In order to provide context for the Custer Battles court's opinion, Part II of this Note generally describes the FCA and the policies behind its qui tam provision, discusses policy rationales behind the use of private security contractors by the U.S. government, and highlights how security contractors like Custer Battles fit into that picture within the reality of present-day Iraq. Part III examines the reasoning of the Custer Battles court, and Part IV critiques that reasoning and the application of precedent in this case. Part V proposes an alternative to the court's reasoning which more closely aligns with the interests of the American taxpayer in preventing and punishing fraud. Finally, Part VI looks beyond the specifics of this case and briefly suggests congressional approaches to affirm and fortify the reach of the FCA to all activities performed by security contractors in war zones under American control.
Bryan Terry, Private Attorneys General v. "War Profiteers": Applying the False Claims Act to Security Contractors in Iraq, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 809 (2007).