed four tablets, for me to sleep that night. 

What I found out after that was slightly disturbing, because 

when I went to fill my prescription, the military has my Social Security number incorrect, so I don’t know if I’ll ever see my test results, because of a numerical error. They said not to worry about 

it at that time. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you still have trouble sleeping? 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes. I sleep—I sleep—usually every other day I’m 

able to sleep. I sleep for about an hour to an hour and a half. I 

wake up. I work really hard at convincing myself to at least stay 

in bed, and that seems to be quite a challenge these days. 

Senator BILL NELSON. In your written testimony, which, of 

course, all of your written testimony will be a part of the record 

of this committee, you say, ‘‘When I got to Adder, I was taken to 

CID’’—Criminal Investigative Division—‘‘where I was interrogated 

from 2 p.m. until midnight by two special agents.’’ 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. That was not that day. This was Global Investigations, which is KBR’s investigators, that arranged the stay 

of interrogation. I was allowed to go to sleep that night. And the 

following morning, I was to meet with Global Investigations again 

at 8 a.m. At 6:15, Camp Adder was hit with indirect fire, killing 

three American soldiers, injuring a subcontractor. I went over to 

the KBR clinic once we were cleared to leave the bunkers. I opened 

the clinic to provide medical care to the KBR contractors. 

Once that was taken care of, I did go back and speak with Global 

Investigations. They provided a statement for me to sign. They— 

I had a question about some inaccuracies in it, and their response 

was, ‘‘The sooner you sign this, the sooner you can get back to your 

base, where you feel safe.’’ 

I asked her if I could have a copy of the statement. I had a photograph that she wanted, which I had back at Camp Cedar. She 

said, ‘‘As soon as I give her the photograph, she would bring it— 

she would send me a copy of my statement.’’ 

I returned to Camp Cedar that day. I did contact Mr. Ross and 

explain to him further what had gone on. I believe, at that time— 

and I’d refer to Dan to—he sent a letter to KBR. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And who is Mr. Ross? 

Ms. LEAMON. Dan Ross is my attorney. I contacted him, at the 

recommendation of a friend in Iraq, just to try to ensure some protection for me. 

That day, after I—Dan had sent a proof of this letter to me, I 

opened it on my computer. There was a correction that needed to 

be made on a date. I made the correction, sent it back. Within 20 

minutes, KBR security came and confiscated my computer. 

22 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, this is at Camp Cedar. 

Ms. LEAMON. This is at Camp Cedar. 

Within minutes of my computer being confiscated, I received a 

phone call from the head of security who is stationed at Camp 

Adder, stating I needed to be on the next hard car, that he was 

sending my manager over to relieve me. 

I went to Camp Adder. The head of security met me at our service center, put my belongings in his vehicle, and delivered me to 

CID. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And that’s where you pick up, here, 

‘‘When I got to Adder, I was taken to the Criminal Investigative 

Division’’—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, this is military. 

Ms. LEAMON. This is the military. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. ‘‘Where I was interrogated 

from 2 p.m. until midnight by two special agents. I advised them 

that I had an attorney, and they convinced me to sign a waiver of 

my rights. The agents were very intimidating, and their questions 

and demeanor suggested strongly that they thought I was lying 

about the rape’’—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON.—end of quote. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Pick up, there. 

Ms. LEAMON. We—at midnight, they took me to a room that was 

in the military housing area. It was an empty room between the 

two special agents. They told me that this was for my protection, 

as the suspects from Camp Harper were on the camp and had free 

motion at that time, which means they could move around the base 

as they wanted to. 

I was advised—I am a smoker—I was advised, if I wanted a cigarette, to go the bunker and stand by the bunker; that way, I would 

not be seen. 

They told me they could come back at 10 a.m. to pick me up. And 

they did. Actually, he was there a little earlier. We went back to 

their office. We reviewed a 14-page statement. He asked some more 

questions and asked me to handwrite a narrative and once I completed that, I could go back to Camp Cedar again. 

I completed that and was picked up by security and taken to a 

hard car and taken to Camp Cedar, continuing to do my job, now 

without a computer, continuing to be accountable to be at meetings 

and briefings and do new-hire orientation, even though I was not 

aware of the meetings, briefings, or the orientations. I would receive a phone call, ‘‘You were supposed to be here 5 minutes ago. 

Why aren’t you here?’’ 

I had requested, from KBR, multiple times, as to what was going 

to happen next, ‘‘What’s going on?’’—never to receive a response. 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, you were back at Cedar, and then they 

take you back to Camp Adder to give more swabs for DNA? 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And all along, your attackers are freely 

moving about at—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Camp Adder. 

23 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Camp Adder. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. But, everyplace you going on Camp Adder, 

you are accompanied by KBR security and military personnel from 

the Criminal Investigative Division. 

Ms. LEAMON. That is correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. But, you saw no attempt to be curtailing 

the movements of your assailants. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And then they decide to send you home? 

Ms. LEAMON. I had a scheduled vacation, and I was allowed to 

leave, as scheduled. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And so, now you are still an employee of 

KBR, and you’re supposed to go back to Iraq. 

Ms. LEAMON. I was supposed to report back to Iraq on Sunday. 

If I did not report, as scheduled, I had to sign a waiver saying I 

would not be paid my vacation time, nor would I be reimbursed my 

ticket home. 

I contacted Human Resources during the week, last week, requesting an extension to my R&R. They advised that I needed a 

medical leave of absence and would need a physician’s document 

signed. 

I did go to an emergency room to speak with a physician, because 

we have not been able to get appointments set up, as of yet, with 

somebody who has experience with PTSD and sexual assault. 

The emergency room physician said, ‘‘Well, you have PTSD.’’ 

And—but refused to sign the KBR document saying, you know, 

that I could not go back to Iraq. 

I notified Human Resources of this, and asked them—there’s a 

procedure you must go through to get an extension; I asked them 

if, at this time, I could request the extension. I was allowed to do 

that. The extension was granted for 10 days. And later that afternoon, we were notified that I was put on medical leave of absence. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Are you planning to go back to Iraq? 

Ms. LEAMON. My heart would love to go back and support our 

military. My heart would love to go back and take care of the people at my camp, at Camp Cedar. I can’t go back with KBR. I can’t 

do that. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And, thus far, you don’t have any indication that your assailants are being prosecuted. 

Ms. LEAMON. I do not know what the status is of any of the investigations. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, you received some photographs. 

When did you receive them? 

Ms. LEAMON. Prior to leaving Camp Harper, my camera had 

been broken. We had some indirect fire that caused significant 

damage close to a living area. I had asked William Risener, who 

had been taking pictures, if he would transfer those to my flash 

drive so that I could take them home. He transferred those photographs, along with a photograph that was fairly undesirable of me, 

as well as several photographs of him, as well as a photograph of 

the camp—or the head of security—the head of the camp security 

and another KBR employee. 

24 

Senator BILL NELSON. The undesirable photograph of you having 

been taken, on the night of the—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Assault. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Assault. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And there was another photograph of another male that was in bed with two Bosnian women? 

Ms. LEAMON. Those—that’s CID’s photographs that they showed 

me, asking me to identify people that—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. I see, unrelated to the photographs you 

got. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. The Criminal Investigative Unit, had a 

separate photograph of—— 

Ms. LEAMON. They had—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Was it one of the assailants? 

Ms. LEAMON. They had a picture of the camp—the military camp 

liaison in bed with the Bosnian women. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And the Bosnian women are people that 

are employees—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Of KBR. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Preparing the food. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Tell me—one of these photographs—we 

have a blown-up copy. Now, this is the photograph that you received that was on your—what do you call it? 

Ms. LEAMON. Thumb drive. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Thumb drive. 

Ms. LEAMON. MB stick. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And this happened to show up on this that 

you were given—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. By whom? 

Ms. LEAMON. By William Risener, my—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. William Risener, your assailant. And can 

you describe that photograph for us, who they are and what they’re 

doing? 

Ms. LEAMON. The person—I don’t know which you want, from 

right to left—the person with the cap on, saying that’s the right, 

is a KBR employee and just a plumber. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And this is at Camp—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Harper. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Harper, where the assault 

took place. So, they gave you this thumb drive of photographs before you left to come home, or was this when you left—— 

Ms. LEAMON. When I left—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Camp Harper—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Camp Harper—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. To go to Camp Cedar. 

Ms. LEAMON. Yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And the fellow in the middle? 

Ms. LEAMON. He’s security for Camp Harper. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Is he the chief of security? 

Ms. LEAMON. We had one security person there, at the time. 

25 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes, OK. 

Ms. LEAMON. And the one at the end is—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. With his hands cupped over his ears. 

Ms. LEAMON [continuing]. Is security for the T sites, the head of 

security for the T sites at Camp Adder. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And are any one of those your assailant? 

Ms. LEAMON. No, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. No; they’re not there. So, these are all employees at Camp Harper—— 

Ms. LEAMON. The two—the one in the middle and the one on the 

right with the hands over his mouth are at Camp Harper. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And the one at Camp Cedar with his 

hands over—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Camp Adder. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. At Camp Adder, with his 

hands over his ears, is—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Is the head of security. 

Senator BILL NELSON. The head of security? 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And so, we’ve got a security guy in the 

middle, a security guy with his hands over his ears, and we have 

a KBR contractor with his hands over his mouth. 

Ms. LEAMON. Correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Now, what does that picture suggest to 

you? 

Ms. LEAMON. That picture says not to say anything. That picture 

has—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. 

Ms. LEAMON. And while I was at Camp Harper, I had talked to 

the person in the middle, and he said—I don’t know that he had 

any knowledge of what happened to me, but he did have knowledge 

of other things, and he told me, ‘‘If you don’t say anything, 

everything’ll be fine. Just don’t say anything.’’ 

Senator BILL NELSON. And he actually said that to you—— 

Ms. LEAMON. Yeah. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Before you left Camp Harper. 

Ms. LEAMON. Yeah. 

Senator BILL NELSON. What did you hear about other sexual assault cases that had received media attention? 

Ms. LEAMON. I had not really been aware of any other sexual assault cases that had any media attention until after I had returned 

to Camp Cedar and had talked to Dan Ross a couple of times. At 

that time, he advised me that there were similar cases. And at that 

time, he also—— 

[Pause.] 

Ms. LEAMON. And I looked up—and I looked up information on 

Jamie Lee Jones, who also was assaulted and raped and drugged 

in Iraq, working also for KBR. 

I had the opportunity to meet Jamie Lee and her attorney last 

week, when I returned home from Iraq. We haven’t had much of 

an opportunity to speak to each other, other than to say hello and 

give each other a hug. 

And then, I met Mary Beth yesterday, which—— 

[Pause.] 

26 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. I just want you to know, you two 

ladies, this is very courageous of you to step forward. 

And, Mrs. Leamon, you have only done one interview, by radio, 

and you did it under the pseudonym of ‘‘Lisa Smith,’’ and it’s very 

courageous for you to step forward. 

And I’m hoping that out of the drama of you all telling what has 

happened to you, that we can start to focus—that we’ve got a problem, that justice is breaking down here. 

All right, Mr. Fidell, what do you think about all this? 

Mr. Fidell is a senior partner in the firm of Feldesman Tucker 

Leifer and Fidell, here in Washington. 

STATEMENT OF EUGENE R. FIDELL, ESQ., PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MILITARY JUSTICE AND SENIOR 

PARTNER, FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL, LLP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. FIDELL. Senator, this is the first opportunity I’ve had to become aware of the facts that these ladies have testified about. As 

a husband and father of a daughter, I’m very offended by these 

tales. As a taxpayer, I’m very concerned about the environment 

that obviously exists in Iraq right now with respect to the enormous number of government contractor personnel who are there. 

That raises issues of a different nature, I think, from the ones that 

the subcommittee is concerned with this morning, but it would be 

absurd not to say that it makes me wonder whether we should 

have the vast numbers of private individuals there, civilian employees there, without a workable system of law. 

It’s very interesting. In the Hamdi case, a couple of years ago, 

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said that, famously, the war on terror is not a blank check for the executive branch. And, similarly, 

the existence of a wartime environment in Iraq is not a blank 

check for private employers. 

And what strikes me is that, effectively, there’s a complete 

breakdown of law that ought to be protecting people, such as these 

ladies. I’m very, very concerned about it. 

One of the things that a system of law entails and requires is 

that it instill a sense of public confidence. There has to be public 

confidence in the administration of justice. That means public confidence in the administration of the criminal law, it means public 

confidence also in the administration of civil remedies. These ladies 

have invoked, I gather, a variety of civil remedies. I’m not here to 

address that. But, it is a challenge, because people and corporations, and employers have legal relationships that the law has to 

provide a framework for, even in environments as odd and unusual 

as Iraq. And if there isn’t such a framework, then we might as well 

all be back in the kind of ‘‘road-warrior’’ environment to—I’m showing my age here, but there was an old movie with that title. It depicted conditions that were basically chaotic. And that’s what I’m 

taking away from this. 

So, the question then is, What should the United States Senate 

and House of Representatives do, faced with evidence like this? Obviously, neither house should be calling balls and strikes, in terms 

of pronouncing any corporation guilty or any individuals guilty. 

This isn’t a court of law, and that would be a misuse of the legislaVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
27 

tive function. Instead, what I understand the subcommittee to be 

doing is gathering facts to try to identify deficiencies in the legal 

arrangements. 

What I wonder about is why the criminal justice piece of this 

part of our legal framework appears to have malfunctioned so 

gravely. As I listened to the testimony, it seemed to me that the 

conduct described would have fallen within the criminal sweep of 

the Uniform Code of Military Justice, on the premise that the perpetrators were serving with or accompanying an Armed Force in 

the field in time of a declared war under the current legislation or 

a contingency operation. 

I didn’t get the dates on the first lady’s—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. 2004. 

Mr. FIDELL. 2004. That was before the 2006 amendment. 

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s correct. 

Mr. FIDELL. There—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. But, the latter, which was just 2 months 

ago, clearly is within the statute of which the Uniform Code of 

Military Justice could apply. 

Mr. FIDELL. That’s correct. And if I can play lawyer for a second, 

it has occurred to me that the 2006 amendment may actually not 

have been necessary if the Averette case, which I refer to in my 

prepared statement, was—would no longer command the majority 

on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Was that the Iraqi Canadian citizen? 

Mr. FIDELL. No. This is the case, going back to the Vietnam war, 

where the then-Court of Military Appeals held that a declared war 

was necessary to exercise jurisdiction over a person serving with or 

accompanying an Armed Force in the field. It has occurred to me 

that a creative military prosecutor or commanding officer might 

have tried to bring criminal charges under the UCMJ with respect 

to that offense, even before Senator Graham’s amendment became 

law. But, that’s retrospective. I think the interest here should be 

prospective. 

Senator BILL NELSON. But—— 

Mr. FIDELL. I am concerned about—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Clearly, Mrs. Kineston’s case 

in 2004, would have been covered by the law that was passed in 

the year 2000—— 

Mr. FIDELL. Yes; the Military—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Which was—— 

Mr. FIDELL [continuing]. Extraterritorial—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. The MEJA—— 

Mr. FIDELL [continuing]. Jurisdiction Act, yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Case. And yet—we’ll get testimony over here, but it appears that not one of these cases has been 

indicted or convicted that involve sexual assault—— 

Mr. FIDELL. I don’t get it. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Of a civilian woman. 

Mr. FIDELL. I don’t—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And yet, the law—— 

Mr. FIDELL [continuing]. Get it. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Has been there since 2000. 

Mr. FIDELL. Right. 

28 

Senator BILL NELSON. So, what do you think about these MEJA 

prosecutions? 

Mr. FIDELL. I’ve been baffled why there hasn’t been more activity 

under that statute. That doesn’t mean that every case should be 

brought to a grand jury, it doesn’t mean that every case should be 

brought to court, but with this amount of sheer industrial activity 

and human interaction, an enormous workforce in a clearly wild 

environment—I think we can all agree on that—with, certainly, 

some measure of criminality in an otherwise, by the way, probably 

very law-abiding workforce. I think we can all stipulate that, overall, it’s a very law-abiding workforce, just as the military is a very 

law-abiding workforce. But, there’s some level of criminality that 

occurs when the numbers of people involved go up. 

There is a real problem in transparency. Transparency is one of 

the components of public confidence in the administration of justice. And accountability. Somebody who has been in a position to 

make the decisions as to who should get prosecuted for what during the campaign in Iraq has some explaining to do. And it may 

be that there is a perfectly good explanation, Mr. Chairman, for the 

lack of activity. That may well be. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, we’re going to—— 

Mr. FIDELL. However, I think it is incumbent on the authorities 

to explain what has been done with particular respect to these 

cases and more broadly. 

The one other thing that I wanted to mention, and then I’d be 

happy to respond to any questions. I was disturbed at what seemed 

to be a gap in the victim and witness arrangements. The military 

has quite a robust victim and witness assistance program. I’ve represented people in trouble with the military, and I’ve been impressed by the tenacity of the victim and witness program. There 

are many skilled, wonderful people who are dedicated to helping 

women and men who find themselves victims of assaults or other 

misconduct. 

If there is a gap in the reach of the victim and witness program 

such that individuals such as these ladies or other people who are 

part of the civilian workforce in Iraq are assaulted by individuals 

who are subject to Federal criminal law, one way or the other, 

whether it’s the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, 

whether it’s MEJA, or whether it’s the UCMJ, there has to be a 

coterminous program of victim and witness protection. You can’t 

have a sort of no-man’s land where—like the old insurance ad, you 

know, ‘‘You’re in good hands’’—you’re in no hands at all if you’re 

a victim. That is something that, if I were advising the committee, 

I would suggest some attention be paid to. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fidell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EUGENE R. FIDELL, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

MILITARY JUSTICE AND PARTNER, FELDESMAN TUCKER LEIFER FIDELL LLP, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it is an honor to appear before 

you as you consider the legal regime for prosecuting offenses by United States civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan. My initial remarks will be quite brief, but I will, of 

course, be pleased to respond to your questions as you examine the issues. 

This hearing could not be timelier. Only last week, news broke of a case in which, 

for the first time in decades, a civilian was charged with an offense under the 

29 

1Michael R. Gordon, ‘‘U.S. Charges Contractor at Iraq Post in Stabbing,’’ N.Y. Times, Apr. 

5, 2008, at A3, col. 6. 2See Charge Sheet, United States v. Alaa Mohammad Ali (Mar. 27, 2008). 3 United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11 (1955). 4 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957). 5 Art. 2(a)(10), UCMJ, 10 U.S.C. § 802(a)(10). 

6 19 U.S.C.M.A. 363, 41 C.M.R. 363 (1970). 

7 United States v. Gatlin, 216 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2000). 8 18 U.S.C. § 3261 et seq. 

Uniform Code of Military Justice.1 Although the case involves a charge of stabbing 

rather than sexual assault,2 the putative victim in that case was not a U.S. citizen, 

and indeed, the accused himself is a dual Iraqi-Canadian citizen, it nonetheless 

demonstrates the need to ensure a workable system of criminal justice wherever our 

forces are called upon to serve. 

Our current arrangements for prosecuting crime in Iraq and Afghanistan by individuals other than uniformed military personnel are complex, incomplete, and uncertain. Although our workforce in those countries is, I am sure, overwhelmingly 

law-abiding, we cannot afford to allow anyone to have the sense that ‘‘anything 

goes.’’ That means we have to have a meaningful, pervasive criminal law regime, 

especially because the Iraqi legal system continues not to inspire confidence. This 

includes not only having laws on the books that will sweep in those kinds of criminality that we can reasonably anticipate, but also having an executive branch that 

is committed to the proposition that those laws will be enforced. This does not mean 

every offense that comes to light will inexorably lead to a trial, but it does mean 

that every offense that comes to light will be given careful consideration just as we 

expect our United States attorneys to do for Federal offenses committed within the 

country. 

Congress has long attempted to subject a variety of categories of persons to military justice. Some of its efforts have run into constitutional obstacles. For example, 

in the 1950s, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional provisions of the then-new 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (‘‘UCMJ’’) that were used to prosecute former GIs 3

as well as military dependents 4 and other categories of civilians. The basic theory 

was that courts-martial denied these civilians a variety of constitutional rights that 

all of us enjoy in Federal criminal cases, such as indictment by grand jury, trial by 

a jury of peers, jury size and unanimity, and trial before an article III judge with 

life tenure. 

One provision in the UCMJ purported to extend court-martial jurisdiction to persons ‘‘serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field in time of war.’’ 5

This seemed suitable for the prosecution of civilian contractors in Vietnam, but the 

Court of Military Appeals, as it was then called, held in United States v. Averette,6

that that provision could apply only in time of a declared war, and of course our 

Nation’s last declaration of war occurred in World War II. Averette was never reviewed by the Supreme Court because, at the time, there was no right to seek a 

writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court. Congress finally rectified that particular 

omission 25 years ago. Whether Averette was correctly decided is water over the 

dam, since Congress, of course, has subsequently made other pertinent changes in 

the statute. I would say, however, that it is not at all clear to me that the present 

court of appeals for the Armed Forces would come out the same way as their predecessors did in Averette if the same question were ever presented. To my knowledge, 

no military commander or prosecutor ever sought to test whether the case was still 

good law. 

The various gaps created by the Supreme Court’s decisions and Averette persisted 

for decades. Finally, in 2000, the second circuit, in the course of setting aside a conviction in a particularly egregious case for lack of special territorial and maritime 

jurisdiction, directed its clerk to send a copy of its ruling to committees of the House 

and Senate.7 This spurred Congress to action, resulting in passage of the Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000,8 which created Federal district court jurisdiction over a variety of offenses that would otherwise elude Federal criminal prosecution. 

Inexplicably, MEJA has been virtually a dead letter. It took a very long time for 

the Department of Defense to generate the implementing regulations, and even 

then, as far as I have been able to determine, the Justice Department has seemed 

to take little interest in bringing to trial cases that fall within MEJA. 

In 2006, Congress finally got around to fixing the part of the UCMJ that was at 

issue in Averette. The specific ‘‘fix’’ was to amend article 2(a)(10) to cover not only 

those who serve with or accompany an armed force in the field in time of declared 

war, but also those who do so during a statutorily-define ‘‘contingency operation,’’ 

30 

9 10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(13). 

10See Jonathan Finer, ‘‘Holstering the Hired Guns: New Accountability Measures for Private 

Security Contractors,’’ 33 Yale J. Int’l L. 259, 262 (2008) (urging stricter definition of who is 

covered and ‘‘a clause indicating that only crimes that have a parallel in civilian law should 

be prosecuted’’). 11See Kara M. Sacilotto, ‘‘Jumping the (Un)Constitutional Gun?: Constitutional Questions in 

the Application of the UCMJ to Contractors,’’ 37 J. Pub. Contract L. 179, 192–94 (2008). 12See Kathleen A. Duignan, ‘‘Civilians and Military Law: An Unconstitutional Mix, Problems 

with Applying UCMJ to Contractors and its Effects Internationally,’’ 6 J. Int’l Peace Operations 

21 (2007). 13See 18 U.S.C. § 7(9). 

a defined term 9 that covers the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here too, however, the Defense Department was slow in issuing implementing instructions. Secretary Gates finally issued a memorandum setting forth the general framework last 

month, but a good deal of the necessary fine-print guidance remains to be issued. 

For example, which kinds of UCMJ offenses will be prosecuted when committed by 

a civilian? 10 What does ‘‘in the field’’ mean, or ‘‘serving with or accompanying’’? 11

Are embedded journalists covered? CIA personnel? Non-U.S. citizens? Iraqi nationals? Is the 2006 amendment to article 2(a)(10) constitutional? Early news reports 

suggest that the defense in the Ali case will raise a constitutional objection. 

Your letter of invitation indicated that the subcommittee is immediately concerned with sexual assault allegations against U.S. citizens serving as government 

contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. I understand from your letter, Mr. Chairman, 

that some of these allegations relate to incidents that reportedly occurred as much 

as 3 to 5 years ago, and that not one such case has been prosecuted thus far. 

Obviously, I take no position as to the merit or lack of merit of any particular 

allegation. 

That said, and passing over the fact that some of these matters may well, by now, 

be barred by the statute of limitations, it seems to me that Congress can take the 

following steps—on top of energetically exercising its oversight and appropriations 

powers 12—to ensure that sexual assaults committed by U.S. Government contractors are prosecuted: 

1. The definitional section of MEJA, 18 U.S.C. § 3267, could be amended to sweep 

in any U.S. citizen (or green card holder) who is working overseas as an employee 

or contractor of any Federal agency. 

2. Congress could give extraterritorial effect to more of title 18, so that sexual or 

other offenses committed outside the country by U.S. citizens or green card holders 

could be prosecuted in Federal district court. 

3. Congress could expand even further the reach of the Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, even beyond the 2001 expansion.13

4. Congress could create a Director of Overseas Prosecutions in the Department 

of Justice with authority to determine whether offenses by U.S. citizens overseas 

should be prosecuted, and if so, whether that prosecution should occur in a Federal 

district court or, where applicable, a court-martial. 

I would be delighted to respond to your questions. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, you’ve put your finger on the very 

reason that we’re having this hearing, is that—something that’s 

not working. And there are three laws on the books. And you just 

named them: One, with maritime, that has jurisdiction over active 

military situations; the one that was passed in 2000, which directly 

gives jurisdiction, called MEJA; and then, the 2006 legislation, that 

is now law, that involves the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So, 

we clearly have the laws on the books. 

So, what I want to do now is, I want to get the second panel, and 

I want us to discuss this from the members of the Department of 

State, Department of Defense, and Department of Justice. 

Now, you see why I asked you all, as the panel, to go second, because I wanted you to hear what is live testimony about real people 

in real-life situations, that something is wrong. And there are others. And one of them is a visitor in the audience. And we could go 

on and on. 

So, let’s get into that. 

31 

The committee will take a 5-minute recess while we then have 

the next panel come up. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BILL NELSON. Good morning. And we will resume. 

We are privileged to have the Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker, 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General from the Criminal Division of 

the Department of Justice; Mr. Gregory Starr, Acting Assistant 

Secretary, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and Acting Director of 

the Office of Foreign Missions, Department of State; Mr. Robert 

Reed, Associate Deputy General Counsel for Military Justice and 

Personnel Policy in the Office of the General Counsel of the Department of Defense; and Mr. John B. Wiegmann, Assistant Legal 

Advisor for Management, Department of State. So, thank you all. 

Needless to say, when you have testimony like we’ve just heard, 

from some courageous women who dared to step forward, it’s riveting, but it also exposes a flaw in the system. Something’s not 

happening right. And that’s what I want to explore with you. I 

want to do this in a respectful way, a nonjudgmental way, but, at 

the end of the day, I want us all to come up with some suggestions 

of what we’re going to do so we correct a system that is flawed. 

Now, I want you to put up this chart, and I want to show you 

something here. I want to lay the predicate for this. Put it right 

up here. 

All right. Of the disposition of sexual assault cases in both Iraq 

and Afghanistan, there has been, of civilians—now, you can see, 

the military ends up having 684, but you can see, of civilians, 26— 

three were found to be unfounded, but the remaining 26—the remaining 23—well, let’s see what happened: Insufficient evidence, 7; 

pending, 2; administrative action, 10. And administrative action includes military discharges, reprimands, barred from post, employment terminated, and deported, referred to a foreign authority— 

two—and no action taken. Out of the civilian contractors, there’s 

not one that’s prosecuted. So, we want to get into that. We want 

to find out why. 

So, let me turn to you—by the way, all of your statements will 

be put in the record. 

We have some other Senators that want to come and join us on 

this, and I will, as a courtesy defer to them when they come. But, 

let me start out, Mr. Starr. 

STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. STARR, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, AND ACTING 

DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN MISSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Starr follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREGORY B. STARR, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF DIPLOMATIC SECURITY, AND ACTING DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN MISSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Good morning Chairman Nelson and members of the subcommittee. It is a pleasure to appear before you today. I would like to thank you and the subcommittee 

members for your continued support and interest in the Bureau of Diplomatic Security’s (DS) efforts to protect U.S. Government personnel and our diplomatic missions 

abroad. 

DS agents engage in or support and assist U.S. law enforcement activities, and 

also serve as a liaison with foreign government law enforcement authorities, at 268 

32 

State Department missions worldwide. There are nearly 1,500 DS Special Agents 

who are on assignment to these foreign missions in 159 different countries, assigned 

to 25 field and resident offices domestically, or serving on 27 Joint Terrorism Task 

Forces. DS agents serve around the world in embassy and consulate Regional Security Offices, managing the security programs that ensure the safety and security of 

U.S. personnel, facilities, and classified information. 

The safety and security of all U.S. citizens living and working overseas, including 

those employed by the U.S. Government or its contractors around the world, is a 

top priority for the Department of State. DS, in concert with the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs (CA), is committed to assisting U.S. citizens who become victims of crime 

while traveling, working, or residing abroad. DS and CA duty personnel are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at embassies, consulates, and consular agencies 

overseas to provide assistance. 

Whether a particular criminal matter overseas becomes the subject of an investigation by DS depends on the facts, the nexus of the facts to the U.S. mission, 

whether there is a basis for asserting U.S. criminal jurisdiction, the nature of the 

investigation, the role of other investigative entities, and whether the matter is 

brought to the attention of embassy officials. DS often works closely with the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) in those cases where it appears there is a basis for 

assertion of U.S. criminal jurisdiction overseas, including some sexual assault cases. 

In other cases, DOJ, the Department of Defense (DOD), or other Federal law enforcement agencies will conduct an investigation, and DS may provide support to 

the extent needed. Responsibility for particular investigative matters is decided 

among the relevant agencies on a case-by-case basis. Of course, in many cases, 

where there is no basis for assertion of U.S. criminal jurisdiction, any criminal 

investigation would be conducted by local authorities. DS may assist those investigations as well where appropriate. 

To date, there have been four allegations of sexual assault in Iraq and Afghanistan that have been reported to DS. All four of the reported incidents were investigated by DS, although in only two of these incidents were any of the persons 

involved State Department employees or contractors or otherwise subject to the authority of the Chief of Mission. Of the four allegations investigated by DS, three incidents were referred to DOJ. We defer to DOJ for further information on these 

incidents. The fourth incident was addressed administratively. 

In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are unique challenges for DS and for consular officers seeking to assist U.S. victims of crime. There are a large number of U.S. civilians employed in Iraq and Afghanistan as contractors, but security conditions make 

it more difficult for Department officials to respond and provide assistance to crime 

victims to the same extent as they would in other parts of the world. The lack of 

strong local police and judicial systems in Iraq and Afghanistan also makes it more 

difficult for our personnel to help Americans get the same type of support as they 

would in other countries when they are victimized by crime. Moreover, regardless 

of where they occur, sexual assault crimes can be difficult to uncover. It is often difficult for victims to come forward, particularly when the perpetrator is the victim’s 

supervisor, reporting officer, or colleague; such crimes may also be reported to other 

investigative authorities and not to the U.S. Embassy. 

The Bureau of Consular Affairs has made efforts to address these challenges in 

Iraq and Afghanistan by reaching out to the companies known to the Department 

that employ U.S. citizens and encouraging them to provide a main point of contact 

with the consular staff to enhance communication; asking them to have their employees register with the Embassy in order to be able to receive warden messages; 

and providing information on the Department’s or the Embassy’s Web site. At the 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security, we are also committed to doing whatever we can to 

help Americans victimized by crime in these dangerous places, including victims of 

sexual assault or rape, and will continue to work with the Department of Justice 

on criminal investigations of such matters, as appropriate, and subject to jurisdictional constraints. 

Chairman Nelson, I thank you and the other members of the subcommittee for 

being given the opportunity to appear here. I would now be happy to answer any 

questions you or the other members may have. 

Senator BILL NELSON. How many cases involving sexual assault 

of a U.S. contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan has the Bureau of Diplomatic Security referred to the Department of Justice? 

Mr. STARR. I believe that’s four, sir—if you’ll give me one second. 

No; we have had four allegations investigated by Diplomatic SecuVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
33 

rity; three have been referred to the Department of Justice, the 

fourth incident was address administratively. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And of those four, have any been acted 

upon? 

Mr. STARR. My understanding is that the Department of Justice 

is acting on those three, sir, but I’d have to defer to the Department of Justice for questions as to exactly where they are in the 

process. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. We’ll get to that. 

If a crime, Mr. Starr, between two contractors were to occur on 

a military-controlled facility or base, would the Department of 

State have the authority to investigate this? 

Mr. STARR. It appears the answer to that is, factually, yes, sir, 

because, in fact, that has happened. We did investigate at least one 

case that was taking place on a military-controlled base. It probably would be better, had it been investigated by the Department 

of Justice, but the particular circumstances were such that my 

agents responded and did investigate. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And when you say ‘‘it probably would be 

better,’’ tell me about that. 

Mr. STARR. I believe that the Department of Justice—sorry, excuse me, sir—the Department of Defense should have their agents 

present and investigating, but, as it’s been spoken about, Iraq is a 

very grueling and tough situation. Not everybody is always available or there at the particular time. And I will simply state that, 

you know, the United States Department of State agents that are 

overseas for Diplomatic Security Service are available and will pick 

up, if there is a gap that has to be filled, but we are primarily 

there for protection of American citizens working on United States 

diplomatic premises and residences. 

Senator BILL NELSON. You said that there were four referred to 

the Department of Justice for action. 

Mr. STARR. Three, sir. Four—we’ve investigated four cases. Three 

were referred to the Department of Justice. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And you don’t know what action has 

occurred. Has there been a conviction on any one of those three? 

Mr. STARR. Not that I am aware of, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you know if there has been an indictment, a charge, on any one of those three? 

Mr. STARR. I am aware that there have been grand juries convened. There has been action on the part of the grand jury. But, 

I would—I’m—would prefer not to go into the particulars of any 

cases that are—that the Department of Justice is handling. I think 

Justice might be better to answer that, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Do you know if, when you referred 

those, that they were referred by your Department—Department of 

State—to Justice for prosecution using the MEJA jurisdiction? 

Mr. STARR. Yes, sir, that is how we would refer these for prosecution. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. But, no—you don’t know any more 

than that. OK. 

All right. 

34 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT REED, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY GENERAL 

COUNSEL, MILITARY JUSTICE AND PERSONNEL POLICY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reed follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. REED, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL

FOR MILITARY JUSTICE AND PERSONNEL POLICY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUN- SEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Good Morning Chairman Nelson and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased 

to be here today to discuss the legal framework under which the Department of 

Defense supports U.S. criminal investigations and prosecutions of serious crimes 

committed overseas. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) has been instrumental in supporting past legislation and Federal district court prosecution of DOD civilian employees, DOD contractors, and their dependents who commit felony-level crimes when serving with 

or accompanying our Armed Forces outside the United States. This effort has been 

in response to civilian and military appellate court decisions that, approximately 50 

years ago, precluded military criminal prosecutions of civilians under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) during peacetime, and created a U.S. criminal jurisdiction ‘‘gap’’ overseas that prevented these persons being held accountable for 

the crimes they committed. To explain, the jurisdictional ‘‘gap’’ to which I refer occurs when a civilian serving with or accompanying the Armed Forces overseas commits what would be a U.S. Federal offense, but that particular offense does not have 

an extraterritorial reach that would enable that person to be subject to U.S. Federal 

criminal jurisdiction, and the host nation for whatever reason does not exercise its 

criminal jurisdiction, and the military’s UCMJ jurisdiction does not apply. The result is that the alleged offender’s criminal actions falls into a jurisdictional ‘‘gap’’ 

wherein the offender is not held accountable for the offenses committed. 

I first became involved in the effort to ‘‘fill the gap’’ in 1996 when appointed to 

be a member of the DOD/DOJ Advisory Committee on Criminal Law Jurisdiction 

over Civilians Accompanying the Armed Forces in Time of Armed Conflict, as called 

for by Section 1151 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 

104–106, February 10, 1996). In response to the Advisory Committee’s recommendation that U.S. Federal district court jurisdiction be extended to close this jurisdictional gap, the Departments of Defense and Justice worked closely with the Congress on legislation that is now commonly referred to as MEJA (the Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000; 18 U.S.C. § 3261 et seq.), which applies to 

felony-level offenses committed by persons employed by or accompanying the Armed 

Forces outside the United States. The jurisdiction applies worldwide, not just within 

Iraq or Afghanistan. At that time, it was generally acknowledged that the prosecution of these overseas offenses in U.S. Federal district court would be logistically difficult and legally challenging. Recognizing this, it was then anticipated that annually only approximately a half-dozen of these cases would involve MEJA actions. 

MEJA first required DOD to develop regulations implementing MEJA procedures in 

consultation with the Attorney General and Secretary of State, which was then to 

be followed by a 6-month review and comment period afforded to the Judiciary Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives. The events of September 11, 

2001, and the various U.S. responses to that terrorist attack, interrupted that development process and postponed the interdepartmental effort to establish proposed 

MEJA implementing procedures. 

In the interim, the Congress enacted additional U.S. criminal jurisdiction ‘‘gap 

filling’’ measures. U.S. Federal district court jurisdiction was further extended in 

2001 by the PATRIOT ACT amendment to the definition of ‘‘Special Maritime and 

Territorial Jurisdiction of the United States,’’ but in doing so excluded those persons 

who would be subject to MEJA jurisdiction. Section 1088 of the Ronald W. Reagan 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (Public Law 108–375, October 28, 2004), amended MEJA and extended its jurisdiction to cover employees and 

contractors of other U.S. Government agencies and provisional authorities outside 

the United States, but only to the extent such employment related to supporting the 

mission of the Department of Defense overseas. The Defense Department supports 

appropriate legislative efforts to provide greater accountability for unlawful acts 

committed in places like Iraq where we have ongoing military operations. Throughout, MEJA jurisdiction does not apply to persons who are nationals or ordinarily 

residents of the host nation in which the crime is committed. The DOD regulations 

implementing the MEJA procedures were drafted in consultation with the DepartVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
35 

1Department of Defense Instruction 5525.11, ‘‘Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed 

By or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside the United States, Certain Service Members, 

and Former Service Members,’’ March 3, 2005; Part 153 of Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, 

‘‘Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civilians Employed by or Accompanying the Armed Forces Outside 

the United States, Certain Service Members, and Former Service Members,’’ effective March 3, 

2005. 2Secretary of Defense Memorandum, ‘‘UCMJ Jurisdiction Over DOD Civilian Employees, 

DOD Contractor Personnel, and Other Persons Serving With or Accompanying the Armed 

Forces Overseas During Declared War and in Contingency Operations,’’ March 10, 2008. 3Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum, ‘‘Management of DOD Contractors and Contractor Personnel Accompanying U.S. Armed Forces in Contingency Operations Outside the 

United States,’’ September 25, 2007. 

ments of Justice and State, review by the Judiciary Committees was afforded, and 

the regulations became effective on March 3, 2005, in the form of a Department of 

Defense Instruction and a corresponding rule in the Code of Federal Regulations.1

Section 552 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2007 (Public Law 109–364, October 17, 2006) amended military jurisdiction 

under Article 2, UCMJ (10 U.S.C. § 802) and extended UCMJ jurisdiction, during 

declared war or a contingency operation, to persons serving with or accompanying 

the Armed Forces in the field. In January 2007, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense referred the amendment to the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice for review regarding the amendment’s potential impact on military justice practice and procedures. The General Counsel thereafter submitted for comment 

and coordination by the Military Departments, Combatant Commands, and Department of Justice various recommendations for managing this extraordinary jurisdiction over civilians. On March 10, 2008, the Secretary of Defense established procedures and issued guidance to be applied when addressing UCMJ jurisdiction over 

civilians under article 2, UCMJ.2

It is these statutory authorities and implementing procedures that I am today 

prepared to discuss with your subcommittee. I understand that the Assistant Inspector General for Communications and Congressional Liaison for the Department 

of Defense, in response to this subcommittee’s request, recently provided a summary 

of DOD IG statistical information regarding the Military Criminal Investigative 

Organizations’ collective investigations of sexual assault incidents (and resultant 

dispositions) associated with Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom, and has advised that an evaluation has begun regarding the DOD response to sexual assault in these combat areas. Additional questions or requests for 

a further explanation of these investigative statistics should be addressed to the 

Office of the Inspector General. 

The Department of Defense works closely with the Department of Justice whenever a MEJA case, and most recently a potential UCMJ case, involves DOD civilians 

and DOD contractor personnel committing offenses overseas on a worldwide basis, 

including those committed in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Department of Defense has 

established procedures requiring that notice of such cases be provided to the Department of Justice, that DOD consult with DOJ regarding appropriate jurisdiction and, 

to the extent practicable, provide support to DOJ during ongoing investigations and 

any subsequent prosecutions. The Secretary of Defense memorandum of March 10, 

2008, along with the Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandum of September 25, 

2007,3 emphasize that commanders have UCMJ authority to use law enforcement 

and investigative resources to respond to and, at least preliminarily, address crimes 

that are committed within their geographic areas of responsibility. The Military 

Criminal Investigative Organizations generally provide criminal investigative response to reports of ongoing serious offenses or reports of past serious offenses, including sexual assaults, in areas that are under the purview of the military commander. 

Cases involving potential MEJA jurisdiction or involving civilians under article 2, 

UCMJ, jurisdiction are to be expeditiously reported up the chain of command within 

the combatant command to the General Counsel of the Department of Defense who 

then notifies and refers such cases to the Department of Justice for review. As the 

General Counsel’s representative for these MEJA and UCMJ cases, I work closely 

with the Domestic Security Section (DSS) of the Criminal Division, DOJ. All of the 

cases that have been brought to my attention (worldwide and involving a variety 

of offenses) have been referred to DOJ/DSS. 

Case notifications and referrals that took weeks or months to accomplish during 

the early years of MEJA procedures are now taking only days to accomplish because 

investigators and judge advocates are learning what information is required to make 

a MEJA jurisdictional determination and are becoming familiar with the procedures 

involved. There has been one DOD contractor case involving aggravated assault 

36 

with a weapon that has resulted in court-martial charges pursuant to article 2, 

UCMJ. That case is pending and it would be inappropriate to discuss further details 

of that case at this time. 

The acquired investigative information is evaluated to determine the nature of 

any offenses committed and those persons who may have committed the offenses. 

This investigative information is then evaluated according to the nature of the 

alleged offense, the alleged date of the offense, and the precise category of alleged 

offender to determine which, if any, of this patchwork of ‘‘gap-filling’’ statutes apply. 

Ultimately, this investigative information and our established procedures help determine whether the alleged offender is subject to the jurisdiction, and might be 

held accountable, under host-nation law, U.S. Federal jurisdiction, or UCMJ jurisdiction. With increased familiarity regarding the applicability of these various 

extraterritorial laws and the intra- and interdepartmental implementing procedures, 

along with the practical experience of handling these extraordinary cases, the process continues to improve and accountability is enhanced. Toward that end, I have 

presented numerous briefings regarding these laws and procedures to judge advocates, DOD civilian personnel organizations, contractor associations and organizations, DOD acquisition and Military Criminal Investigative Organization conferences and seminars, and the legal and acquisition communities of nearly all the 

Combatant Commands in which these cases might occur within their overseas areas 

of responsibility. DOJ representatives have been making similar presentations to 

military judge advocates and criminal investigators. 

The Department of Defense has required notice and training of MEJA jurisdiction 

to persons subject to deployment to overseas locations and again upon their arrival 

at the various overseas locations. DOD regulations advise that DOD contractor personnel at those overseas locations should be invited to attend the military’s briefings 

and training sessions. In addition, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations require 

contractors to provide specific notice about the applicability of MEJA to their contractor employees while overseas and the Department of Defense will, along with 

the basic requirement that contractor personnel comply with all applicable laws, require notice and training of contractor personnel on the prohibitions and potential 

consequences of committing sexual assaults and sexual harassment. Initiatives are 

being made to ensure that military personnel, civilian employees, and contractor 

employees overseas know how and to whom to report sexual assaults that may occur 

to them or come to their attention at their overseas location. Multi-National Force– 

Iraq (MNF–I) now utilizes posters and instructions posted in all high-traffic areas, 

such as mail rooms and post exchanges, to provide the information needed. Delays 

in reporting sexual assaults to appropriate criminal investigators, even if only a 

matter of days or sometimes hours, can adversely affect the ability to secure and 

preserve crime scene evidence, identify possible witnesses, and obtain forensic evidence critical to the case. 

The Department of Defense has engaged in a concerted effort to combat sexual 

assaults within our stateside and overseas military communities. Beginning in early 

2005, over a dozen policy memorandums were issued that addressed sexual assault 

issues and care for victims of sexual assault. The Department established a Sexual 

Assault Prevention and Response Office to further these policy issues and, by June 

2006, issued a DOD Directive and DOD Instruction on the Sexual Assault and Prevention and Response Program. The program includes a network of Sexual Assault 

and Response Coordinators and Sexual Assault Victim Advocates who assist victims 

of sexual assault. MNF–I has revised its Command Policy Regulation in accord with 

the Army Regulation issued on March 18, 2008, in order to reinforce its emphasis 

on sexual harassment prevention. That chapter revision mandates Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response representatives and other activities be utilized to assist 

victims of sexual assault. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues today and I look forward 

to answering any questions the committee may have. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Mr. Reed, in your department, Department of Defense, how many cases involving the sexual assault of 

a U.S. civilian has DOD investigated? 

Mr. REED. I think the statistics you have there are from the 

DOD IG as to what was investigated. So, I would defer to the IG’s 

statistical report as to what the military criminal investigative organization has investigated. 

Senator BILL NELSON. How many such cases has DOD referred 

to the Department of Justice? 

37 

Mr. REED. There have been eight cases that have been forwarded 

for consideration under the MEJA statute. All eight have been referred to the Department of Defense—Department of Justice. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And you sat, in a part of the Office of the 

General Counsel that would know about this—of those eight who 

have been referred to Justice for prosecution by the Department of 

Defense, how many convictions have there been? 

Mr. REED. One. 

Senator BILL NELSON. How many were there indictments or 

charges brought against? 

Mr. REED. I don’t know the precise figure on that. I keep track 

of them under the label of ‘‘pending,’’ so that—after I refer them 

to the Department of Justice, I list them as ‘‘pending’’ until I find 

out what the ultimate disposition is. So, I have three of those that 

are—that I’m tracking as ‘‘pending.’’ I have one case that’s a juvenile out of the Far East—it’s not applicable to Iraq—that there was 

a conviction in, as well. And I have three cases that my information—or the information provided to me would indicate that cases 

were declined due to insufficient evidence or other problems related 

to the case in question. 

Senator BILL NELSON. The one case that you said that got a conviction, was that in a civilian or a military court? 

Mr. REED. It was in civilian court. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And do you know how many cases would 

have been prosecuted in a military court? 

Mr. REED. Civilians? 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. REED. I would state that there have been none, because of 

the Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Armed Forces decisions that require, prior to 2006, that there be 

a congressionally declared war, and would have a slight disagreement with Mr. Fidell’s analysis. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. That’s with regard to the law 

that was passed in 2006. 

Mr. REED. Correct, sir. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Right. Now, in the cases in which assault 

has occurred on DOD facilities in Iraq or Afghanistan, civilian victims have reported that military investigative authorities have told 

them that they could not assist them. Is this correct? 

Mr. REED. I don’t know what the investigators told the victims. 

I can say that, depending on when the date of the crime was committed and when—and what the category of person was that was 

suspected of committing the crime, since the law has evolved and 

changed since 2000 up to the present, the answer could slightly 

change as to who has ultimate prosecutorial responsibility, and associated that—with that is investigative responsibility. However, as 

a general proposition, the military criminal investigative organizations normally would respond to the report of, or the complaint of, 

a crime that was committed on a military installation, in order to 

at least preliminarily respond to the complaint until such time as 

the details of the complaint and the identity and affiliation, if you 

will, of the alleged offender was determined. And that would, in 

turn, dictate, in large measure, the subsequent course of action to 

take, following the investigation. 

38 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, let me ask you this. You’re legal 

counsel to the Department of Defense. Would DOD have the authority to go in and take all the cases that were not prosecuted by 

the Justice Department and prosecute them yourself under guidance provided by the Secretary of Defense? 

Mr. REED. If you’re talking strictly about civilian, DOD civilian 

contractors or other contractors, the answer would be no, unless 

the offense was committed on or after the effective date of the 2006 

amendment, which was October 17, 2006. Prior to that, the general 

consensus of opinion was that the Supreme Court and the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces stated that, absent 

congressionally declared war, civilians would not be prosecuted in 

military courts in peacetime. And the analysis of that, and the interpretation of that for the last 50 years, has been, essentially, that 

civilians being prosecuted in courts-martial was problematic, at the 

least. 

Senator BILL NELSON. What is your professional opinion that it 

is the obligation of a military officer, noncommissioned officer, or 

a DOD official to report and then prosecute, if possible, or assist, 

when given evidence from a civilian that a crime has been committed? 

Mr. REED. I would say that that has generally been the rule, in 

my experience, that they are, in fact, investigated; they are, in fact, 

looked at for possible prosecution, based upon the weight and quantum of evidence, and a myriad of issues that come into play when 

you’re talking about a very sensitive situation, such as sexual assault prosecutions involving victims who may or may not be traumatized by the events that occurred to them and the events that 

may—they are concerned about as a witness in a public courtroom. 

Senator BILL NELSON. You must have been warmed, as a DOD 

counsel, by the dramatic testimony of Mrs. Kineston, that it was 

the Military Police that responded. 

Mr. REED. I believe that, by and large—and there are always exceptions, Senator, but, by and large, Military Police and military 

criminal investigators do, in fact, respond to reports and information brought to their attention that a crime, especially a serious 

crime, has been committed within the area of responsibility of the 

commander. Now, granted, there are exceptions. There are some 

people, who, for whatever reason, don’t do what we would expect 

them to do. But, by and large, over the years and across the spectrum of crimes that are committed by persons on or near a military 

installation, the military does, in fact, respond, and thereafter, 

after they’ve gathered the facts and identified the individuals involved, or suspected to be involved, then try to get the appropriate 

authorities, if it’s not the military, involved in the case. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Likewise, you must have been warmed to 

hear, as Ms. Leamon was shuffled around, that it wasn’t until she 

got into the hands of the military, the Criminal Investigative Division and, even more specifically, until she got to the military doctor, that she started getting some attention. 

Mr. REED. That was her testimony, and, taking it as it is, she 

appeared to be pleased with the care that she received from the 

hospital physician that treated her, and, generally, the responsiveness of the CID, once they were notified of the situation. I—so, I 

39 

guess the answer is, it would appear that they responded appropriately under the circumstances. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And yet, in both cases, it’s gotten lost in 

the system, certainly with regard to Ms. Kineston, because the assault was back in 2004. And with regard to Ms. Leamon, although 

it was 2 months ago, she has no evidence, thus far, that there’s any 

prosecution. 

Let me ask you this. Why—— 

Mr. REED. Well, Senator, there—the fact that she is unaware of 

what the—actions are being taken regarding prosecution does not 

mean that action is not being taken. And the fact that the—and investigations have not been conducted and/or are ongoing. So—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. And I hope that’s the case with Mrs. 

Leamon, but certainly with regard to Ms. Kineston, nothing happened. 

Mr. REED. In 2004, the MEJA implementing regulations by the 

Department of Defense were not in effect. They didn’t take effect 

until March 3, 2005. And the UCMJ jurisdiction of 2006 was not 

applicable. 

Senator BILL NELSON. You’re telling me that a law that was 

passed in 2000 was never implemented until March of 2005? 

Mr. REED. That’s correct. MEJA was passed in—November 22, 

2000. In 2001, we established a working group, because the statute 

required us to create regulations in conjunction with the Department of State and the Department of Justice, and had a built-in 

oversight responsibility by the Judiciary Committees of both the 

House and the Senate, giving them a 6-month period of time in 

which to review the regulations that were developed. The Department, in fact, established, in early 2001, a very robust working 

group with interagency/multiagency representatives on that. 

Unfortunately, on September 11, 2001, certain things happened 

to the Department of Defense that involved all the other Departments, both Justice and State, as well, who were part of that team, 

and all of the parties who were focused on coming up with the implementing regulations at that time were pulled back for 9/11 and 

post-9/11 reactive responsibilities. 

In 2002, I reinstituted development of the MEJA regulations and 

wrote them myself, and then, thereafter, we then coordinated with 

the Department of Justice and Department of State. There were 

several backs-and-forth between those Departments to come up 

with regulations on which we could get consulted. We then transmitted them to the Judiciary Committees of both the Senate and 

the House, gave them 6 months in which to review and comment, 

and thereafter, after that, to make sure that there were no changes 

that were required through that process. Then we had to proceed 

with the DOD normal process for implementing instructions and 

regulations within the Department and develop a corresponding 

Code of Federal Regulations to go along with that, to be filed in the 

Federal Register. 

All of that process took place, and ultimately they were published 

in the Federal Register, they were published in the Department of 

Defense Regulations with an effective date of March 3, 2005. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you think—— 

40 

Mr. REED. And I have a more detailed chronology, if you need 

that, in my office. But, that, in a nutshell, is a summary of events 

that interrupted and postponed and created a difficult situation for 

the Department to come up with regulations, from a 

tridepartmental and congressional oversight perspective. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you think justice was served as a result of all that delay? 

Mr. REED. I wish the process by which we could have come up 

with our regulations weren’t required by that process, and I wish, 

also, that the events of 9/11 had not occurred. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Are the eight cases that you referred to 

of sexual assault of civilian contractors? 

Mr. REED. Yes; they are. No; excuse me, they’re—one is a dependent juvenile. That was the one from the Far East. The rest— 

the other seven are contractors. Some—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Seven are. 

Mr. REED. Some are third-country nationals, and other are U.S. 

nationals. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Are they just MEJA nonsexual assaults, 

or are we talking about sexual assaults? 

Mr. REED. This is where the main offense listed is sexual assault. 

That doesn’t mean it’s the only offense that somebody—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Committed. But, to—as you know, when 

somebody may have committed three or four different offenses, you 

choose the major offense by which to categorize the case. These— 

that’s the categorization that I gave them. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I am very pleased that my colleague Senator Feingold, who has a yearning to understand all of this, as 

well, has joined us. As courtesy, I want to pass it to you. And 

you’ve got somewhere you’ve got to go. So, please—and then I’ll 

just jump back in after you finish. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, we always say thank you to the Chair 

for holding a hearing, as a matter of courtesy, but, in this case, it’s 

particularly sincere and appropriate, Senator Nelson, for having 

the courage to hold this important hearing. 

And I want to thank all the witnesses for attending. In particular, I’d like to thank Ms. Kineston and Ms. Leamon for appearing today. I applaud them for their courage and for everything 

they’re doing to make sure that what happened to them doesn’t 

happen to anyone else. 

We have 180,000 contractors in Iraq alone. They are immune 

from Iraqi law, and U.S. officials have either not investigated or 

failed to prosecute those who have apparently committed crimes. 

And the lack of prosecutions is not due to legal loopholes. In 

most cases, especially for abuses that occur off U.S. bases, crimes 

are likely never investigated. When abuses are investigated, like 

some of the abuse of interrogation techniques used by contractors 

on detainees, Department of Justice claims they don’t have the evidence to prosecute them or that they lack the jurisdiction to do so. 

With at least four different statutes creating extraterritorial jurisVerDate Nov 24 2008 12:09 Mar 03, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 H:\DOCS\47686.TXT MikeBB PsN: MIKEB
41 

diction over U.S. contractors, I find this hard to believe. The time 

has come to end this culture of impunity that we have created. 

The testimony that came forward this morning from the courageous witnesses, Ms. Kineston and Ms. Leamon, was obviously absolutely shocking. It is unthinkable that the perpetrators of such 

horrible acts should go unpunished. It is just as disturbing, in my 

view, that the military and the civilian personnel who let this happen have not been held accountable. 

Ms. Mandelker, is DOJ currently investigating these cases? And, 

if not, will you now immediately commence a criminal investigation, based on the sworn testimony we’ve heard here today? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SIGAL P. MANDELKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Mandelker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SIGAL P. MANDELKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Chairman Nelson, Ranking Member Vitter, and distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for inviting the Department of Justice to testify at this hearing. Sexual assault cases often involve the most vulnerable victims and must be 

treated with the utmost seriousness. Whether this conduct occurs within the United 

States or overseas and in a dangerous military zone, these offenders must be 

brought to justice. 

At the Department of Justice, we take very seriously allegations that U.S. citizens 

employed as U.S. Government personnel and contractors in direct service to our Nation may have committed sexual assault. As the Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

in the Criminal Division who supervises one of the key participants in that mission—the Domestic Security Section (DSS)—I am pleased to address the Department of Justice’s ongoing efforts to hold these offenders accountable. 

I will focus my remarks today on three major areas: The scope of the Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), the principal statute under which we prosecute these cases; the Department’s role in MEJA cases; and interagency coordination on MEJA cases, including the steps that the Department is taking to build 

upon and improve cooperation on these cases. 

I. MILITARY EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION ACT

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, Title 18 U.S.C. § 3261, et seq., is 

the principal Federal statute used to prosecute sexual assault crimes committed by 

certain U.S. Government personnel and contractors in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. MEJA was enacted on November 22, 2000, and was designed to extend Federal criminal jurisdiction to a variety of Department of Defense employees and 

dependents overseas who were not subject to the court-martial process under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). 

As originally enacted, MEJA permitted Federal courts to exercise criminal jurisdiction over conduct that was engaged in outside of the United States that would 

have been a felony offense if the conduct had been engaged in within the special 

maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, provided that the offender 

was within one of three classes of individuals associated with the Department of 

Defense, namely— 

(1) Civilian employees, contractors, and contract personnel employed by the 

Department of Defense overseas; 

(2) Members of the Armed Forces overseas; and 

(3) Dependents of members of the Armed Forces or of civilian employees, contractors, and contract personnel employed by the Department of Defense residing overseas. 

In 2004, Congress amended MEJA to cover civilian employees, contractors, and 

contract employees of other Federal agencies, but only to the extent that their employment ‘‘relates to supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas.’’ 

In any particular case, the exact scope of this expansion depends upon the facts and 

circumstances of an individual’s employment and the individual’s relationship to the 

mission of the Department of Defense. 

42 

MEJA contains a number of important restrictions. First, MEJA does not cover 

crimes committed by a person who is a national of the foreign country where the 

offense occurred or who ordinarily resides in the foreign country where the offense 

occurred. Second, no prosecution may be commenced against a member of the 

Armed Forces unless at the time of prosecution the member is no longer subject to 

the UCMJ or the member is charged with committing an offense with one or more 

other defendants not subject to the UCMJ. Third, MEJA extends Federal jurisdiction only over felony offenses; Federal misdemeanors are excluded. Finally, MEJA 

may not be used to prosecute someone who has already been prosecuted or is being 

prosecuted by a foreign government for the same conduct without the approval of 

the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General (or a person acting in either 

capacity). 

The Department supports legislative efforts to hold Federal employees and contractors accountable for serious misconduct they may commit abroad. We look forward to continuing to work with the Congress to ensure that we have the laws we 

need to hold U.S. contractors properly accountable. 

1II. THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE’S ROLE IN MEJA CASES

The Department’s involvement in MEJA typically starts when a Department of 

Defense or Department of State law enforcement agency presents or refers a case 

to the Department for possible prosecution. As a general matter, these agencies contact the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division, which serves as the central point 

of contact within the Department of Justice for MEJA referrals from investigating 

agencies. On certain occasions, an investigating agency refers a matter directly to 

a U.S. attorney’s office (USAO). 

When an agency refers a potential MEJA case, Criminal Division attorneys review 

the investigative materials presented by the referring agency to determine (1) if jurisdiction exists under MEJA, (2) if sufficient facts exist to proceed, and (3) where 

appropriate venue lies within the United States. If the Department determines that 

the case falls within MEJA and there are sufficient facts to proceed, the Criminal 

Division refers the matter to the appropriate U.S. attorney’s office for its consideration. U.S. attorneys’ offices ultimately determine whether to prosecute or decline 

a case in the same manner that they make such determinations in other cases— 

pursuant to the Principles of Federal Prosecution in the United States Attorneys’ 

Manual. 

The Criminal Division also offers guidance and assistance to every USAO to 

which it refers a MEJA case. This assistance generally comes in the form of legal 

guidance regarding MEJA, assistance in obtaining information from and working 

with military law enforcement agencies, and coordinating international issues. In 

certain circumstances, the Criminal Division will also provide direct prosecutorial 

support by assigning a trial attorney to partner with the local assistant U.S. attorney assigned to the case. 

If a case is initially investigated or later joined by a law enforcement agency within the Department—generally the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)—the Department fulfills the roles of both investigator and prosecutor. On the investigatory 

side, however, the Department generally plays a supporting role as most MEJA 

cases are initially investigated overseas by the Department of Defense or the Department of State, because these investigative agencies are usually the first to respond to the alleged criminal activity in the conflict area. The FBI may participate 

in certain investigations, mainly those of particular complexity or seriousness. 

Since the enactment of MEJA in 2000, the Department of Justice has received referrals of potential MEJA cases from both the Departments of Defense and State. 

Of these cases, 12 have resulted in the filing of a Federal indictment, information, 

or complaint and another has resulted in a conviction in State court. A number of 

other cases are under active investigation, and some have been declined. 

Of the 12 cases that have been charged in Federal court, 7 have resulted in conviction, and the remaining 5 await trial. These cases include allegations of sexual 

abuse (including the possession or use of child pornography). Indeed, four cases involving sexual abuse have been successfully prosecuted in Federal court; another 

case has been indicted; and others are currently under active investigation. Because 

of confidentiality, privacy, and court-imposed restrictions, I cannot address ongoing 

investigations of sexual abuse. 

The successful prosecutions include: The conviction, in the Western District of 

Washington, of a DOD civilian employee for abusive sexual contact of a minor while 

he was residing in Japan; the conviction, in the Southern District of Georgia, of a 

DOD contractor employed in Iraq for abusive sexual contact; the conviction, in the 

Western District of Texas, of a DOD contractor in Qatar on child pornography 

43 

charges; and the conviction, in the Eastern District of Virginia, of another DOD contractor in Iraq on child pornography charges. 

It must be noted that even with the broadest scope of jurisdiction, however, investigating and prosecuting serious crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan are very challenging. As a general matter, investigations in any foreign country face particular 

difficulties of language, evidence collection, logistical support, and coordination with 

a sovereign power. In addition, the present circumstances in Iraq and Afghanistan 

raise further obstacles. Field investigation in an active war zone is extremely difficult and requires extensive security precautions. Witnesses are difficult to locate 

and when found are often reluctant to come to the United States to testify. In short, 

investigating and prosecuting serious crimes in a war zone is a very difficult and 

costly proposition, and the associated challenges cannot be underestimated. These 

logistical challenges help explain why investigations and prosecutions under MEJA 

may take significant time to complete. 

III. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION

The Department of Justice coordinates regularly, often on a daily basis, with 

other Departments and agencies on MEJA cases, both at the initial referral stage 

and subsequently at the investigation and prosecution stage. For example, the Department receives referrals from the Department of Defense pursuant to procedures 

set forth in March 2005 in Department of Defense Instruction 5525.11. 

In practice, the General Counsel’s Office of the Department of Defense initiates 

the referral by sending the Criminal Division a summary of the case describing the 

basic allegations and facts. In some cases, the General Counsel’s Office also provides 

a military law enforcement report with the initial referral. Once a case is referred 

to a U.S. attorney’s office, prosecutors and agents likewise coordinate, often on a 

daily basis. 

While these established procedures have been quite effective in ensuring appropriate coordination, we are always looking for ways to improve. Thus, in recent 

months, the Department has been working very closely with the Departments of Defense and State to improve the process by which both Departments investigate and 

refer cases to the Department of Justice for prosecution. The results of these efforts 

include the recent March 10, 2008, memorandum from the Secretary of Defense governing how offenses that are both a violation of MEJA and the UCMJ should be 

handled. 

In addition, the Department recognizes that training and education is key to the 

successful investigation and prosecution of these highly complex cases. As a result, 

the Criminal Division has been proactively offering training courses on MEJA to 

military investigative agencies, such as the Army Criminal Investigation Command 

and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, and has provided instruction on 

MEJA to the Judge Advocate General Corps of the Armed Services as well. This 

training has already contributed to an increase in 2008 of MEJA referrals from the 

Department of Defense. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to express to you and the committee 

the Department’s appreciation for your interest in this issue. The Department is 

committed to remaining vigilant in our efforts to bring sexual offenders to justice. 

I look forward to answering the committee’s questions. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Senator, I can tell you that we do have a number of cases under active investigation. We also, in addition, have 

indicted a case of a contractor, of sexual assault, and received a 

conviction. The victim there was a member of the military. We’ve 

also indicted an additional case involving a former member of the 

military, for rape and murder, and that case is pending. So, yes, 

we do have a number of active investigations. Of course, the number of referrals that we’ve received is not a high number. It is, as 

you’ve heard today, relatively low. But, we are committed to continuing to actively investigate these cases and to prosecute them, 

where we have credible evidence and the jurisdiction to do so. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And, specifically, on the sworn testimony 

we’ve heard today, will you be commencing or continuing criminal 

investigation, based on that sworn testimony? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Yes, absolutely. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. 

44 

Mr. Reed, is the Department of Defense investigating the military’s response to the incidents we heard testimony about this 

morning? 

Mr. REED. I know the second witness has been investigated. As 

to the first witness, I don’t recall her testimony as to whether she 

indicated she complained to CID, and then we’d have to check with 

CID on that, as to whether or not they have investigated or they 

have a statement in order to initiate an investigation. When I 

heard her testimony this morning, it was the first time I had heard 

it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. Well, obviously—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes; she did say that CID had investigated it. 

Mr. REED. Right. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, obviously we’ll be watching closely what 

happens with these cases. These brave and patriotic women deserve justice, and we owe it to them. 

In the past, when the Department of Justice has been questioned 

about its failure to initiate prosecutions against contractors in 

cases the Department of Defense referred to it, DOJ has offered 

two justifications. First, DOJ has argued that it lacks sufficient evidence to prosecute. I understand that DOJ has over 200 employees 

in Iraq working on various issues. Are any of these individuals 

charged with working with State Department and Army investigative personnel on investigations of contractors to ensure, among 

other things, that evidence is collected to make prosecutions possible? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Let me just clarify, with respect to your previous question. We do have—out of the victims who testified today, 

we have one active investigation. And, as Mr. Reed noted, this was 

also the first time that we had heard about the second victim. 

Absolutely, we have folks both in the Department of Justice—— 

Senator FEINGOLD. So, with regard to the one you just heard 

about, you will be commencing an investigation. 

Ms. MANDELKER. We—— 

Senator FEINGOLD. Because you said you hadn’t heard about it 

before today. That means you must be commencing an investigation after this—— 

Ms. MANDELKER. We do have—— 

Senator FEINGOLD [continuing]. Hearing. 

Ms. MANDELKER [continuing]. An active investigation. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I thought you said you hadn’t heard about it 

before. 

Ms. MANDELKER. The one victim of the incident that occurred in 

2004, we didn’t. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I assume, then, an investigation will commence on that. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, we will work with our colleagues at the 

Department of Defense, and are very interested to work with the 

victim and to see that—what we can do there. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. You can go back to answering the 

subsequent question, then. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Absolutely, we have a number of prosecutors, 

both here and in Iraq, who are working on these cases. Here in the 

45 

Criminal Division, for example, where I work, we have a team of 

prosecutors who focus on MEJA cases. We also have prosecutors all 

over the country who are willing and able to accept referrals of 

MEJA cases. We work very closely with our colleagues who are, in 

fact, in Iraq, whether it’s with our DOD or State Department colleagues or the prosecutors the Department of Justice has stationed 

in Iraq. 

Senator FEINGOLD. But, it sounds a little more general than my 

question. My question was, specifically, Are people assigned the 

task to make sure that evidence is collected to make prosecutions 

possible? 

Ms. MANDELKER. As cases come into the Department, we do have 

prosecutors who are specifically designated to work on a particular 

case. And we reach out to our colleagues in Iraq regularly, as we 

need—as we need assistance in—their assistance, as well as law 

enforcement’s assistance, in collecting evidence. 

Senator FEINGOLD. It sounds, a little bit, that’s case by case, 

rather than assigning somebody with this general responsibility. 

Wouldn’t it be helpful to designate a person or persons with that 

particular responsibility? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, we do have individuals who are designated with that responsibility here in the Criminal Division at 

the Department of Justice. We reach out to our colleagues in Iraq, 

as necessary, and they do provide us with a good deal of assistance 

in furthering these cases. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, it sounds like it’s particularly challenging to do it over there, so I think you may well need somebody 

over there who has that expertise. 

DOJ’s second justification for not prosecuting certain offenses by 

contractors is the lack of jurisdiction. DOJ has declined to prosecute civilians who have allegedly abused detainees, in part because the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, MEJA, does 

not provide jurisdiction over misdemeanor assault. 

But, MEJA is not the only statute that DOJ statute that DOJ 

can employ. There are other criminal statutes that apply on U.S. 

bases and other facilities within the special maritime territory jurisdiction of the United States, which would include U.S. bases and 

detention facilities abroad. For example, Section 113 of Title 18 of 

the U.S. Code provides for jurisdiction over simple assault in U.S. 

special maritime territory jurisdiction. 

In a letter to Senator Durbin regarding 20 cases of alleged detainee abuse that were referred to the Justice Department, the Department stated that, ‘‘There may have been evidence of misdemeanor assaults.’’ Why didn’t you prosecute those individuals 

under section 113 of title 18? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Senator, I can tell you that we do, in fact, have 

a conviction emanating out of a case in Afghanistan in which we 

did prosecute a CIA contractor for exactly the charge that you mentioned, which is assault. As for the other cases, we have a task 

force that’s set up in the Eastern District of Virginia. That task 

force does not sit under me. And I am happy to get back to you 

with a response to your question. 

[The information referred to above was not available at press 

time.] 

46 

Senator FEINGOLD. Please do. And thank you. 

The Justice Department has also argued that MEJA doesn’t 

apply to State Department contractors in Iraq. But, Ms. 

Mandelker, isn’t it true that MEJA applies to anyone supporting a 

Defense Department mission, and that, in Iraq, the State Department and Defense Department have a joint mission? 

Ms. MANDELKER. You are correct that MEJA provides for jurisdiction over non-DOD contractors whose employment is in the 

scope—is in support of the DOD mission. So, with respect to State 

Department contractors, we have to undertake an analysis on a 

case-by-case basis with respect to whether or not the contractor, 

the offender, the scope of his employment was, in fact, in support 

of the DOD mission. 

Senator FEINGOLD. So, it is possible that it would be included—— 

Ms. MANDELKER. Yes—— 

Senator FEINGOLD [continuing]. And applicable to Iraq. 

Ms. MANDELKER. That’s right, it is possible. 

Senator FEINGOLD. OK. 

Let’s talk for a minute about the contractor’s response to these 

allegations. There appear to be many cases where the contractor’s 

response to these horrible events has been to ignore complaints, 

warn employees to keep quiet, or even fire them. To add insult to 

injury, KBR, Halliburton, and other companies have included mandatory arbitration clauses in their contracts with employees, which 

means that these victims cannot sue their employers in court, but, 

instead, must make use of an arbitration process that is stacked 

against the employee. 

Because arbitrations, unlike court proceedings, are not open to 

the press and the public, these mandatory arbitration clauses have 

the additional effect of limiting the information available to the 

public about what’s happening with contractors in Iraq. 

The United States Government has an obligation to help these 

employees who undertake dangerous service in Iraq and elsewhere 

to vindicate their constitutional right to have a court consider their 

claims against their employers. Will the Defense and State Departments give serious consideration to requiring contractors to remove 

these mandatory arbitration provisions from their contracts with 

employees? 

And then, after that, Ms. Mandelker, do you see any legal difficulty with adding that requirement as a condition of the government contracts under which KBR, Halliburton, and others provide 

services to the United States? 

Mr. Reed. 

Mr. REED. First of all, as to the arbitration clause and contractors, it’s outside of my area of expertise, so I won’t—I won’t attempt to address that, other than the fact that you’ve made your 

concern known, and we can take that back. 

I don’t know, personally, whether or not the Department can demand certain contractual provisions within a civilian contract or 

not, so—but, you have made your—you’ve made your—— 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Point known, and I think we’d—I’d have 

to leave it at that, from a personal—— 

47 

Senator FEINGOLD. OK. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Perspective. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Starr. State. 

Mr. STARR. Sir, I would have to do the same thing. I think I’d 

have to check with our procurement officials to make a determination whether we could require that in a contract. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. 

Mr. STARR. We’d have to have a discussion within the Department about it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And then, let me ask DOJ, then. Ms. 

Mandelker, finally, again, Do you see any legal difficulty with adding that requirement as a condition of the government contracts? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Senator, I, likewise, am not a procurement or 

contract lawyer, but I can say that there should be no circumstance 

under which a victim feels inhibited or hindered from reporting 

their crime to law enforcement. And we need to make sure that we 

create the environment under—by which they feel comfortable, 

again, to report their crimes to law enforcement. And we do so, and 

we will continue to do so. But, a lot of work needs to be done. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, let me say, on that point, that that’s a 

valid point, but this also has to do with the accountability and the 

public nature of proceedings and the need for the American public—I’ll tell you, I do town meetings in every one of Wisconsin’s 72 

counties every year, and I’ve done 42 listening sessions this year 

in some weather you wouldn’t—people in—well, Florida has other 

challenges, but it was cold, and everybody showed up at these listening sessions, that—I had so many listening sessions, people are 

saying, ‘‘What’s going on with these contractors?’’ And there’s a lot 

of different issues. This one’s going to upset people a lot. So, the 

issue of mandatory arbitration has to do with justice for the individuals, but it also has to do with accountability and—for the 

American people, as well. 

So, I would like a response, after the fact, from all of you, as 

you’ve all offered to do, particularly with regard to the legality of 

including that in contracts, but also with regard to the other departments. 

[The information referred to above was not available at press 

time.] 

Senator FEINGOLD. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for 

your kindness in letting me go, at this point. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I want you to know how much I appreciate you coming here and your interest in this subject. At the end 

of the day, we’re trying to make the system work like it’s supposed 

to, and something is not working. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I’m curious, Mr. Reed, why—where an incident occurred before 2006, as was the case here with Ms. 

Kineston in 2004, why is prosecution barred under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice, which was amended in 2006, in an 2006 

law, if the case hasn’t been prosecuted yet? Is there a statute of 

limitations problem? 

Mr. REED. Well, statute of limitations would not normally be a 

problem. The general proposition is that both the person and the 

48 

events need to be subject to the code at the time for UCMJ jurisdiction to be applicable. And so, even though the offense may have 

been a codal offense, the person, at the time that the crime was 

committed, was not a person subject to the code. And I think that 

would be the argument, if you will, or the position that people 

would take, that the person would not be prosecuted subsequently. 

Senator BILL NELSON. How about the third law, the maritime 

and territorial jurisdiction? 

Mr. REED. That particular—was a Patriot Act amendment in 

2001 to address U.S. citizens—crimes committed by or against U.S. 

citizens on a military installation, I believe. I would primarily defer 

to Mr. Wiegmann on that. But, that is a separate—if the person 

and the offense otherwise qualified, it could be another basis for 

extraterritorial application of prosecution in Federal district court, 

but it is not a basis for prosecution under the UCMJ. 

Senator BILL NELSON. In fact, Mr. Wiegmann, didn’t you have a 

CIA contractor convicted under that provision of law for the assault 

of a detainee in Afghanistan? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. WIEGMANN, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISOR FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiegmann follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF J. BRADFORD WIEGMANN, ASSISTANT LEGAL ADVISER FOR

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Good morning Chairman Nelson and members of the subcommittee. I am pleased 

to be here today to discuss the legal framework under which the Department of 

State supports U.S. criminal investigations of violent crimes overseas. 

The President has long delegated to Chiefs of Mission his responsibility for the 

security of our missions abroad and of all U.S. Government personnel on official 

duty abroad, other than those under the protection of a U.S. area military commander. Likewise the Congress has by law vested in the Secretary of State the responsibility to develop and implement policies and programs to provide for the security of U.S. Government operations of a diplomatic nature, including protection of 

U.S. Government personnel on official duty abroad and establishment and operation 

of security functions at all U.S. Government missions abroad. Among the Secretary’s 

specific security responsibilities in this regard is the conduct of investigations relating to employee security and the performance of other security and investigative 

matters as authorized by law. Finally, the Secretary may direct members of the Foreign Service to perform functions, including investigative functions, on behalf of 

other Federal law enforcement agencies requiring their services. 

Collectively, these authorities have been viewed as supporting the Deparment’s 

role in investigating violent crimes committed by or against U.S. Government personnel operating overseas at U.S. diplomatic missions or otherwise related to the 

security of the mission. Such investigations are inherent in the responsibilities 

vested in the Secretary of State and in all Chiefs of Mission overseas to provide for 

the security of our missions and personnel abroad. Within the Department of State, 

the responsibility for conducting such investigations has been delegated to the 

Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which in turn assigns that responsibility to 

Regional Security Offices that are staffed by DS Special Agents at posts all over the 

world. Of course, such investigations are only one of many tasks these agents perform for the Department overseas, including post security and protective functions, 

communications and information security, emergency planning, and conducting visa 

and passport fraud investigations. 

The Department of State’s investigative functions in this regard are of course 

shared with the Department of Justice, and DS agents work closely with their counterparts at the FBI and other Federal law enforcement agencies on many of the 

investigative matters they undertake overseas related to the U.S. mission. As authorized by law and with respect for the sovereignty of the host country, DS agents 

overseas may also support and assist criminal investigations abroad undertaken by 

49 

the Department of Justice or other law enforcement agencies, even where such investigations do not relate directly to the U.S. Mission or U.S. Government personnel 

abroad. DS agents also serve as a liaison with foreign government law enforcement 

authorities on many different matters. In places like Iraq and Afghanistan, with significant ongoing military operations, DS agents serve as the Embassy’s principal 

law enforcement liaison with military investigative authorities in the country. Thus 

an Embassy Regional Security Office is one of several different entities that may 

potentially investigate a particular criminal incident abroad. 

In many cases, because Embassy officials are the primary representatives of the 

U.S. Government in the country, they may be the first to learn of, and respond to, 

criminal activity by or against a U.S. national overseas. Where appropriate, DS 

agents may take the lead on any subsequent U.S. investigation, particularly where 

the criminal activity involves the U.S. mission and its security. Alternatively, after 

an initial assessment of the facts, they may refer the matter to local authorities, 

the Department of Justice, or other Federal law enforcement agencies to investigate, 

particularly where a nexus to the U.S. mission is lacking. Of course, as I have said, 

DS can and does continue to provide support to such investigations where requested 

to do so. 

An important consideration in any U.S. investigation of criminal activities overseas is U.S. criminal jurisdiction. U.S. criminal laws generally apply only in the 

United States, unless Congress expressly provides otherwise or the courts infer 

extraterritorial application from the nature of the statute or its structure. Many 

crimes that are committed against U.S. citizens overseas are beyond U.S. criminal 

jurisdiction. There is no Federal statute, for example, that makes rape or sexual assault of a U.S. national a Federal offense worldwide. In most cases, only the local 

authorities have jurisdiction to prosecute the offense. Therefore, most crime against 

U.S. nationals overseas is investigated by local authorities and, if a perpetrator is 

identified, prosecuted within the local court system. 

However, there are of course circumstances where U.S. criminal jurisdiction does 

extend overseas: Under the U.S. Special Maritime and Territorial Jurisdiction, the 

U.S. Government can prosecute individuals for a broad range of felonies if they are 

committed by or against a U.S. national on the premises of U.S. diplomatic, consular, or military facilities overseas, or residences used by U.S. personnel assigned 

to those facilities. There is a number of specific criminal offenses under U.S. law 

that apply extraterritorially, such as certain offenses involving torture, war crimes, 

material support for terrorism, or drug offenses that impact the United States. 

Notably, there is a Federal statute that makes it a Federal offense for one U.S. national to murder another, anywhere in the world. Finally, under the Military 

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), the U.S. Government may prosecute, inter 

alia, DOD contractors for a broad range of felonies committed abroad, as well as 

non-DOD contractors to the extent that their employment relates to supporting the 

mission of the Department of Defense overseas. 

The administration is currently working with the Senate on legislation to expand 

the coverage of U.S. criminal laws in places like Iraq where we have ongoing military operations, to ensure that we have the tools we need to hold U.S. Government 

employees and contractors overseas accountable where appropriate. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address these issues today and I look forward 

to answering any questions the subcommittee may have. 

Mr. WIEGMANN. I think—Ms. Mandelker can address that, but I 

think that is correct. It just depends on where the offense occurs 

under the special maritime territorial jurisdiction. As Mr. Reed 

said, it has to occur on diplomatic premises, military base, military 

installation. I’m not quite sure where exactly Ms. Kineston’s offense occurred, but that would be the issue. If it did occur in one 

of those locations, it might be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. 

Let me go back to you, Mr. Reed. What kind of predeployment 

training on sexual harassment is required of DOD contractors? 

Mr. REED. It is my understanding that there is—there are provisions which would indicate that contractors are required to abide 

by all the laws, regulations applicable—and regulations applicable 

during their contractual relationship with the Department. And I 

believe there is a reference to sexual harassment in a requirement 

50 

that, prior to deployment, they be referred to the sexual harassment Web site to get information on that. But, that’s really not— 

I think the best way I would like to answer that question for you 

is that we have recognized that we need to emphasize, with contractors, the requirement that they notify contractor employees 

that these various laws are applicable, including, you know, the 

laws applicable to sexual assault, and that they provide training to 

those contractors, predeployment, and making it available to them 

upon arrival in the deployed location, to take local conditions into 

consideration. We have taken a position to develop those. We are 

in that process right now. And the effort is to increase awareness 

and, therefore, enhance accountability, and ultimately, hopefully, 

deter this kind of misbehavior as employees under contracts to the 

Department of Defense. So, that is a Federal acquisition regulation-type of procedure required in order to place the requirement 

on that. 

Now, we have also, in the interim, publicized the applicability of 

the DOD rules and regulations regarding prohibited sexual harassment and sexual assault. They have been implemented in the Army 

as of March 18, 2008, in the regulation that further implemented 

the DOD implementation. And it’s my understanding that Multi 

National Forces Iraq (MNFI), in Iraq, has made that a requirement 

within the AOR, and that notifications be publicized in public 

places as to where persons who become aware of, or may be subjected to, sexual harassment and sexual assault can go for help, as 

well as where to report incidents of that nature. 

So, to fully answer your question, we have a program ongoing 

right now, and we anticipate that it will expand the awareness and 

the knowledge of all folks who join the Armed Forces. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Certainly, the deficiencies that have been 

brought out—and let me amend your last statement, there, to 

‘‘make aware members of the Armed Forces.’’ We’re talking about 

making aware civilian contractors—— 

Mr. REED. Right. 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. As well, who are there as a 

result of the United States Armed Forces. 

Mr. REED. I should have said ‘‘total forces’’—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Yes. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Because total forces include our civilian—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Right. 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Employees and our civilian contractors, 

as well as the members of the Armed Forces, that we bring to the 

fight, so to speak. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. 

Now, I think what you’ve said is certainly a step in the right direction, but isn’t the question so obvious? We’re in the fifth year 

of a war. Why wouldn’t we have made sure that every member of 

the total Armed Forces was aware of what they need to do about 

these assaults? 

Let me ask you this. Is there a requirement in the contracts that 

requires contractors to provide training on how to report and handle sexual assaults while they are deployed? 

51 

Mr. REED. I don’t believe there currently is, although, as I mentioned, the Department has—is in—is pursuing that to put it in a 

Federal acquisition regulation system in order to make that a requirement, and the Department stands ready to assist the contractors in the formulation of what that training ought to consist of. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, you’re the Office of Legal Counsel. 

It seems like, to me, as a result of what you might have learned 

today, that might be something you want to insert in your contracts. 

Mr. REED. We are pursuing that, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I don’t want to be a cynic and respond to 

you by saying ‘‘5 years later.’’ 

Let me ask you this. In one of the reported cases—this is one of 

the reported cases in the news—the alleged victim had a rape kit 

that was completed by an Army medical officer shortly after the 

rape. And then, the rape kit was turned over, allegedly, to KBR. 

My question to you is, What criteria guide the decision by which 

the investigative authorities in Iraq and Afghanistan, or any other 

forward-deployed locations, turn cases over to the victim’s employer 

for further identification? When the military has the evidence, 

doesn’t the military have a responsibility to keep that evidence? 

Mr. REED. Well, I can’t respond to that particular point in time, 

but, yes, the position ought to be that when the military provides 

treatment that results in forensic evidence of a crime that was 

committed, that they ought to have the evidence turned over to the 

military criminal investigative organization that’s available until 

such time as the facts and circumstances of the alleged perpetrator 

and the jurisdiction of the case is sorted out, and then hand it over 

to the appropriate authorities for purposes of doing that. 

Whether or not such were available at the specific time in question, I can’t answer that. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, of course you can’t. No; I’m trying 

to get to the bottom—— 

Mr. REED. Right. But—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Of this whole thing. 

Let me give you another one. For example—now, where the military has the evidence and they turn it over to contractor security 

control, shouldn’t you have a formalized system in place in order 

to ensure the integrity of the evidence and the followup on these 

cases? 

Mr. REED. I don’t believe it’s protocol to turn them over to nonlaw-enforcement officials. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I would agree with that. 

Mr. REED. And I also don’t—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. But, in this case, it did happen. 

Mr. REED. And I also don’t believe that the military criminal investigative agencies who obtain evidence under chain of custody 

would not turn it over to somebody under chain-of-custody procedures. And I’m not aware that that occurred in this case, or not. 

Senator BILL NELSON. That’s one of the cases that I cited, at the 

outset, in my remarks. 

Well, let me ask you this. If there’s evidence suggesting that a 

U.S. member of the Armed Forces sexually assaulted a civilian contractor, and that evidence is told to another U.S. serviceman, what 

52 

should be the process by which—point by point, step by step, that 

the evidence would be protected? You’re the legal counsel. 

Mr. REED. It depends on the capabilities and qualifications of the 

soldier—or military members you’re talking about. But, if you get 

a military law enforcement or official involved in that process, if 

they are such, then they should take the evidence under chain-ofcustody purposes, preserve it, protect it, secure it, and turn it over 

to appropriate authorities for consideration of prosecution. If they 

are just a soldier or an airman or sailor who have no training or 

experience in evidence-collecting and/or forensics, that could be 

problematic. So, the answer depends on who those military members are, and their backgrounds and experience and responsibilities. But, once it’s in the hands of a law enforcement community 

official, then they should be taking such evidence under chain of 

custody and preserving it for possible prosecution down the road. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. Now, Mr. Reed, this is your chart. 

Mr. REED. No; it’s not. That’s the IG’s chart. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, it’s the Department of Defense 

chart. 

Mr. REED. Oh. OK. 

Senator BILL NELSON. You’re here as a representative of the Department of Defense. 

Mr. REED. All right. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And this is the inspector general of the 

Department of Defense. 

Now, you say, of—the victim being a U.S. civilian, that of those 

26 sexual assault cases, you know of no convictions on there. 

Mr. REED. Sir, that list is by victim status. Whether or not a person is prosecuted is determined by the offender’s status. So, I don’t 

know. You have a lot of U.S. civilian victims there, but I don’t 

know whether the perpetrator of the offense is a military member, 

a DOD civilian, a non-DOD civilian, a contractor, a non-DOD contractor, or whatever, and it’s that factor that is determinative as 

to whether or not there is jurisdiction under the Federal Code and 

the UCMJ Code. The status of the victim does not determine the 

jurisdiction. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, your inspector general in the Department of Defense argues that these are the ones that would 

have had the connection with the military, and we’re just trying to 

get some action, here. 

Mr. REED. I understand, sir. And I don’t disagree with you. I believe that it—based upon the IG’s information as to the victim status, he’s telling you that they had investigations that involved 

these victims in that status. What it doesn’t tell you is what the 

status is of the alleged offender, which is what you would use to 

determine the jurisdiction of those cases. Many of the cases that 

are ‘‘no action’’ might be because the individual was not subject to 

U.S. laws and was not subject to the UCMJ. I can’t answer that 

question. It could have been a foreign national that was the perpetrator. So, the information tells you of the number of cases that the 

military criminal investigators ran that involved a victim of sexual 

assault—by the military criminal investigative organizations in 

those two locations—but, it doesn’t specifically identify the basis, in 

personam jurisdiction over the individual. 

53 

Senator BILL NELSON. Do you see the bottom of that chart? It 

says ‘‘Investigated Subjects by Affiliation.’’ 

Mr. REED. I see that. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Can you move that chair? Yeah, just put 

it up. Does that answer your question? 

Mr. REED. It depends on—I don’t—I assume—I have to assume 

that they correspond with—up in—in table No. 1, but I don’t know 

for sure, and I don’t know which cases they latch up to. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. But, you know—— 

Mr. REED. But those—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. You know what I’m getting at. 

Mr. REED. But, those are categories—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right, let’s just get—— 

Mr. REED. But, those are categories of—— 

Senator BILL NELSON [continuing]. Let’s get—— 

Mr. REED [continuing]. Of jurisdiction, U.S. civilian, if they’re 

subject to MEJA, and U.S. military, if they’re subject to UCMJ. 

Senator BILL NELSON. All right. 

Mr. REED. Or MEJA. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Ms. Mandelker. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Yes. 

Senator BILL NELSON. With regard to your Department of Justice, how many people has Justice successfully prosecuted for sexually assaulting a U.S. civilian contractor in Iraq or Afghanistan? 

Ms. MANDELKER. For sexual assault? Senator, we—I don’t know 

of any convictions. I do know that we have active investigations. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And how many of those are active investigations? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, it’s upward of about—somewhere of 

about—somewhere between four and six, I believe is the number. 

Senator BILL NELSON. And, as a result of today, you say that 

Mrs. Kineston’s is one of those? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Again, Senator, today is the first day that we— 

Mrs. Kineston’s testimony is the first time that we’ve heard of such 

a case. We will absolutely reach out to Mrs. Kineston. We, in fact, 

had a good discussion with her lawyer, in the recess. And I can 

give you my word that as—across the board, we remain very committed to investigating these cases and to prosecuting these cases. 

I would like to point out one very important—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. Let me ask you about Mrs. Leamon before 

you go on. What about her? 

Ms. MANDELKER. We do have an active investigation of that case. 

As you know, it just recently came to light, but we do have an active investigation. 

Senator BILL NELSON. OK. And, of course, you can’t comment on 

the investigation. But, that’s—well, that’s news. You do have an investigation going on, on—the Department of Justice—on Mrs. 

Leamon’s case. 

Ms. MANDELKER. That is correct. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Let me ask you—you were going to say 

something, and I interrupted you. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, I would just want to point out, because 

I think it’s a—it’s very important to note, as Mr. Starr noted at the 

outset, these cases are very important cases. The allegations are 

54 

very serious. At the same time, it can be extremely difficult to investigate these cases. As you heard today, it is an unfortunate fact 

that these crimes occur in a war zone. And there are numerous difficulties, of course, with investigating cases, when the conduct occurred in a war zone. These are dangerous areas. 

We do make—we do send our investigators out to investigate 

these cases. I’ve personally been involved in the decision to send 

our agents out to investigate these cases, to collect evidence. It’s 

very important to—that we do so. But, we should applaud the men 

and women who take on this—take on these investigations, because—I can tell you that we send them out, they do great work. 

We worry about them when they’re out there. And it needs to be 

recognized that, you know, time is, unfortunately, not on our side, 

when you’re talking about a sexual assault case, but we face some 

very difficult obstacles, and it is also unfortunate that we don’t control the timetable by which we go and investigate these cases. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, of the four to six cases that you say 

that are open investigations, how old are these investigations? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Senator, I’m simply not at liberty to discuss 

pending investigations. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, of course, the concern would be that 

they’ve been going on for years, and the perpetrators, of course, 

would not be brought to justice, if they are responsible. 

Well, knowing that the evidence is so difficult to collect and to 

preserve, why is there no office from the Department of Justice deployed to the theater? 

Ms. MANDELKER. We do, in fact, have both prosecutors and 

agents in theater. We have prosecutors here at home who are 

working on these cases. So, I can’t tell you that the individuals who 

are in-theater are only dedicated to MEJA cases, but we do enlist 

their help and their support, and they have provided us with a 

great deal of support. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I can tell you that I think that I speak for 

the committee, that that’s not good enough. In a war zone, where 

evidence is hard to collect and it has a way of disappearing, and 

the preservation of that evidence is necessary, I think you all ought 

to consider putting an office forward in the theater. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Let me say, of course, it’s very often the case 

that the law enforcement—it’s always the case, I should say, that 

the principal law enforcement agents that respond to the scene are 

either in the military or at the State Department, and they, as 

well, have a number of dedicated agents in the field who are working on these cases. So, there are a—there’s a good deal of resources 

available in-theater in Iraq to handle these investigations. 

Senator BILL NELSON. I would beg to differ with you, on the 

basis of the testimony that we received this morning. 

Let me ask you about your coordination with the Department of 

Defense and the Department of State. Now, this is a response I got 

from your Department last night, ‘‘We coordinate closely with the 

referring agencies, and in most instances, the referring agencies 

play a significant role in the investigation in any prosecution. The 

Department’’—in this case, of Justice—‘‘is aware of the small number of allegations of sexual assault cases by women who worked as 

government contractors in Iraq.’’ 

55 

So, you consider 26 cases as a small number. 

Ms. MANDELKER. Again, I think, Senator, that you heard from 

the other Departments the number of referrals that have been 

made to the Department of Justice with respect to sexual assaults 

in Iraq. I think most of those cases are—have to do, in fact, with 

the military, and I don’t know if those cases reflect cases, again, 

where we would have jurisdiction to prosecute. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, in your testimony, you state that 

MEJA contains a number of important restrictions. Has the Department of Justice sought legislation to alleviate any of those restrictions? 

Ms. MANDELKER. We have—we do support legislative efforts to 

provide greater accountability for unlawful acts committed by contractors in Iraq. We are working with the Congress, and we will 

continue to work with the Congress on such efforts. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Are there any other restrictions in your 

testimony this morning, in your written testimony, that you want 

to change, or do you support those restrictions? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Well, again, Senator, we are working with the 

Congress on legislative efforts to amend MEJA to ensure that more 

contractors are accountable in Iraq. 

Senator BILL NELSON. It’s my understanding that, in one of these 

cases, that your Department instructed the State Department, 

upon referral of a potential MEJA case, to cease any further investigation in that case, and you prohibited the State Department 

from discussing the matter with anyone. Is that true? 

Ms. MANDELKER. Again, Senator, I don’t have that information, 

and I’m—— 

Senator BILL NELSON. You don’t know. 

Well, then I would like to keep it open for the record for you to 

answer that and give, if that was true, any justification for stopping any further action by the Department of State. If you will respond in writing to the committee. 

[The information referred to above was not available at press 

time.] 

Senator BILL NELSON. Your testimony describes MEJA cases in 

which convictions have been obtained or charges brought, but every 

one of those involves charges other than crimes, such as the possession of child pornography or sexually abusive contact. And I want 

to applaud you to enforce the law in those cases. 

But, that’s not why we’re here today. We’re here for the sexual 

assault cases. And, thus far, you’ve told us, now, that there has not 

been one conviction under MEJA which you have, and you just told 

us that you have one open investigation on this case that was presented to us today. 

If you will, take from this hearing the fact that the Department 

of Defense inspector general has identified those 26 sexual assault 

cases involving U.S. civilian women between 2002 and 2008, and 

not one of them appears to be have been prosecuted. 

So, is there anything more that you want to add about the lack 

of a prosecution in any of those cases? 

56 

Ms. MANDELKER. Again, I am not familiar with the cases that 

are represented on the chart. I am only familiar with cases that 

have been specifically referred to the Department of Justice. 

I want to assure you that, when we get such a—referrals, we 

take those referrals very seriously. We undertake active investigations. As I already mentioned, it can be extremely difficult to conduct an investigation in a war zone, but we are committed to taking those cases. The Department, in fact, has a long history of success when we’re talking about prosecuting sexual offenders. We 

have a long history of success, both domestically and abroad. We 

prosecute numerous child offenders. We have, in fact, under MEJA. 

We prosecute sex traffickers. We prosecute sex tourists. We take 

sex offenses very seriously, and there’s no exception when it comes 

to sexual assaults of contractors or civilians in Iraq. 

Senator BILL NELSON. Well, one of the reasons of this hearing 

was to make you aware. And you now are aware. And this is an 

inspector general report from the Department of Defense dated 

April the 3rd in a letter to me. So, I would suggest to you, in our 

capacity of oversight of the executive branch of government, that 

you coordinate with the Department of Defense and the Department of State as to whether or not some of these cases have fallen 

through the cracks. 

For me to say anything more would be superfluous. You know 

what the problem is. Let’s get it solved. 

Thank you. 

And the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSE TO AN ADDITIONAL QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ACTING

ASSISTANT SECRETARY GREGORY STARR BY SENATOR FEINGOLD

Question. I understand that the bilateral security agreement between the United 

States and Iraq that is currently under negotiation is likely to provide immunity 

for U.S. contractors. Given the U.S. Government’s failure to establish a meaningful 

oversight regime, do you think it makes sense to deny the Iraqis the authority to 

prosecute contractors? Why don’t we, at a minimum, provide for Iraqi jurisdiction 

where the United States declines to exercise its jurisdiction? What is the precedent 

for a blanket grant of immunity to contractors where no jurisdiction exists under 

local law? 

Answer. Contractor support is critical to the U.S. Mission in Iraq. The status of 

contractors is an issue of concern to both the United States and Iraq. Contractors 

working on behalf of the U.S. government in Iraq currently possess immunity from 

Iraqi legal process for their contractual acts under a CPA Order (now part of Iraqi 

domestic law), which is tied to the presence of the Multinational Force in Iraq and 

its UN Chapter VII mandate. As we negotiate a new strategic and security relationship with Iraq, we have stressed our respect for Iraqi sovereignty, and Iraq has emphasized the importance they place on effective accountability for USG contractors 

in Iraq. We seek an outcome that will ensure our ability to maintain an effective 

contractor presence in Iraq. 

Our negotiations with the Iraqi government are still ongoing; so we cannot comment on any specific provisions until those negotiations conclude. 

I must register disagreement, however, with the premise that the United States 

government has failed to establish a meaningful oversight regime for contractors. 

While it is well understood that conducting investigations of critical incidents in a 

war zone poses many difficult challenges, there have been investigations concerning 

conduct by U.S. government contractors in Iraq, and, where appropriate, referrals 

to U.S. law enforcement entities have been made. With regard specifically to private 

57 

1The page numbers mentioned in Mr. Reed’s response refer to the page numbers of the unedited transcript of the hearing, not this print. 

security contractors, the U.S. government has made significant efforts to improve 

its oversight and accountability in the last several months. 

Moreover, the Department of State strongly supports efforts to provide greater 

legal accountability for unlawful acts its contractors may commit in Iraq or other 

areas of combat operations. The Administration has been working closely with the 

Senate on legislative amendments that would increase our ability to hold U.S. contractors overseas accountable under federal law. We have supported those efforts 

and would very much like to see appropriate legislation on this issue enacted as 

soon as possible. 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ROBERT

REED, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, MILITARY JUSTICE AND PERSONNEL

POLICY, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, BY SENATOR FEINGOLD

Leamon Case 

Question. During the hearing, you testified that in Ms. Leamon’s case, Ms. 

Leamon ‘‘appeared to be pleased with . . . the responsiveness of the CID once they 

were notified of the situation,’’ and that agents of the Criminal Investigative Division (CID) appeared to have ‘‘responded appropriately under the circumstances.’’ 

a. Ms. Leamon testified that, at CID, ‘‘I was interrogated from 2 p.m. until midnight by two special agents. I advised them that I had an attorney, and they convinced me to sign a waiver of my rights. The agents were very intimidating and 

their questions and demeanor suggested strongly that they thought I was lying 

about the rape.’’ Does this testimony indicate to you that Ms. Leamon was ‘‘pleased’’ 

with CID’s ‘‘responsiveness?’’ Do you consider the behavior she described to be appropriate? 

b. Ms. Leamon testified that CID did not detain her assailants or restrict their 

movements, instead requiring her to be accompanied by CID military personnel as 

she moved about the base. Is it your position that it was not appropriate under the 

circumstances to detain her assailants? If so, was it inappropriate in your view for 

the military police to arrest Ms. Kineston’s assailant? 

c. Ms. Kineston testified that the Judge Advocate General she spoke with regarding sexual harassment on the base told her he could not assist her. Was this an 

appropriate response? 

Answer. 

Does Ms Leamon’s testimony indicate to you that Ms. Leamon was 

pleased with CID’s ‘‘responsiveness?’’ Do you consider the (CID) behavior 

she described to be appropriate? 

a. The question now presented to me is an inaccurate reflection of the dialogue 

between me and Senator Nelson at the hearing on April 9, 2008, about the content 

of the testimony of another witness, Ms. Leamon. In order to understand the response I provided, in context, an understanding of the previous testimony at the 

hearing is required as background. 

Ms. Leamon’s testimony begins on page 411 of the Congressional Transcript of the 

hearing, in which she testified that she had not seen a doctor until she had left 

Camp Cedar and arrived at Camp Adder, where she was seen and examined by a 

military doctor at the Combat Support Hospital. Ms. Leamon stated, ‘‘The physician 

brought me into the clinic. We spent a great deal of time talking. She was very kind. 

She asked me to describe what happened. And she spent a lot of time telling me 

that, from what I could describe to her, that it sounded like I had been drugged 

and that I was raped.’’ On page 42, Ms. Leamon’s testimony goes further in describing her treatment by the military physician and states, ‘‘She’s—she was very, very 

supportive of my situation. She encouraged me at that time, to report it, as well, 

further. She asked if I would see the combat stress personnel. And she did her exam 

and collected her samples.’’ She testified that she followed the advice given, stating, 

‘‘I did see combat stress psychiatrist, who prescribed four tablets, for me to sleep 

that night.’’ This testimony was in contrast to the treatment she received by Kellogg 

58 

Brown and Root (KBR) personnel and Global Investigations personnel, which is also 

a part of KBR, while still at Camp Cedar. 

On page 43, when Senator Nelson first asked Ms. Leamon about her signed statement in which she stated, ‘‘When I got to Adder, I was taken to CID (Criminal Investigation Division) where I was interrogated from 2:00 p.m. until midnight by two 

special agents,’’ Ms. Leamon responded, ‘‘Correct. That was not that day. This was 

Global Investigations, which is KBR’s investigators, that arranged the stay of interrogation.’’ Ms. Leamon’s testimony then went on to discuss events involving Global 

Investigations. Although Ms. Leamon again verified, on pages 45–46, what she said 

in her written statement, on page 46, Ms. Leamon also testified that the CID special 

agents took her to a room in the military housing area and put her in a room for 

the night between the two special agents for her protection and was given further 

advice for her protection when she wanted to leave the room to smoke a cigarette. 

Ms. Leamon had previously testified about her concern for her safety and criticism 

of KBR treatment and the fact that her alleged assailants were still present where 

she had to work at Camp Cedar. Ms. Leamon’s testimony on page 46 continued, in 

which she stated she was picked up the following morning, as scheduled, and went 

back to the CID office where they reviewed her 14-page statement, asked her more 

questions, and asked her to handwrite a narrative. Once completed, she was taken 

back to Camp Cedar. 

The relevant dialogue referenced between Senator Nelson and me is on pages 72– 

73 of the Congressional Transcript. Senator Nelson’s question to me was, ‘‘Likewise, 

you must have been warmed to hear, as Ms. Leamon was shuffled around, that it 

wasn’t until she got into the hands of the military, the Criminal Investigative Division and, even more specifically, until she got to the military doctor, that she started 

getting some attention.’’ (Emphasis added.) I answered the question as more specifically presented, ‘‘That was her testimony, and, taking it as it is, she appeared to 

be pleased with the care that she received from the hospital physician that treated 

her, and generally, the responsiveness of the CID, once they were notified of the situation.’’ (Emphasis added.) My response then stated, ‘‘I—so, I guess the answer is, it 

would appear that they responded appropriately under the circumstances.’’ (Emphasis added.) In summary, my response to the question regarding the CID involvement 

was on the issue of their responsiveness to Ms. Leamon’s request for medical and 

CID assistance, not all aspects of CID’s involvement, although providing her security and security advice and allowing her time to review and amend her statement 

were additional indicia of assistance she was provided. As to whether the length of 

time attributed to ‘‘interrogation’’ is accurate or appropriate under the circumstances, that issue is a matter best addressed to CID officials familiar with procedures and the case in question. My response to Senator Nelson’s question was not 

addressing this aspect of Ms. Leamon’s testimony—it was only addressing what 

Senator Nelson’s question appeared to be actually asking about—CID’s responsiveness to her request for assistance. 

Ms. Leamon’s hearing testimony on page 45 of the Congressional Transcript was 

unspecific about what rights (as a victim of a crime) she was asked to waive, or even 

explain why (as a victim of a crime) she would be asserting she had an attorney 

and, therefore, would be reluctant to cooperate with CID as a law enforcement organization attempting to investigate her complaint. Similarly, she did not explain 

what she meant by ′′the agents were very intimidating.′′ It is not uncommon for investigators to challenge a complainant’s complaint in order to determine what occurred without the added possibility of self-serving embellishments or generalizations. However, since there is no further explanation provided, I cannot comment 

on such statements when presented in a vacuum. 

Is it your position that it was not appropriate under the circumstances 

to detain her assailants? If so, was it inappropriate in your view for the 

military police to arrest Ms. Kineston’s assailant? 

b. Ms. Leamon’s complaint apparently involved a fellow KBR contractor civilian 

employee and a military member only identified as ‘‘Jason’’ (pages 30 and 34, Congressional Transcript). CID was initiating an investigation based on Ms. Leamon’s 

complaint. On a military installation, such as Camp Cedar, authority to ′′arrest′′ and 

‘‘detain’’ (in the context of putting someone in jail) is limited by the circumstances, 

and the standards applicable to pretrial confinement. Generally, persons are not 

placed in military confinement based solely upon being accused of committing a 

crime. In this case, CID provided Ms. Leamon protection from her alleged assailants, as she testified. In Ms. Kineston’s testimony she stated that the military police 

‘‘dragged him out of the truck, put handcuffs on him, and took him to jail.’’ I cannot 

confirm or deny what Ms. Kineston stated took place regarding this 2004 incident 

and would question whether this person was ever ‘‘jailed’’ as testified. Ms. Kineston 

59 

later testified on page 18 of the Congressional transcript that she was told by the 

military police that ′′because he was a contractor, that they had the right to kick 

off—anybody off the base immediately, and that’s what their—that’s what they were 

going to do.’’ This latter procedure of ‘‘kicking the person of base’’ is what is ordinarily referred to as being ‘‘barred from the installation’’ under the installation commander’s authority. As a general rule, military law enforcement officials only temporarily detain, without ‘‘jailing,’’ civilians until such time as the civilian in question 

can be turned over to civilian law enforcement authorities, if available. If civilian 

authorities are not available to assume custody of the individual, or are without authority to do so, the person is normally removed and barred from the installation. 

This appears to be what Ms. Kineston stated had occurred regarding her alleged assailant. 

DoD’s regulations implementing the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act 

(MEJA; 18 U.S.C. § 3261 et seq.), Department of Defense Instruction 5525.11 

(March 3, 2005), now authorize military law enforcement officials outside the United 

States to arrest persons based on probable cause who are believed to have violated 

the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA; 18 U.S.C. § 3261 et seq.). This 

action is only to be taken with a view toward MEJA prosecution in Federal district 

court. The MEJA limitations against the removal of the person from the foreign 

country (18 U.S.C. § 3264), the initial proceedings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3265, and 

procedural requirements of DODI 5525.11 will apply. The temporary detention in 

a military detention facility of a person charged with a MEJA offense may only be 

pursuant to the order of the Commander of the Combatant Command or designee. 

The decision is made on a case-by-case basis and temporary detention in a military 

detention facility should be ordered only when a serious risk is believed to exist that 

the person shall flee and not appear, as required, for any pretrial investigation, pretrial hearing, or trial proceedings, or the person may engage in serious criminal misconduct (e.g., the intimidation of witnesses or other obstructions of justice, causing 

injury to others, or committing other offenses that pose a threat to the safety of the 

community or to the national security of the United States). Paragraph 6.2.5, DODI 

5525.11. Since October 2006, persons serving with or accompanying the armed 

forces during a contingency operation conducted for the purpose of engaging the 

enemy or hostile forces would be subject to military jurisdiction under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ; chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code). As 

such, a person subject to the UCMJ can be apprehended and placed in pretrial confinement based on probable cause and when a lesser form of restraint is determined 

to be inadequate to ensure the person’s continued presence for any court-martial 

proceedings or to prevent the person from committing additional offenses or being 

a threat to the safety of others. 

Ms. Kineston testified that the Judge Advocate General she spoke with 

regarding sexual harassment on the base told her he could not assist her. 

Was this an appropriate response? 

c. As to the question regarding Ms. Kineston’s testimony that she was denied 

judge advocate assistance regarding her request for legal assistance for being sexually harassed, Ms. Kineston’s testimony is on pages 19–20 of the Congressional 

Transcript. As I understood her to testify and I read the transcript of her testimony, 

Ms. Kineston sought assistance under the military Legal Assistance Program, as 

then-provided in 2004 at Anaconda, the KBR camp at Balad Air Base, Iraq. In her 

testimony, Ms. Kineston, a civilian contractor employee, stated to Senator Nelson 

that it was correct that she was told she wasn’t provided such legal services because 

the JAG office ‘‘didn’t support civilians on the base’’ and she explained her situation 

involving her civilian assailant and how she had been subjected to sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior by her fellow KBR civilian contractor employees 

and supervisors. She was advised that she could contact a civilian attorney in Baghdad. 

Paragraph 2–5, Army Regulation 27–3, ‘‘The Army Legal Assistance Program,’’ defines those persons eligible to receive legal assistance (and, where noted, within the 

limitations described. Subparagraph (a) (7) states that civilian contractors accompanying the Armed Forces of the United States outside the United States are persons eligible to receive legal assistance, when DOD is contractually obligated to provide this assistance to such personnel as part of their logistical support and (a) the 

legal assistance provided must be in accordance with—and not prohibited by—applicable international agreement, or approved by the host-nation government in some 

way, and (b) legal assistance is limited to ministerial services (for example, notarial 

services), legal counseling (to include the review and discussion of legal correspondence and documents), legal document preparation (limited to powers of attorney and 

advanced medical directives, and help on retaining civilian lawyers. Subparagraph 

60 

(a)(7) goes on to state that Staff Judge Advocates (SJAs) should recommend elimination of such contractual obligations whenever these contracts are reviewed or renegotiated. As previously stated, Ms. Kineston was told that she wasn’t eligible for 

legal assistance concerning her concerns and complaints about her civilian supervisors and co-workers and that she could seek assistance from a civilian attorney 

in Baghdad. 

Army Regulation 27–3, also authorizes a commander responsible for legal assistance services to limit legal assistance when the space, facilities, or legal and supporting staff are unavailable to provide full legal assistance services. There is similar authority to limit the legal assistance services provided to one or more categories 

of persons who otherwise would be eligible to legal assistance. A request for a more 

specific and detailed response regarding the eligibility of civilian contractor employees at Camps Cedar or Adder, Iraq, at that time, should be addressed to the Judge 

Advocate General of the Department of the Army. 

Use-of-Force Incidents 

Question. How many investigations of use-of-force incidents involving contractors 

off of U.S. bases in Iraq have been conducted by the Army Criminal Investigative 

Division or other military law enforcement agencies? What was the outcome of these 

investigations? 

Answer. Questions 2 through 5 presented to Mr. Reed involve investigative procedures and unrelated investigation cases. Those questions are beyond Mr. Reed’s 

knowledge and the information he possesses. Those questions should be addressed 

to the Office of Investigative Policy and Oversight, Office of the Inspector General, 

Department of Defense. 

Referral of Contractor Personnel for Investigation 

Question. How many incidents have been referred by the agencies that hire and 

oversee contract personnel, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, to the criminal 

investigative agencies? 

Answer. Questions 2 through 5 presented to Mr. Reed involve investigative procedures and unrelated investigation cases. Those questions are beyond Mr. Reed’s 

knowledge and the information he possesses. Those questions should be addressed 

to the Office of Investigative Policy and Oversight, Office of the Inspector General, 

Department of Defense. 

Review of All Defense Contractor Weapons Discharges 

Question. The 2008 defense authorization legislation required the Defense Department to review all discharges of weapons by its contractors and to investigate these 

incidents when appropriate. The Washington Post reported in October 2007 that 

Maj. Kent Lightner, head of the Reconstruction Operations Center and the individual charged with oversight of Army Corps of Engineer contractors, usually accepted the companies’ version of events when he learned of a shooting incident. He 

said, ‘‘If [a contractor] sends me a report and says, ‘Bad guys shot at us, we shot 

back and dropped two of them,’ I’m not going to investigate.’’ This suggests that the 

Army’s investigative system may be overly passive. 

a. What are the criteria for determining whether an investigation is needed? 

b. What do you consider to constitute an investigation for purposes of complying 

with the 2008 defense authorization? Does it include an effort to speak to witnesses 

and collect evidence? 

c. At what point must an incident be referred to a law enforcement agency? 

Answer. Questions 2 through 5 presented to Mr. Reed involve investigative procedures and unrelated investigation cases. Those questions are beyond Mr. Reed’s 

knowledge and the information he possesses. Those questions should be addressed 

to the Office of Investigative Policy and Oversight, Office of the Inspector General, 

Department of Defense. 

Washington Post Article on Triple Canopy 

Question. Last year, the Washington Post reported that former U.S. 

servicemembers Shane Schmidt and Charles Sheppard alleged that, while working 

for Triple Canopy, another employee, also a former U.S. servicemember, fired deliberately at Iraqi vehicles and civilians. Has the Defense Department interviewed 

these witnesses (Mr. Schmidt and Mr. Shane)? Has it conducted an investigation? 

What was the result of this investigation? 

61 

Answer. Questions 2 through 5 presented to Mr. Reed involve investigative procedures and unrelated investigation cases. Those questions are beyond Mr. Reed’s 

knowledge and the information he possesses. Those questions should be addressed 

to the Office of Investigative Policy and Oversight, Office of the Inspector General, 

Department of Defense. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BARACK OBAMA, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ILLINOIS

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on closing legal loopholes to 

ensure the prosecution of sexual assaults and other violent crimes committed overseas by American civilians operating in war zones. I also appreciate the courage of 

the witnesses who are testifying about their experiences in the hope that their 

efforts will prevent similar crimes against others and bring perpetrators to justice. 

I am deeply disturbed by the pattern of sexual assaults taking place in war zones 

and the apparent inability of the Federal Government to deter these crimes or hold 

perpetrators accountable. Press reports have described the accounts of a number of 

women who have been victims of sexual assault. These victims have described an 

unacceptable pattern of intimidation and obstruction in their pursuit of justice and 

assistance. 

We need immediate action to ensure that cases like these are investigated and 

prosecuted aggressively. Last December, I joined with Senators Daniel Akaka and 

Jon Tester in sending letters to the Attorney General and the inspectors general of 

the Departments of Defense and State seeking information about their apparent 

failure to investigate allegations made by former Halliburton/KBR administrative 

assistant Jamie Leigh Jones that she was drugged and raped by several coworkers 

while employed at Camp Hope in Baghdad. 

With approximately 180,000 contractors working in Iraq, we also need to address 

the broader challenge of ensuring that we have adequate legal mechanisms and adequate enforcement resources to deter and prosecute violent crimes committed in 

Iraq. In February 2007, I introduced the Transparency and Accountability in Military and Security Contracting Act to require accountability and enhanced congressional oversight for contractors operating in war zones. Components of this bill that 

require new reporting on the role of contractors operating in Iraq and new regulations on selection, training, and equipping of security contractors were signed into 

law as part of the FY08 National Defense Authorization Act. I am working with 

Senate colleagues to pass other components of the bill to increase accountability of 

contractors operating in war zones by ensuring that they are subject to U.S. criminal law. 

I will continue to work with this committee and other Senate colleagues to ensure 

that contractors are held accountable for their actions and that we take all appropriate steps to prevent the types of crimes that are the subject of today’s hearing. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMIE LEIGH JONES

Good Afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. First and foremost, I would like to thank all the members of the Senate and Congress who have 

united together in support of holding military and State Department contractors accountable under enforceable law. 

My name is Jamie Leigh Jones and I am the President of ‘‘The Jamie Leigh Foundation’’ which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping United States citizens 

and legal residents who are victims of crime while working abroad for government 

contractors and subcontractors. We demand government contract corporations and 

government entities act responsibly, and are held accountable to provide a work environment free of sexual harassment, and limit the potential for abuse. We work toward the day when all U.S. citizen contractors will be able to work without fear, 

consternation, and safety concerns. I am submitting this written testimony to share 

with you a personal but not isolated tragedy that affects our fellow women who go 

overseas to fight for our shadow army, the United States contractors. 

I went to Camp Hope, located in the ‘‘Green Zone,’’ Baghdad, Iraq, on July 25, 

2005, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Halliburton/KBR, my employer, prior 

to leaving the U.S., promised me that I would live in a trailer equipped to house 

two women, with a shared bathroom. This is an actual photograph I was shown 

prior to leaving Texas: 

62 

Upon arrival at Camp Hope, I was assigned to a predominantly all-male barrack. 

According to documents provided by Halliburton/KBR in response to my EEOC complaint, approximately 25 women to more than 400 men were documented to be 

housed. I never saw a woman at the barrack. I did find myself subject to repeated 

‘‘cat-calls’’ and men who were partially dressed in their underwear while I was 

walking to the restroom, on a separate floor from me. The EEOC credited my testimony with respect to this matter. That Determination Letter is attached to this 

statement as an Exhibit. 

I complained about my living conditions to Halliburton/KBR management and 

asked to be moved into my promised living quarters. These repeated requests were 

denied. 

On the fourth day in Iraq, I received a call on my cell phone. The reception in 

the barracks was bad, so I stepped outside to take the call. Afterward, I noticed that 

the woman I was replacing (her contract had expired and she was returning back 

to the U.S.) and several others were outside. They called me over and invited me 

to come and sit with them. When I did, I was offered a drink. The men (identified 

only as Halliburton/KBR firefighters) told me that one of them could make a really 

good drink and so I accepted. When he handed it to me, he told me, ‘‘Don’t worry, 

I saved all my Rufies for Dubai,’’ or words very similar to that. I thought that he 

was joking, and felt safe with my coworkers. I was naive in that I believed that we 

were all on the same team. I took two sips or so from the drink. 

When I awoke the next morning, I was extremely sore between my legs, and in 

my chest. I was groggy and confused, but did not know why at that time. I tried 

to go to the restroom, and while there I realized that I had many bruises between 

my legs and on my wrists. I was bleeding between my legs. At that point in time, 

I suspected I had been raped or violated in some way. When I returned to my room, 

a man was laying in the bottom bunk of my bed. 


jones1.eps
63 

I asked him if he had sex with me, and he said that he did. I asked if it had 

been protected, and he said ‘‘no.’’ I was still feeling the effects of the drug from the 

drink and was now very upset at the confirmation of my rape. I dressed and left 

for help. 

I reported this incident to an Operations coordinator, who took me to the KBR 

clinic. The clinic then called KBR security to escort me to the Army CASH (Combat 

Army Support Hospital). Army doctor, Jodi Schultz, M.D., performed a rape kit. 

Dr. Schultz confirmed that I had been penetrated both vaginally and anally, and 

that I was ‘‘quite torn up down there.’’ She indicated that based upon the physical 

damage to my genitalia, that it was apparent that I had been raped. Dr. Schultz 

took photographs, and completed a form that indicated the bruising on my inner 

thighs and stomach, and on my wrists. She also took swabs, vaginal combings, and 

scrapings from under my fingernails (on a blue sheet) as well as my panties and 

bra, and then put the entire kit together in a small, white box. I watched her give 

this box to the KBR security personnel as I was, again, turned over to these men. 

The KBR security men then took me to a trailer and locked me in. Two armed 

guards (Ghurka’s) were stationed outside my door. I was placed inside and not allowed to leave. I had my cell phone, but it would not call outside of Baghdad. I 

asked for a phone to contact my father, and this was denied. I was not provided 

food or drink (although there was a sink, I did not trust it to drink from), until after 

I had been there for quite some time (approximately a day). 

I begged and pleaded with one of the Ghurka guards until he was finally willing 

to share his cell phone with me so that I could call my father, back in Texas. I had 

begged him until he finally agreed. My father then contacted my Congressman, Ted 

Poe. Congressman Poe then took actions to get me out of Iraq. 

Once State Department officials (Matthew McCormick and Heidi McMichael) 

saved me from the container I was placed in—a ‘‘safe’’ trailer—and I requested that 

Heidi stay with me. She did. 

The following day, Heidi took me to Saddam’s palace to meet with a psychiatrist. 

I did not feel comfortable speaking with a man, alone, at that point in time. The 

psychiatrist was insensitive and not compassionate. 

I was later interviewed by Halliburton/KBR supervisors, and it was made clear 

to me that I had essentially two choices: (1) ‘‘Stay and get over it,’’ or (2) go home 

with ‘‘no guarantee of a job,’’ either in Iraq or back in Houston. Because of the severity of my injuries, I elected to go home, despite the obvious threat of termination. 

Once I returned home, I sought medical attention for both psychiatric and physical evaluation. I was originally sent to a psychiatrist of Halliburton’s choosing. The 


jones2.eps
64 

first question asked was ‘‘Are you going to sue Halliburton?’’ So my mother and I 

walked out. 

My mother found a therapist (Dawn Nelson) who agreed to treat me, and did so 

until I moved from Texas. I was diagnosed with PTSD. 

I also saw Sabrina Lahiri, M.D., who found that my breasts were asymmetrically 

disfigured, and that my pectoral muscles had been torn from the brutal rape. She 

wanted to do reconstructive surgery, so I sought ‘‘second opinions’’ from several surgeons regarding that surgery. Even the doctor Halliburton forced me to see, reviewed my injuries and agreed that they were due to forced trauma. He expressed 

anger and disgust. Dr. Ciaravino performed my first reconstructive surgery. 

Shortly after returning to Texas, I was contacted by a State Department Diplomatic Security Special Agent, Lynn Falanga. During our initial conversation she 

seemed very nice and compassionate. She appeared to be angry and driven by what 

happened to me. However, I did not hear from her for months at a time. My attorney, Stephanie Morris, spoke to a State Department attorney, Jenna Lipinski, several times from January 2007 through to May 2007. During the initial call in January, Lipinski stated the forensic evidence in the case had been processed back in 

the fall of 2006. Then, Ms. Lapinski refused to identify any AUSA assigned to my 

case. 

Some time around May 2007, Lynn Falanga indicated during a conversation that 

she was not aware of a rape kit’s existence or of any pictures of my injuries. I insisted the rape kit existed and forwarded a copy of KBR’s EEOC response to prove 

that the doctor had handed it over to a KBR employee at the hospital the night of 

the rape. It was a few days later that I received a call from Falanga stating she 

had found the rape kit, however, the pictures and the doctor’s notes that were originally attached to the top of the rape kit were still missing. 

In October 2007, Lynn Falanga called to ask if I had spoken with ABC for a 

20/20 segment. I informed her that I had and that it was expected to air in October 

2007. A couple days later Falanga called with flight information to meet with the 

assistant U.S. attorney assigned to my case. I was flown to Florida to meet with 

an assistant U.S. attorney (Tiffany Eggers) in Florida—who asked me about the 

rape almost 21⁄2 years earlier. I asked Eggers where I should refer victims who contacted me through the Jamie Leigh Foundation and she responded ‘‘Don’t refer them 

to me or my office, but you may want to refer them to the Office of Victims of 

Crime.’’ 

Since that time, a grand jury was convened and I presented a grand jury testimony at the end of January 2008, which was 21⁄2 years after my sexual assault. Before the hearing, I was told by the AUSA that all parts of my rape kit had been 

located and were in my case file. I have not received any results from the grand 

jury hearing, to date. Currently there has not even been an indictment filed in my 

case. 

I still require additional medical treatment, including another reconstructive surgery, and I continue to go to counseling 2 times per week. 

I turned to the civil court for justice, in part, because the criminal courts have 

failed to even file an indictment at this point. Currently there are approximately 

180,000 military contractors in Iraq. Approximately 20,000 of those contractors are 

females. Fifty percent of Americans on military bases in Iraq are contractors. Contractors have been immune from both Iraqi law and the Uniformed Code of Military 

Justice therefore they are hired to work in a legal vacuum, beyond adequate jurisdiction. There has not been a single complete prosecution of a criminal contractor 

to date. 

When I decided to pursue a civil suit, I was informed that within my 13-page employment contract that had an additional 5 pages attached, included an arbitration 

clause. At this point in my life I had no idea what an arbitration was other than 

a tiny paragraph included in the lengthy document that mandated that I could not 

get justice from the civil court system. I learned that I had signed away my right 

to a trial by jury. I thought this right was guaranteed by the seventh amendment 

to the United States Constitution that specifically states, ‘‘In Suits at common law, 

where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury 

shall be preserved.’’ When there are no laws to protect army contractors who are 

working abroad (from violent crimes), what is to stop people from taking the law 

into their own hands? The arena harbors a sense of lawlessness. The forced arbitration clause in army contractor’s contracts, prove to protect the criminals of violent 

crimes, rather than enforce they be held accountable by a judge and jury. 

Victims of crime perpetrated by employees of taxpayer-funded government contracts in Iraq deserve the same standard of treatment and protection governed by 

the same laws whether they are working in the U.S. or abroad. 

65 

Military contracting corporations harbor and ignore criminal activities in Iraq, 

which under the arbitration clause agreement, protects them and does not hold corporate accountability when a crime has been committed. This clause also paves the 

way for corporations to not be held accountable under criminal law. My case wasn’t 

an isolated incident. Since no actions of law could help other victims at this point, 

I started ‘‘The Jamie Leigh Foundation’’ www.jamiesfoundation.org. This problem 

goes beyond just me. Through the Jamie Leigh Foundation, I have become aware 

of numerous other women who were assaulted and raped and were then retaliated 

against for having reported those attacks. To date, 40 women have come forward 

through my foundation. A number of them shared their tragedies in confidence because they were silenced by provisions of their arbitration agreements. 

The arbitration proceeding is private and discrete and the outcome of arbitration 

cannot be disclosed to the public. Unfortunately, arbitration is stacked in favor of 

businesses, making it harder for individuals to prevail in a dispute and that is not 

just, and unfair to the patriotic hard-working employees. 

How can this country not protect us contractors, who have left our families to help 

our country in an effort to build democracy overseas, when we are victimized criminally? The United States military and its supporting contractors are in Iraq to create a democratic society. Within this democratic society, our military is teaching 

Iraq and Afghanistan the values and importance of the rules of law. Why teach 

other nations democracy and the importance of enforceable law when the U.S. hires 

civilians to work in Iraq with full blown immunity to all laws? To not provide adequate laws to umbrella contractors in Iraq undermines this mission’s credibility. 

My goal is to ensure all American civilians who become victim of violent crimes 

while abroad, have the right to justice before a judge and jury no matter what the 

case—civil or criminal. 

The United States Government needs to provide people with their day in court 

when they have been raped and assaulted by other American citizens. There has 

been no prosecution after 21⁄2 years in my case. Hopefully the next victim will not 

have to wait so long. 

66 


jones3.eps
67 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TED POE, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM TEXAS

I thank the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for holding this important 

hearing on how to prosecute crimes committed overseas by American civilian contractors. I became involved in this issue nearly 3 years ago when my constituent 

called me asking for help for his daughter, Jamie Leigh Jones. He said that his 

daughter was drugged, gang-raped, and being held against her will in a shipping 

container only 4 days after she arrived to work at Camp Hope in Baghdad. My staff 

and I contacted the United States Department of State’s Department of Overseas 

Citizens Services. Within 48 hours, the State Department dispatched two agents 

from the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, rescued Jamie, and brought her back home to 

the United States. 

The United States Government has a responsibility to protect American civilians 

who work in support of an American military mission overseas. The Government 

affords these protections to American citizens on American soil and to American soldiers in combat, but the Government doesn’t know how to react when the crime involves contractors. This is unacceptable. 

It’s been nearly 3 years since Jamie was assaulted, but still she has not seen justice. Although an Assistant U.S. Attorney interviewed Jamie and a State Department Special Agent investigated her case, Jamie was left in the dark about the status of her case for long periods of time. After 21⁄2 years, Jamie wanted answers, so 

she decided to go public with her case. It was only after appearing on 20/20 that 

the Department of Justice began to communicate more frequently with Jamie. 

Since Jamie has gone public with her experience, my office has heard from several 

other women who are all former contractors and allege similar assaults. Unfortunately, we’ve learned that Jamie’s case is not unique. I’ve met with Department of 

State employees, who explained who is responsible for investigating crimes committed against contractors, how the Department of State conducts investigations, 

and when a case is turned over to the Department of Justice for possible prosecution. Since civilian contractors work under one government agency, the other agencies refuse to take responsibility when a crime occurs and pass the buck to another 

agency. My repeated inquiries to the Department of Justice have received generic 

responses, all providing already known information. In January, I sent a letter to 

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates along 

with 110 Members of Congress, requesting detailed information on the policies, procedures, and protocol that exist to prevent and respond to sexual assaults on contractors in Iraq. In his response, Secretary Gates informed me that he called for the 

Department of Defense inspector general to conduct a review of the Department’s 

policies and procedures regarding crimes committed against civilian contractors in 

Iraq and for possible recommendations. I look forward to the conclusions and recommendations, but in the interim, we must not forget the women victimized in Iraq 

and further victimized by the system that is set up to deliver justice. 

While the Federal Government figures out who is responsible and who has jurisdiction, the assailants remain free and unaccountable for their crimes. Americans 

cannot go abroad and commit attacks on fellow Americans without the long arm of 

the law holding them accountable. Jamie deserves justice; the other victims deserve 

justice; and justice is what we do in America. And that’s just the way it is. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LOUISE M. SLAUGHTER, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW YORK

Thank you, Chairman Nelson and the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, for 

holding a hearing on the disturbing and critical issue of sexual assault committed 

overseas by American civilians in combat environments. 

American citizen Jamie Leigh Jones, while employed in Baghdad, Iraq, by KBR, 

a former subsidiary of Halliburton, alleged that she was drugged, assaulted, and viciously gang-raped by her coworkers. Following the attack, Army doctors performed 

a medical examination on Ms. Jones, showing evidence of vaginal and anal rape. 

However, the results of the rape kit were turned over to KBR, Ms. Jones’ employer. 

She would later discover that portions of that kit had mysteriously disappeared. According to Ms. Jones, she was then held captive under armed guard and deprived 

of food and water for 24 hours. State Department agents in the U.S. Embassy at 

Baghdad facilitated Ms. Jones’ release. Over 21⁄2 years later, Jamie’s assailants have 

yet to be indicted, and she has yet to receive justice. 

We would like to believe this is an isolated horrifying incident. 

But Jamie Leigh is far from alone. 

68 

The affidavits filed in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones show an alarming pattern 

of widespread sexual assault and harassment among government-contracted employees, environments that condone and support such behavior, and retaliation against 

victims who come forward regarding these crimes. Indeed it seems contractors prefer to sweep allegations under the rug and out of the public view because billions 

of dollars, taxpayer dollars, are at stake. 

This week, The Nation published the harrowing story of ‘‘Lisa Smith’’ another 

KBR-contracted employee raped while working in Iraq. I have been advocating 

against sexual violence for many years, and this was one the most disturbing cases 

that I have ever come across. I am impressed with her strength to come here today 

to testify before this committee and share her story. KBR discouraged Lisa repeatedly from reporting her assault, warning that doing so would put her in danger. 

Well, we stand here with her today to say Lisa Smith deserves justice. 

In January of this year, I was joined by 110 Members of Congress in sending letters to the Departments of Defense and State making it clear that we will not rest 

until criminal offenders are punished to the letter of the law, victims are treated 

with respect and receive needed services and contractors paid for by the American 

taxpayer, are held to account. I would like to submit a copy of this letter for the 

record. 

Let today’s hearing be a wakeup call to the Departments of Defense and State. 

As they dole out massive government contracts with taxpayer dollars, they have an 

obligation to make clear exactly what steps they are taking to ensure that what 

happened to Jamie Leigh Jones, Lisa Smith, and others like them will never happen 

again. There is no excuse but to afford Americans living at home or abroad the same 

rights to treatment, services, and proper legal recourse when they are victims of a 

violent crime. 

Attachments: 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, January 24, 2008. 

Hon. ROBERT M. GATES, 

Secretary of Defense, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. SECRETARY: We are concerned about the Department of Defense’s efforts to protect Americans employed by government contractors in Iraq from violent 

crime and to ensure the needs of victims are met. DOD employees who commit 

crimes are accountable for those crimes under U.S. law. 

American citizen Jamie Leigh Jones, while employed in Baghdad by KBR, a 

former subsidiary of Halliburton, alleged that she was assaulted and gang raped by 

fellow employees. Afterwards, Army doctors performed a medical examination on 

Ms. Jones. However, the results of the rape kit were turned over to KBR, Ms. Jones’ 

employer. Portions of the rape kit are now missing. According to Ms. Jones, she was 

then held captive under armed guard for 24 hours without food or water. State Department agents in the U.S. Embassy at Baghdad facilitated Ms. Jones’ release. 

In another case, American citizen Tracy Barker, while employed by KBR, alleged 

that she was sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Her alleged 

assaulter continues to work for the State Department today. 

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. Many other women have reported 

sexual assault and harassment while working for government contractors. Ms. Jones 

and Ms. Barker’s harrowing experiences prompt us to pose questions regarding the 

DOD’s overall efforts to address crimes against individuals in similar situations. 

Prevention and Assistance 

How does the DOD assist American civilians living and working in Iraq who are 

victims of crime? Does the DOD include language in contracts requiring contractors 

to ensure their employees live and work in non-hostile/non-violent environments? 

Does the DOD provide government contracted employees with sexual assault and 

sexual harassment training? If so, how and when is this training implemented? 

Does the DOD provide such employees—American citizens—with information regarding their rights as crime victims? Does the DOD have available resources for 

dealing with the aftermath of victimization? 

Investigations 

What is the DOD’s protocol on rape and sexual assault investigations of government contract employees abroad? Does the DOD send information regarding allegations of sexual assault to the Department of Justice for possible criminal investigations? Who provides the forensic examinations and what is the protocol to ensure 

69 

that the exams and evidence are appropriately maintained and a chain of custody 

is in place? 

Accountability 

What types of control and enforcement power does the DOD have over civilian 

contracting companies when their employees commit violent crimes? What is the 

procedure for receiving complaints from American civilian contractors? If a complaint is received, what repercussions exist, including contractual repercussions, for 

the contracting company? Have there been any contractual repercussions for KBR 

following Ms. Jones’ accusations? What was the rationale of the Army Doctor that 

turned Ms. Jones’ rape kit to KBR? Who is responsible for receiving rape kits turned 

over by Army doctors? After receiving a rape kit, who safeguards it and ensures that 

the chain of custody is not tampered? 

Offenders 

What policies exist for addressing American civilian contractors, who are alleged 

or accused of committing crimes while in Iraq? What safety mechanisms are put in 

place after a report of sexual assault to ensure the safety of the victim and other 

potential victims? Are the alleged offenders removed from their position? Are contractors required to terminate the employment of alleged offenders of violent crime 

during investigations? 

Reporting 

Does the DOD collect data on the number of reported cases of sexual assault and 

other violent crimes among American civilian contractors or government contracted 

employees? If so, how is that data collected and where is that data published? 

Victims of crime perpetrated by employees of taxpayer funded government contracts in Iraq deserve the same standard of treatment they have a right to at home. 

We hope the DOD is working to prevent crime, protect victims, and hold contract 

employees accountable. Thank you for your consideration. Because of the urgent nature of this matter, we request a response by February 24, 2008. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by the following Members of Congress: 

Louise M. Slaughter; Ted Poe; Jan Schakowsky; Henry Waxman; Tom Lantos; 

Susan Davis; Gary Ackerman; Loretta Sanchez; Jane Harman; Zoe Lofgren; James 

R. Langevin; Lloyd Doggett; Robert Brady; Joe Courtney; Doris Matsui; Pete Stark; 

Kathy Castor; John Lewis; Shelley Berkley; Ginny Brown-Waite; Allyson Schwartz; 

Madeleine Bordallo; Brian Higgins; James McGovern; Steve Cohen; John Larson; 

Jim McDermott; Lois Capps; Phil Hare; Christopher Shays; Tom Allen; Sam Farr; 

Linda Sa ́nchez; Mazie K. Hirono; Sander Levin; Jim Costa; Vic Snyder; Tim Ryan; 

Leonard Boswell; Raul Grijalva; Neil Abercrombie; Dave Loebsack, Bob Etheridge; 

Grace Napolitano; Chris Van Hollen; Nancy Boyda; Michael Honda; Betty McCollum; Betty Sutton; Michael Michaud; Dennis Moore; Solomon Ortiz; Eleanor Norton; 

Danny Davis; David Price; George Miller; Donald Payne; Howard Berman; Rosa 

DeLauro; Lynn Woolsey; Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick; Earl Blumenauer; Chaka 

Fattah; Steve Rothman; Carolyn Maloney; Jerrold Nadler; Gene Green; Jim Moran; 

Maxine Waters; Adam Smith; Joseph Crowley; Bob Filner; Maurice Hinchey; 

Silvestre Reyes; Dennis Kucinich; Tammy Baldwin; William Delahunt; Ellen Tauscher; Nydia Vela ́zquez; Norman Dicks; Albert Wynn; Bobby Scott; Joe Sestak; 

Corrine Brown; Debbie Wasserman Schultz; Sheila Jackson Lee; Alcee Hastings; 

Keith Ellison; Michael Capuano; Adam Schiff; Henry Johnson; Patrick Kennedy; Lucille Roybal-Allard; Al Green; Edolphus Towns; Chris Murphy; John Tierney; Collin 

Peterson; Brad Miller; Bruce Braley; Ed Marky; Carol Shea-Porter; Peter DeFazio; 

Darlene Hooley; Michael McNulty; Jay Inslee; Gabrielle Giffords; John Hall; Hilda 

Solis; Joe Baca; and Elijah Cumming. 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, 

Washington, DC, January 24, 2008. 

Hon. CONDOLEEZZA RICE, 

Secretary of State, 

Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM SECRETARY: We are concerned about the State Department’s efforts 

to protect Americans employed by government contractors in Iraq from violent crime 

and to ensure the needs of victims are met. We believe the State Department should 

play a role particularly when such crimes occur within the State Department’s territory. 

70 

American citizen Jamie Leigh Jones, while employed in Baghdad by KBR, a 

former subsidiary of Halliburton, alleged that she was assaulted and gang raped by 

fellow employees. Afterwards, Army doctors performed a medical examination on 

Ms. Jones. However, the results of the rape kit were turned over to KBR, Ms. Jones’ 

employer. Portions of the rape kit are now missing. According to Ms. Jones, she was 

then held captive under armed guard for 24 hours without food or water. State Department agents in the U.S. Embassy at Baghdad facilitated Ms. Jones’ release. 

In another case, American citizen Tracy Barker, while employed by KBR, alleged 

she was sexually assaulted by a State Department employee. Her alleged assaulter 

continues to work for the State Department today. 

Unfortunately, these are not isolated incidents. Many other women have reported 

sexual assault and harassment while working for government contractors. Ms. Jones 

and Ms. Barker’s harrowing experiences prompt us to pose questions regarding the 

State Department’s overall efforts to address crimes against individuals in similar 

situations. 

Prevention and Assistance 

How does the State Department assist Americans living and working in Iraq that 

are victims of crime? What efforts has the State Department undertaken to ensure 

that Americans employed by government contractors are living and working in nonhostile/non-violent environments? Has the State Department provided government 

contracted employees with sexual assault and sexual harassment training? If so, 

when is this training provided and what personnel provide that training? Has the 

State Department provided such employees—American citizens—with information 

regarding their rights as crime victims and available resources for dealing with the 

aftermath of victimization? 

Investigations 

What is the State Department’s protocol on rape and sexual assault investigations 

abroad? Does the Department send information regarding allegations of sexual assault and other violent crimes to the Department of Justice for possible criminal investigations? Who is responsible for conducting sexual assault forensic examinations 

on victims? What is the protocol to ensure that the exams and evidence are appropriately maintained and a chain of custody is in place? 

Offenders 

What is the State Department’s policy for addressing American civilian contractors who are accused of committing crimes? What safety mechanisms are put in 

place after a report of sexual assault to ensure the safety of the victim and other 

potential victims? What is the policy for removing alleged offenders from their position following an allegation? 

Reporting 

Does the State Department collect data on the number of reported cases of sexual 

assault collected among government contracted employees? If so, how is this data 

collected and where is that data published? 

Victims of crime perpetrated by employees of taxpayer funded government contracts in Iraq deserve the same standard of treatment they have a right to at home. 

We hope the State Department is working to prevent crime and protect victims. 

Thank you for your consideration. Because of the urgent nature of this matter, we 

request a response by February 24, 2008. 

Sincerely, 

[Signed by the same 111 Representatives listed in the letter to DOD above.] 

Æ