›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Blackwater

HungryJoeHungryJoe
edited October 2007 in Politics
Has anyone been following the Blackwater hearings? We've paid them over a billion dollars to be a private army.

I know many people are eager to privatize all sorts of government functions, but does it make sense to privatize the military? I'll bet these people don't think so.

Here's the incident report for the tomfoolery you might have heard about through the media lately. One contractor was yelling, "Stop shooting!", but no one listened. There have been many different incidents. The shootings happen frequently and are reported infrequently. One contractor shot one of the Vice President's bodyguards while he was drunk.

So what's the problem? Isn't it great that we're letting the market decide? Isn't it great that people are getting rich? Maybe, if the contractors were legally accountable, by any standard; but, unfortunately, they are not. Besides being fired, none of these guys face any accountability at all, even when they're videotaped killing people.

Edit: Notice how this article says that there are 160,000 contractors in Iraq. They outnumber the troops in our actual military. Is this what we want? Is this a good thing?

Comments

  • AprecheApreche
    Blackwater hasn't done anything worse than what our actual military has done. They are mercenaries, and they serve a useful purpose. If you pay them to do good, they do good. If you pay them to do evil, they do evil. Sure, if they are doing evil, we should try to stop them just as we should try to stop anyone else in the same position. It's just hard to blame them any more than our actual military, which is doing basically the same thing that blackwater is doing. Besides, I'm sure if you ask the average american, they would rather have old hardened battleaxe mercenaries die in Iraq than have their children die.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited October 2007
    Yeah. Our military has accountability. These Blackwater guys are not accountable to any law whatsoever. That's the difference I'm concerned about. If an actual soldier killed someone while he was drunk, there would be consequences. If a group of actual soldiers rose through the countryside shooting people for no reason and videotaped the whole thing, there would be consequences. Our guys know this, and so are deterred from engaging in such shenanigans. The contractor know that the only way they can be held accountable is to be fired, so they don't care what they do.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    Yeah. Our military has accountability. These Blackwater guys are not accountable to any law whatsoever.
    They are accountable to the same laws as anyone else. If I go to Iraq and start killing civilians, I just get away with it? The same thing that would happen to me is what should happen to Blackwater guys.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited October 2007
    They are accountable to the same laws as anyone else. If I go to Iraq and start killing civilians, I just get away with it? The same thing that would happen to me is what should happen to Blackwater guys.
    Who would have jurisdiction to do anything? The U.S. courts don't have any criminal jurisdiction over you there if you're not in the U.S. military. The Military obviously doesn't have any jurisdiction over you if you're not in the actual military. The Iraqi government? They might have jurisdiction in theory, but they can't prosecute anyone in real life. So, pretty much, yeah - the odds of you just getting away with it are very high. These guys just started shooting at civilian vehicles, videotaped it, and suffered no consequences whatsoever.
    No security contractor has been prosecuted for such incidents, in part because of an agreement forged soon after the U.S. invasion in 2003 that made it impossible for the Iraqi government to prosecute contract workers. While several contractors have been relieved of their duties for shooting without cause, actions taken against contractors are generally carried out quietly and rarely, if ever, disclosed.

    On May 14, 2005, two private security guards working for the U.S. Embassy shot and killed a civilian while escorting diplomats in Baghdad. They were relieved of their duties, an embassy official said in an interview at the time, but the embassy would not disclose how many of its security staff had been similarly reprimanded.

    On Feb. 7, security contractors for the U.S. Embassy branch office in the northern city of Kirkuk shot and killed two men in a taxi. The embassy said at the time that it was initiating an investigation into the incident. In response to queries about the investigation in March, the embassy said the results would not be released.
    Source.
    The hearing revealed a fascinating, but also disturbing, lack of awareness in Congress about the private military industry. Members on both sides repeatedly struggled with the most basic facts and issues that surround the over 160,000-person contractor force in Iraq: Everything from the number and roles of contractors to their status and accountability, or lack thereof. It was quite clear that this was the first time that many had been forced to think much about the issue (even though the industry is over a decade old and the supplemental funds have been paying for the use of contractors in Iraq, year after year).

    What I found especially telling, given the consistently weak grasp of the issues, was that multiple representatives opened their remarks by talking about how Blackwater contractors protected them while on visits to Iraq. They often meant this as a compliment to the firm, and also a way of establishing their credentials on the issue. But it usually backfired, revealing a lack of simple curiosity. It showed that they've known about the massive use of contractors for years - they just didn't bother to ask any questions, even when the issue was in their faces.

    Many representatives questioned the issue of legal status of contractors and why they weren't being held accountable. No one had a good handle on this. Prince, for one, frequently mentioned how he had fired employees who may have violated some law, but could not go beyond such an action. And no one was there from the Department of Justice to explain why they have avoided prosecuting these same employees.

    The lack of clarity on the legal issues was perhaps illustrated best in an odd exchange between Representative Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) and Mr. Prince. The Congressman pressed Prince about what laws contractors might be held accountable under; the chairman of one of the leading firms in the industry found himself unable to give an immediate reply. (Note: This discussion also left aside the cold, hard fact that none of the various laws they pondered have actually been used for a battlefield contractor in Iraq.)
    Source.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • AprecheApreche
    Not to self.

    1. Get hired by Blackwater.
    2. Star international money laundering campaign.
    3. Profit.
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    I, for one, can't wait until the government starts using its unaccountable shadow military to "supplement" domestic security.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    I, for one, can't wait until the government starts using its unaccountable shadow military to "supplement" domestic security.
    They did exactly that after Katrina. Here's a more alarming take on that "deployment".
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    I, for one, can't wait until the government starts using its unaccountable shadow military to "supplement" domestic security.
    Want scarey? Check out "Project for a New American Century". Among other horrors, I'm sure you'll find that a major neo-con ideal that they really don't tell anyone is that the police should be privitized also. Can you imagine that? With current laws, they'd be able to do fuck-all and have no cosequences.

    Thought Police anyone?
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    edited October 2007


    Thought Police anyone?
    They already exist on the left and they are funded by Soros. The left-wing bloggers (moveon/dailykos) have already told the world that they own the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. They give the marching orders and if a Democrat steps out of line they get the attack dogs launched at them. Just look at Lieberman.

    They exist on the right too in the form of the "Christian Coalition" type groups but they are far less effective.
    Post edited by HMTKSteve on
  • zombie a gogozombie a gogo
    Aren't they the bad guys in that show Jericho?
  • J.SharpJ.Sharp
    They already exist on the left and they are funded by Soros. The left-wing bloggers (moveon/dailykos) have already told the world that they own the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. They give the marching orders and if a Democrat steps out of line they get the attack dogs launched at them. Just look at Lieberman.
    Because private paramilitary goons with law enforcement authority and no accountability = left-wing bloggers

    Wait, what?
  • xenomousexenomouse
    Wait, what?
    You know, the pen is mightier than the sword. ;-)



    Of course that's no comfort to the dude about to get his head chopped off.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    They already exist on the left and they are funded by Soros. The left-wing bloggers (moveon/dailykos) have already told the world that they own the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. They give the marching orders and if a Democrat steps out of line they get the attack dogs launched at them. Just look at Lieberman.
    Because private paramilitary goons with law enforcement authority and no accountability = left-wing bloggers

    Wait, what?
    What? I only responded to the thought police comment.
  • GreatTeacherMacRossGreatTeacherMacRoss
    edited October 2007
    They already exist on the left and they are funded by Soros. The left-wing bloggers (moveon/dailykos) have already told the world that they own the Democrats in Congress and the Senate. They give the marching orders and if a Democrat steps out of line they get the attack dogs launched at them. Just look at Lieberman.
    Because private paramilitary goons with law enforcement authority and no accountability = left-wing bloggers

    Wait, what?
    What? I only responded to the thought police comment.
    Which also made no sense either, particularly since you're putting words in the mouths of others.
    Post edited by GreatTeacherMacRoss on
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    edited October 2007
    Want scarey? Check out "Project for a New American Century".
    Blackwater has ties to PNAC and various other right wing looneys. It was about to go broke before GWB awarded its Iraq contracts.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Get rid of them then. I have no love for Blackwater.
  • EsonLinjiEsonLinji
    Yeah. Our military has accountability. These Blackwater guys are not accountable to any law whatsoever.
    They are accountable to the same laws as anyone else. If I go to Iraq and start killing civilians, I just get away with it? The same thing that would happen to me is what should happen to Blackwater guys.
    Actually, they're not. Just before the Iraqi parliament resumed "control" of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority put forth Order 17, giving all foreign contractors immunity from all Iraqi legal processes. Kind of nice for companies like Blackwater.
  • AprecheApreche
    Actually, they're not. Just before the Iraqi parliament resumed "control" of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority put forthOrder 17, giving all foreign contractors immunity from all Iraqi legal processes. Kind of nice for companies like Blackwater.
    Well then clearly this CPA order is the problem, not Blackwater.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe
    Actually, they're not. Just before the Iraqi parliament resumed "control" of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority put forthOrder 17, giving all foreign contractors immunity from all Iraqi legal processes. Kind of nice for companies like Blackwater.
    Well then clearly this CPA order is the problem, not Blackwater.
    I hope this is sarcasm. Even without Order 17, the Iraqi courts have no teeth. It's not like Order 17 is the only thing standing between the contractors and U.S. style jurisprudence.
  • AprecheApreche

    I hope this is sarcasm. Even without Order 17, the Iraqi courtshave no teeth.It's not like Order 17 is the only thing standing between the contractors and U.S. style jurisprudence.
    Ok, then that's also the problem.
  • HungryJoeHungryJoe

    I hope this is sarcasm. Even without Order 17, the Iraqi courtshave no teeth.It's not like Order 17 is the only thing standing between the contractors and U.S. style jurisprudence.
    Ok, then that's also the problem.
    Well, you could fix it by giving U.S. Courts jurisdiction over the contractors, but GWB thinks that would be intolerable.
  • AprecheApreche

    Well, you could fix it by giving U.S. Courts jurisdiction over the contractors, but GWB thinks that would beintolerable.
    That's a tough discussion topic, and I'm not sure where I stand. If a citizen from country A is in country B, and they do something illegal in A, B, or both, what jurisdiction are they under? Americans going to smoke weed in Denmark? Chinese coming to the US to browse the Internet? Japanese coming to the US and using "stimulants". Saudi women going to Europe and wearing bikinis? Perhaps this topic needs its own thread.
Sign In or Register to comment.