0
   

Blackwater

 
 
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 02:56 am
Do you agree that the greater number and/or importance of those whom Blackwater guards in Iraq is the cause for the company's apparent greater aggression?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 5,220 • Replies: 80
No top replies

 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:03 am
About 7,000 private security contractors work for the Pentagon in Iraq including the Blackwater Company. That being the case they are nothing more than US Mercenaries acting at behest of the US Government and they should be brought to task, preferable before the ICC (International Criminal Court) at the Hague.
0 Replies
 
kuvasz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 08:03 am
anton wrote:
About 7,000 private security contractors work for the Pentagon in Iraq including the Blackwater Company. That being the case they are nothing more than US Mercenaries acting at behest of the US Government and they should be brought to task, preferable before the ICC (International Criminal Court) at the Hague.


Here, here.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 10:08 am
I think the sense of impunity has something to do with it.
0 Replies
 
Noddy24
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:24 pm
Freeduck has a point. These guys know they aren't subject to either local law or military regulations.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:49 pm
Noddy24 wrote:
Freeduck has a point. These guys know they aren't subject to either local law or military regulations.


Do you have proof that "these guys" aren't subject to local laws? When I was in Afghanistan we were subject to local laws. That is one of the reasons we weren't able to drink while deployed. Pakistan wasn't a war visit for me, it was a humanatarian mission and we still couldn't drink. When people of other nations come to the US aren't they subject to US law? The only people who can't be detained are people under Diplotmatic status. Is blackwater working under the protection?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 12:52 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Noddy24 wrote:
Freeduck has a point. These guys know they aren't subject to either local law or military regulations.


Do you have proof that "these guys" aren't subject to local laws? When I was in Afghanistan we were subject to local laws. That is one of the reasons we weren't able to drink while deployed. Pakistan wasn't a war visit for me, it was a humanatarian mission and we still couldn't drink. When people of other nations come to the US aren't they subject to US law? The only people who can't be detained are people under Diplotmatic status. Is blackwater working under the protection?


According to the US gov't, Blackwater is neither responsible for obeying Iraqi laws (as a contractor for the US, they can't be sued in Iraqi courts) nor are they responsible for US laws (they contracted with the MNF, not the US gov't, so they can't be sued in the US).

Congress and the State dept. are working on 'clarifying' this situation.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Tomkitten
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 02:54 pm
Blackwater
Quote:
Freeduck has a point. These guys know they aren't subject to either local law or military regulations.


There may be laws but historically speaking, have mercenaries ever felt subject to them?.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 03:14 pm
(bookmark)

I have been following this on NPR, but still don't feel I know much about it. Sounds very co0mplicated and intense. One blackwater employee apparently pulled a gun on a coworker to get him to stop firing. I want THAT guy (the former) to speak up.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 03:28 pm
Krugman, as usual, sums it up best. BTW, Maher said that Iraq is not Nam, but is Enron (or something like that).



By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: September 28, 2007
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it's a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we've learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.


Thus, the administration has abandoned the principle of a professional, nonpolitical civil service, stuffing agencies from FEMA to the Justice Department with unqualified cronies. Tax farming ?- giving individuals the right to collect taxes, in return for a share of the take ?- went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.

And so are mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as "useless and dangerous" more than four centuries ago.

As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, "the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined."

And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They're heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they're private employees who don't answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don't seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.

We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn't get out of their way.

What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.

For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 "armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines." The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a "trophy video" on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in "joy-ride shooting" of Iraqi civilians.

Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq's Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.

Iraqis aren't the only victims of this behavior. Of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died in Iraq, scores if not hundreds would surely still be alive if it weren't for the hatred such incidents engender.

Which raises the question, why are Blackwater and other mercenary outfits still playing such a big role in Iraq?

Don't tell me that they are irreplaceable. The Iraq war has now gone on for four and a half years ?- longer than American participation in World War II. There has been plenty of time for the Bush administration to find a way to do without mercenaries, if it wanted to.

And the danger out-of-control military contractors pose to American forces has been obvious at least since March 2004, when four armed Blackwater employees blundered into Fallujah in the middle of a delicate military operation, getting themselves killed and precipitating a crisis that probably ended any chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq.

Yet Blackwater is still there. In fact, last year the State Department gave Blackwater the lead role in diplomatic security in Iraq.

Mr. Singer argues that reliance on private military contractors has let the administration avoid making hard political choices, such as admitting that it didn't send enough troops in the first place. Contractors, he writes, "offered the potential backstop of additional forces, but with no one having to lose any political capital." That's undoubtedly part of the story.

But it's also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers' money to give lucrative contracts to its friends ?- people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization ?- but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.

So the privatization of war ?- no matter how badly it works ?- is just part of the pattern.
0 Replies
 
anton
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 04:53 pm
The bottom line is, Blackwater is only adding to worlds bad opinion of the US as the bully of the world and that is very sad... What has happened to the decent America we used to know?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Sep, 2007 05:58 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Noddy24 wrote:
Freeduck has a point. These guys know they aren't subject to either local law or military regulations.


Do you have proof that "these guys" aren't subject to local laws? When I was in Afghanistan we were subject to local laws. That is one of the reasons we weren't able to drink while deployed. Pakistan wasn't a war visit for me, it was a humanatarian mission and we still couldn't drink. When people of other nations come to the US aren't they subject to US law? The only people who can't be detained are people under Diplotmatic status. Is blackwater working under the protection?


Bremmer issued a law before he left Iraq exempting all US contractors from prosecution. That law has not been repealed. Yet.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Sep, 2007 03:39 pm
anton wrote:
The bottom line is, Blackwater is only adding to worlds bad opinion of the US as the bully of the world and that is very sad... What has happened to the decent America we used to know?



It would be interesting to compare how many countries the USA has invaded versus Iran.
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 07:06 am
Quote:
WASHINGTON ?- State Department officials worked closely with the private security contractor Blackwater USA to play down incidents in which company operatives killed innocent Iraqis, according to Blackwater and State Department documents obtained by a congressional committee.

When a drunken Blackwater contractor killed a bodyguard of Iraq's vice president last Christmas Eve, the State Department helped spirit the contractor out of the country within 36 hours, according to the report, released Monday by Democrats on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Officials in Baghdad and Washington then dickered with Blackwater on the compensation for the family of the guard, Raheem Khalif. An unnamed official in the State Department's Diplomatic Security service complained that the $250,000 payment proposed by the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad was too much, because it might lead Iraqis to "try to get killed so as to set up their family financially," according to a State Department e-mail obtained by the committee.

When a Blackwater contract employee killed an Iraqi in Hillah in June 2005, the State Department asked the firm to pay $5,000 in compensation. "(W)e are all better off getting this case ?- and any similar cases ?- behind us quickly," a department official wrote.

The disclosures appear to contradict past claims by State Department officials that they aggressively investigated wrongdoing by Blackwater. The company has received $835 million in contracts to guard U.S. civilians in Iraq.

Blackwater has come under heightened scrutiny since a shooting Sept. 16 in Baghdad that left 11 Iraqis dead. On Monday, the FBI said it has begun a criminal investigation.

"At the request of the Department of State, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is sending a team to Iraq to assist in the ongoing investigation into the September 16, 2007, shooting incident allegedly involving Blackwater employees," FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko said in a statement.

The memorandum released Monday by the House committee's Democratic staff describes other questionable incidents.

On Sept. 24, 2006, a Blackwater detail driving on the wrong side of the road caused a red Opal driven by an Iraqi to skid into a Blackwater vehicle, hit a telephone pole and burst into flames. Blackwater personnel collected people and equipment from their disabled vehicle and left without aiding those in the Iraqi vehicle, described as being "in a ball of flames," according to a company report.

On Nov. 28, 2005, a Blackwater motorcade making a round-trip journey to Iraq's Oil Ministry collided with 18 different vehicles, according to another company document. Team members' written accounts of the incident were found by the company to be "invalid, inaccurate and, at best, dishonest reporting."

No employee of a private military contractor has been criminally charged for actions in Iraq.

Blackwater spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell didn't return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment. She told the Associated Press: "We look forward to setting the record straight on this and other issues" at a hearing Tuesday of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Three senior State Department officials are also to testify.

State Department spokesman Tom Casey said, "We are scrupulous in

terms of oversight and scrutiny, not only of Blackwater but of all our

contractors."

The committee staff working for Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., also reported, based on company documents, that Blackwater has fired 122 employees for misconduct under the State Department contracts.

Of those, 28 were let go for weapons-related incidents, 25 for drug and alcohol violations and 16 for "inappropriate/lewd conduct."

"The only sanction that has been applied to Blackwater contractors for misconduct is termination of their individual contracts with Blackwater," the staff memorandum says.

It quotes David Satterfield, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's senior Iraq adviser, as saying that Blackwater has 861 personnel working in Iraq. Two other companies, DynCorp and Triple Canopy, also conduct protective security details in the country.

Citing Blackwater's security incident reports, the memorandum says Blackwater employees used their firearms 195 times from Jan. 1, 2005, through Sept. 12, 2007. Blackwater fired first in 84 percent of those incidents.

Blackwater documents acknowledge 16 Iraqi casualties in that time frame. But that number appears low.

The House committee says that in many cases, Blackwater employees fire from moving vehicles and don't "remain at the scene to determine if their shots resulted in casualties."

In the case of the Christmas Eve killing of a guard to Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul Mehdi ?- which enraged the Iraqi government ?- the Blackwater contractor fled to a guard post operated by Triple Canopy and was later apprehended by police in Baghdad's Green Zone.

According to investigative reports the committee cites, he claimed to have fired in self-defense, but Blackwater fired him on Christmas Day for violating its policy against possessing a firearm while intoxicated.

With the knowledge of State Department officials, he was put on a plane out of Baghdad on the morning of Dec. 26.

(Marisa Taylor contributed.)

To read the House committee memorandum, go to http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071001121609.pdf

McClatchy Newspapers 2007


source
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 07:20 am
(putting up a pinata filled with cluster bombs - have fun everyone!)
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:46 am
Hearing on CSPAN now. Kucinich, as always, nails it. Blackwater's 'shoot first and DON'T ask questions later' causes problems for our mission.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:48 am
Kuchinich couldn't nail his own wife with a nail gun. Wadda blowhard.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:50 am
Have you seen his wife?

Are you listening on CSPAN, cj? Erik Prince is talking now.
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 08:55 am
Yeah, but that old fart couldn't nail her with a strap on and a case of Viagra.

The D's will do ANYTHING to discredit Bush and the war in Iraq. Anything.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Oct, 2007 09:00 am
The US House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released a report Monday noting that Blackwater fired 122 employees, more than one-seventh of its workforce in Iraq, in the past three years based on inappropriate behaviors involving alcohol, drugs, weapons and violence.

The report also reveals Blackwater has been involved in an estimated 1.4 shootings a week in Iraq since 2005.

Although private security firms are only authorized to use defensive force by the US State Department, Blackwater employees fired the first shots in more than 80 percent of the 195 incidents.

Link
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Blackwater
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 02/26/2026 at 04:33:03