Suck it Blackwater. Get Out.

[suggums]

I says good riddance. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/17/AR2007091700238.html?hpid=topnews)

There's so many secrets surrounding these people that are in partial control of the war in Iraq, and operate without the legal consequences of the miltary personel thanks to Order 17 (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/09/18/blackwater/index_np.html?source=rss). Just another one of many shockingly wrong things with this unsanctioned occupation. Go home everyone--especially you fucking scum war profiteers.


<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yJUEULWEP9c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yJUEULWEP9c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

after watching the first, do you really think this sniper is *only* hitting insurgents?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RXgcQNsUKO0"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RXgcQNsUKO0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[PapaBear]

I Am A Golden God !!!

[A.J.]

Old Blackwater keep on rollin'....

[waltermitty]

I think it is a really bad thing that our military is stretched so thin that we need private security firms to guard our state department officials and diplomats.....

[A.J.]

I think it is a really bad thing that our military is stretched so thin that we need private security firms to guard our state department officials and diplomats.....


At 3 times the cost.

[FUNKMAN]

i blame the whitewater

[Chigworthy]

At the same time, you've got to give Blackwater some points for carrying a pretty cool sidearm, the SIG P226 Blackwater:

http://www.sigarms.com/images/catalog/product/226BTCleft_noband.jpg

[Recyclerz]

Oh, great. Now we'll have to invade another country that hasn't banned them yet so that Blackwater's execs will be sure to make their numbers and get their bonuses.

See you in Tehran (or Mexico City if our supply lines need to be shorter).

[Bulldogcakes]

At 3 times the cost.

Where'd you get that from? I was always under the impression they used private firms to save money and free up uniformed soldiers to be used more effectively. Like when the NYPD hires more civilians to free up Cops to spend more time doing police work instead of paperwork.

[Bob Impact]

That first video is edited in such an annoying fashion I can't watch it.

[Doctor Z]

That first video is edited in such an annoying fashion I can't watch it.

YES!! THANK you!

It gave me such douche chills I had to turn it off after the first minute and a half. Awful.

[Bulldogcakes]

Go home everyone--especially you fucking scum war profiteers.

Do you realize most of the people they hire are ex-military, usually right out of serving in Iraq? Are they "fucking scum war profiteers" too? They earn $2500 a week and up, not bad at all.
Also, the military buys just about all of its equipment from private manufacturers (Grumman, McDonald-Douglass etc) are they "fucking scum war profiteers"? If so, who would you suggest the military to buy their equipment from?

[Tenbatsuzen]

Where'd you get that from? I was always under the impression they used private firms to save money and free up uniformed soldiers to be used more effectively. Like when the NYPD hires more civilians to free up Cops to spend more time doing police work instead of paperwork.

Are you out of your MIND? A typical soldier is making about 30 grand a year? Who the FUCK would go there outside of the military if it wasn't for a huge payday?

[Bulldogcakes]

Are you out of your MIND? A typical soldier is making about 30 grand a year? Who the FUCK would go there outside of the military if it wasn't for a huge payday?

Its not just a soldier to civilian comparison, its overall cost of getting something done. In order to get the the military to do something, it would have to go through the Pentagon, chain of command all the way down to the level of soldier. Lots of red tape and bureaucracy. Whereas you simply hire a private contractor to do Job X and they can often do it for far less. This is what happens everyday in City/State/Federal government with all sorts of services. For example, even when the NYC waste business was run by the Mob (who grossly inflated the costs) it was still estimated that they could have picked up all the garbage in NYC for less than half per ton what it cost the City. Stuff like that.

Or maybe its done to free up soldiers as I already posted. Either way, it could be a sensible use of resources. Anyway, I'd like to hear what AJ has to say about this, I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us.

[badmonkey]

Do you realize most of the people they hire are ex-military, usually right out of serving in Iraq? Are they "fucking scum war profiteers" too? They earn $2500 a week and up, not bad at all.
Also, the military buys just about all of its equipment from private manufacturers (Grumman, McDonald-Douglass etc) are they "fucking scum war profiteers"? If so, who would you suggest the military to buy their equipment from?

The military doesn't need to buy any equipment other than some C-130 aircraft, parachutes, acoustic guitars, flowers and maybe a few harmonicas. This equipment should be issued to the Special Hippie Invasion Teams who will sing Kumbaya during the descent behind enemy lines. Once it has been confirmed that we have Birkenstocks hit the ground "Operation: Less Boots, More Birks!" will commence with singalongs, campfires, and flower distribution.

[Bulldogcakes]

The military doesn't need to buy any equipment other than some C-130 aircraft, parachutes, acoustic guitars, flowers and maybe a few harmonicas. This equipment should be issued to the Special Hippie Invasion Teams who will sing Kumbaya during the descent behind enemy lines. Once it has been confirmed that we have Birkenstocks hit the ground "Operation: Less Boots, More Birks!" will commence with singalongs, campfires, and flower distribution.

You have obviously thought this thing through. Sounds like a plan, I'm in!

[Thrice]

The military doesn't need to buy any equipment other than some C-130 aircraft, parachutes, acoustic guitars, flowers and maybe a few harmonicas. This equipment should be issued to the Special Hippie Invasion Teams who will sing Kumbaya during the descent behind enemy lines. Once it has been confirmed that we have Birkenstocks hit the ground "Operation: Less Boots, More Birks!" will commence with singalongs, campfires, and flower distribution.

Fuck that. Let's turn that motherfucking sandbox into one giant sheet of glass! Fucking savages.

[suggums]

Do you realize most of the people they hire are ex-military, usually right out of serving in Iraq? Are they "fucking scum war profiteers" too? They earn $2500 a week and up, not bad at all.
Also, the military buys just about all of its equipment from private manufacturers (Grumman, McDonald-Douglass etc) are they "fucking scum war profiteers"? If so, who would you suggest the military to buy their equipment from?

Yes I understand they're ex military, and yes they're still part of the fucking scum I detest. The fact that they make $2500 a week means nothing other than they're lining their pockets nicely from an unsanctioned occupation of a foreign country. Yeah, "not bad at all" minus all the innocent civilians they've killed and buildings they've destroyed, but hey doesn't affect you right BDC? Why not try to make a quick buck? I really don't give a rats ass what happens to these for-profit folks over there. It's their choice to risk their lives in Iraq or elsewhere to put food on the table back home, they are not enlisted. And look what happened when they fucked up--anybody remember Fallujah?

By their nature, companies like Northrop-Grumman and McDonald-Douglass stay profitable by ongoing international conflict across the globe. More war = more business, literally. Do I think they are scummy war profiteers too? Yep. They see their cruise missiles and assault rifles as dollar signs, while others see death and destruction, broken families, communities, and countries. Does this mean the government will ever stop buying weapons and equipment from them? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna support what they're doing.

[TheMojoPin]

That's mah boy.

[PapaBear]

Yes I understand they're ex military, and yes they're still part of the fucking scum I detest. The fact that they make $2500 a week means nothing other than they're lining their pockets nicely from an unsanctioned occupation of a foreign country. Yeah, "not bad at all" minus all the innocent civilians they've killed and buildings they've destroyed, but hey doesn't affect you right BDC? Why not try to make a quick buck? I really don't give a rats ass what happens to these for-profit folks over there. It's their choice to risk their lives in Iraq or elsewhere to put food on the table back home, they are not enlisted. And look what happened when they fucked up--anybody remember Fallujah?


Another bad thing about them is what their high salaries do to our special forces. It's become increasing difficult to keep good soldiers because of the money that's being offered to them in the private sector. What's at risk is the US Military becoming nothing more than a free training program (at taxpayer's expense) for future employees of companies like Blackwater.

[Yerdaddy]

Feds probe Blackwater weapons smuggling (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_co/us_blackwater_probe)

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.

The U.S. Attorney's Office in Raleigh, N.C., is handling the investigation with help from Pentagon and State Department auditors, who have concluded there is enough evidence to file charges, the officials told The Associated Press. Blackwater is based in Moyock, N.C.

[Chigworthy]

If anyone really hates Blackwater, there is that video of the Blackwater merc who survives a helicopter crash only to get executed via bullets to the head.

[cupcakelove]

Contractors have hurt the efforts of the soldiers in Iraq. They do all kinds of fucked up shit, and the military pays the price. I hope that contractors are banned from future military operations, but I know that is wishful thinking.

[Yerdaddy]

If anyone really hates Blackwater, there is that video of the Blackwater merc who survives a helicopter crash only to get executed via bullets to the head.

And how should that effect our opinions about how Blackwater's actions effect the war effort as a whole or their alleged illegal activities?

[cupcakelove]

Its not just a soldier to civilian comparison, its overall cost of getting something done. In order to get the the military to do something, it would have to go through the Pentagon, chain of command all the way down to the level of soldier. Lots of red tape and bureaucracy. Whereas you simply hire a private contractor to do Job X and they can often do it for far less. This is what happens everyday in City/State/Federal government with all sorts of services. For example, even when the NYC waste business was run by the Mob (who grossly inflated the costs) it was still estimated that they could have picked up all the garbage in NYC for less than half per ton what it cost the City. Stuff like that.

Or maybe its done to free up soldiers as I already posted. Either way, it could be a sensible use of resources. Anyway, I'd like to hear what AJ has to say about this, I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us.

The only problem is when you're dealing with life or death situations, you can not count on somebody who is just there for the money. In a peace keeping mission, it does make sense to have contractors handle the basic tasks, but when its a life or death situation, you do not want to rely on someone who is just there for the money. Military personnel will perform no matter what the circumstances are, because they know that other people's lives are on the line, but contractors will only perform as long as they can make money. It is not a good idea to have people there working for money when lives are on the line. Freeing soldiers up to do trigger pulling tasks is great when all their needs are met, but we do not want them to rely on somebody who would walk off the field if their contracts are not being paid on time. Contractors have hurt our soldiers in Iraq in so many ways.

[sailor]

And how should that effect our opinions about how Blackwater's actions effect the war effort as a whole or their alleged illegal activities?

i think he was saying they'd get enjoyment out of it.

[JohnWC]

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_co/us_blackwater_probe

[sailor]

Feds probe Blackwater weapons smuggling (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_co/us_blackwater_probe)

By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer 29 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Federal prosecutors are investigating whether employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA illegally smuggled into Iraq weapons that may have been sold on the black market and ended up in the hands of a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, officials said Friday.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_co/us_blackwater_probe

you don't say?

[KnoxHarrington]

I remember reading some right-wing peacenik hippie talking about this a long time ago.
http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

[Yerdaddy]

i think he was saying they'd get enjoyment out of it.

Thank you for that.

[A.J.]

At 3 times the cost.

Where'd you get that from? I was always under the impression they used private firms to save money and free up uniformed soldiers to be used more effectively. Like when the NYPD hires more civilians to free up Cops to spend more time doing police work instead of paperwork.

I just made that figure up based on the impression (rightly) that contractors tend to make more money than government workers/active duty military.

Its not just a soldier to civilian comparison, its overall cost of getting something done. In order to get the the military to do something, it would have to go through the Pentagon, chain of command all the way down to the level of soldier. Lots of red tape and bureaucracy. Whereas you simply hire a private contractor to do Job X and they can often do it for far less. This is what happens everyday in City/State/Federal government with all sorts of services. For example, even when the NYC waste business was run by the Mob (who grossly inflated the costs) it was still estimated that they could have picked up all the garbage in NYC for less than half per ton what it cost the City. Stuff like that.

Or maybe its done to free up soldiers as I already posted. Either way, it could be a sensible use of resources. Anyway, I'd like to hear what AJ has to say about this, I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us.

See my comments at the bottom.

Another bad thing about them is what their high salaries do to our special forces. It's become increasing difficult to keep good soldiers because of the money that's being offered to them in the private sector. What's at risk is the US Military becoming nothing more than a free training program (at taxpayer's expense) for future employees of companies like Blackwater.

So are other government agencies.

Contractors have hurt the efforts of the soldiers in Iraq. They do all kinds of fucked up shit, and the military pays the price. I hope that contractors are banned from future military operations, but I know that is wishful thinking.

The only problem is when you're dealing with life or death situations, you can not count on somebody who is just there for the money. In a peace keeping mission, it does make sense to have contractors handle the basic tasks, but when its a life or death situation, you do not want to rely on someone who is just there for the money. Military personnel will perform no matter what the circumstances are, because they know that other people's lives are on the line, but contractors will only perform as long as they can make money. It is not a good idea to have people there working for money when lives are on the line. Freeing soldiers up to do trigger pulling tasks is great when all their needs are met, but we do not want them to rely on somebody who would walk off the field if their contracts are not being paid on time. Contractors have hurt our soldiers in Iraq in so many ways.

I'm pretty sure that in a life and death situtation, a contractor wants to stay alive as much as the military folks do.

Unfortunately, I really can't offer that informed an opinion about this as I'm not THAT type of contractor as the Blackwater guys are. I'm curious as to how integrated into the military command structure they are. On the one hand, if they operate independently, they would not have to deal with bureaucratic obstacles like BDC noted above. On the other hand, if they operate independantly without any oversight, you get the clusterfucks that Cupcakelove alluded to. And also, I don't know what mandate they were given as part of their contract.

I always joke to my government colleagues that I'm a filthy contractor who rolls around in his bags of money like Roger Clemens. And while I make a nice living thanks to the good people at Northrop-Grumman, did I take this job for the money? Hell no. I did that once before and wasted 7 years of my life. Actually, I'm trying to find a way to convert to GS.

If the government took better care of its soldiers and employees they wouldn't be so tempted to become contractors. So if you hate contractors, don't bitch the next time you hear about government employees getting pay raises.

[Thrice]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/blackwater_probe

Not one diplomat has died while being guarded by employees of the politically connected company based in the swamplands of northeastern North Carolina. Experts say that success — combined with the murky legal world in which Blackwater operates and its strong ties to Republicans — has allowed the company to operate with impunity.

Blackwater ain't goin nowhere. A name change, perhaps, but the main players will still remain.

[Bulldogcakes]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070924/ap_on_re_us/blackwater_probe



Blackwater ain't goin nowhere. A name change, perhaps, but the main players will still remain.

There was a story on Yahoo yesterday (which I'm too tired to look up) that quoted the Iraqi PM saying giving them the boot would create a "security vacuum". They can't be all bad.

[Crispy123]

By their nature, companies like Northrop-Grumman and McDonald-Douglass stay profitable by ongoing international conflict across the globe. More war = more business, literally. Do I think they are scummy war profiteers too? Yep. They see their cruise missiles and assault rifles as dollar signs, while others see death and destruction, broken families, communities, and countries. Does this mean the government will ever stop buying weapons and equipment from them? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna support what they're doing.

If you think those are the only companies, American or otherwise, that are making money off of worldwide conflicts you are delusional. You would have to quit buying tools, toothpaste, and tissue paper as well as weapons if you are trying to stop war profiteers. It is truly an impossible task and the only way to somewhat manage it is to make it all public and available to scrutiny, which is exactly what is happening with Blackwater. We will have to wait and see what an investigation into their actions reveals about the overall corporate attitude to civilian casualties.

The fact is that humans and almost all living things fight. No getting around it. Another part of (human) nature is that someone is going to profit at the expense of another living thing. We place a high value on ca$h money, oil, gold, diamonds so that is what is going to be traded for weapons, security, mercs, etc.

What's at risk is the US Military becoming nothing more than a free training program (at taxpayer's expense) for future employees of companies like Blackwater.

That is exactly what the military advertises itself to be. I have served 10 years and Im not convinved that the longer you are in the better/smarter you are about war/conflict resolution.

If the government took better care of its soldiers and employees they wouldn't be so tempted to become contractors. So if you hate contractors, don't bitch the next time you hear about government employees getting pay raises.

QFT

I accept contractors only because if the government did take better care of its soldiers and GS workers then you take the risk of becoming borderline socialist/communists. Of course this only leaves the affluent and well-to-do to become prominent in high government positions. It's a problem that needs to be constantly watched and managed. Living wages for government employees but not a cozy, State-run or controlled population.

[suggums]

If you think those are the only companies, American or otherwise, that are making money off of worldwide conflicts you are delusional.

well, i dont think that, so i guess that settles this one.

and it definitely does not change the way i feel about Blackwater and their cohorts, especially as more information comes to light. they've been involved in 195 shootings (http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN2739989220071002) and are still not subject to US or Iraqi law. plain fucking wrong

[CofyCrakCocaine]

*Boring History Lesson Alarm*

Gaius Marius, a Roman consul (basically the big-daddy president/general of Rome who got elected each year) during the latter days of the Roman Republic, revolutionized the Roman Legion. He paid his men. They put in a set amount of time to serve in the Legion, and if in 20 years' time they survived, they were rewarded with their own land, which was essentially turning your average soldier's family into full out citizens of Rome who could even develop and pursue a political career. Before Marius, you had to buy your own armor and weapons. Cavalry was exclusively rich-guy stuff because only the rich could afford horses. No soldier made any profit except knowing he served his country well. He also was never in the military until he was called into it- and went straight into battle with no adequate training.

This was the nature of the Roman Legion that managed to defeat the sheer brilliance of Hannibal as he invaded Rome. Problem with this: Hannibal had only one army that never received reinforcements from Carthage, and he romped around the Roman countryside undefeated for decades- scores of entire armies were destroyed by him. The lack of equipment/protection/training certainly had something to do with this.

So Marius said 'NAY! 'TIS STUPIDE!' and was right. Men were then outfitted with weapons, armor, and professional training, all provided by the general (who was typically a rich guy to begin with). When not in wartime, Roman legions were not disbanded to return to their farms, but instead stuck together and did projects like build roads, aqueducts, walls, forts, and bridges. The Appian Way was made because of this... it's still used to this day. The efficiency of the Roman Legion is said to have more than doubled because of the changes he made. All them pesky Greeks and other conquered and to be conquered peoples said 'OMFGWTFBBQ!!' and died more than ever with less Romans doing the same.

Problem: This developed the "professional soldier" mentality in Rome. Legionnaires were loyal to their Generals rather than to the State, and by extension, to Rome as a whole. They were in the action for themselves, and often fought in battles at the expense of their own country because of the promise of rewards to themselves. Hence why soldiers supported Lucius Sulla when he marched on Rome itself, marking the first time in history in which a Roman army marched upon its own capital. This same army carried out a massive bloody purge of Romans Sulla politically disliked... and of course the usual mix of innocent civilians who got caught in the middle. This of course led to the decades long civil war in Rome between Pompey and Caesar, and later between Augustus and Marc Antony. Rome's countryside was devastated and Rome's sons and daughters were raped and bled for over a generation. The motive? Personal power and personal loyalty to someone who promised you alot of ka-ching if you did whatever you needed to do for him regardless of what it did to your own people. And Rome was reborn as the Empire. No more elections, no more ability to criticize a political opponent when he was in charge. Rome entered its "Golden Age" during this time... but at what cost? And is it worth it?

Interpret this history lesson in the context of the current debate however you want. Food for thought.

[spoon]

Its not just a soldier to civilian comparison, its overall cost of getting something done. In order to get the the military to do something, it would have to go through the Pentagon, chain of command all the way down to the level of soldier. Lots of red tape and bureaucracy. Whereas you simply hire a private contractor to do Job X and they can often do it for far less. This is what happens everyday in City/State/Federal government with all sorts of services. For example, even when the NYC waste business was run by the Mob (who grossly inflated the costs) it was still estimated that they could have picked up all the garbage in NYC for less than half per ton what it cost the City. Stuff like that.

Or maybe its done to free up soldiers as I already posted. Either way, it could be a sensible use of resources. Anyway, I'd like to hear what AJ has to say about this, I'm sure he knows more about it than any of us.


Here you go BDC.....thanks yerdaddy for the other thread.

The Congressional investigation found that Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day for each private military operative — more than six times the wage of an equivalent soldier. And still it uncovered instances of overcharging. It reported that an audit in 2005 by the State Department’s inspector general found Blackwater was charging separately for “drivers” and “security specialists” who were, in fact, the same people.

[Yerdaddy]

Here you go BDC.....thanks yerdaddy for the other thread.

The Congressional investigation found that Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day for each private military operative — more than six times the wage of an equivalent soldier. And still it uncovered instances of overcharging. It reported that an audit in 2005 by the State Department’s inspector general found Blackwater was charging separately for “drivers” and “security specialists” who were, in fact, the same people.

On top of that there was a Congressional Research Service report (http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/91297.htm)earlier this year that stated:

Cost Issues
Proponents of the use of private security contractors argue that they are less
expensive than using U.S. military forces because private companies can employ
locals and third-country nationals, whose earnings are a fraction of U.S.
servicemembers. Private contractors can incur much lower costs by using local hires
extensively, as they do not have to transport them, house or feed them, and can pay
them wages that are relatively low compared to those of U.S. servicemembers.
Private security contractors in Iraq keep costs low by employing many Iraqis,
according to proponents.

The relative direct cost advantage of contractors can vary, and may diminish or
disappear altogether, depending on the circumstances and contract conditions. Apart
from the direct cost of salaries, which will vary according to the mix of countries of
origin of employed personnel offered, the costs to the U.S. government of private
security contracts can depend on any benefits provided and the terms negotiated in
a contract or a subcontract. Thus, one recent congressional analysis found that in the
case of personnel provided by one company (i.e., Blackwater USA), the total cost of
private security personnel was “significantly higher than the direct costs that would
be incurred by the [U.S.] military” because of markups and other costs charged the
U.S. government.138

Calculations of the relative advantage or disadvantage of private security
contractors also vary depending on whether indirect costs are taken into account. For
instance, the U.S. government does not pay for benefits such as health insurance or
incur long-term liabilities such as disability compensation and pensions when private
security contractors are employed. Nor does it (as far as is known) pay to purchase
and maintain their equipment. On the other hand, some analysts have argued that the
total costs of private security contracts have been underestimated because they do not
include the subsidy that the U.S. government in effect provides contracting
companies when former U.S. soldiers, trained at taxpayer expense, are employed.
[/quote]
138 A February 7, 2007, Memorandum to Members of the Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, written by the Committee’s Majority Staff and posted on the
Committee’s website, states that the “security services provided by Blackwater would
typically be performed by an Army Sergeant, whose salary, housing, and subsistence pay
range from approximately $140 to $190 per day, depending on rank and years of service.
These equate to an annual salary ranging from approximately $51,100 to $69,350 per year.”
According to the memo, Blackwater was providing those services in conjunction with a
Kuwaiti company, Regency Hotel & Hospital Company, to ESS Support Services
Worldwide “which in turn was providing dining services and construction for other
contractors such as KBR and Fluor Corporation.” [b]Taking markups and other costs into
account, the memo concluded that the “Blackwater costs are four to tens time higher” than
the costs of a U.S. soldier.[b] (Memo last accessed June 19, 2007, through
[http://oversight.house.gov], pp. 4-5.)

The rationale that the proponents of the use of private contractors were using was that the military doesn’t have to feed and house and transport these personnel – the company does. LIKE THE COMPANY ISN’T GOING TO FACTOR THOSE COSTS INTO THE CONTRACTING FEE!

I think we’ll find out some day, probably sooner than later, that the jobs that these private companies provided cost the American taxpayers and Iraqi government multiple times what the same jobs would have been if the military had done them. The problem is the environment was set up by ideologues who believe in unregulated capitalism (and, of course, cronyism).

The other reason they thought private armies would benefit them is that you could get a big war without the threat of a draft. The draft has that pesky effect of making people think about whether a war is a good idea or not. Had the administration been honest with itself from the beginning and still wanted this war they never would have gone to war with a fraction of the troops the uniformed military said was necessary. But that would have required some sort of limited draft, given how stretched thin our current volunteer forces have been from the beginning. It wouldn’t have been anything on the scale of the Vietnam War draft, but it would have been enough to make the American public take a look at that shitty case for war they made and told Bush to fuck off. So instead, they sold the soldiers short by sending them undermanned, underequipped, and they paid cash to private companies to lure more people into war voluntarily, (if you were in the guard or reserves you were getting called up and couldn’t work for these companies – but if you weren’t under any obligations you might stay home or you could go over for a shit-load of money).

[Yerdaddy]

Here's a perspective from a rare free Paul Krugman column: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/28krugman.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman)

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.

How far gone are we that the Bush administration is now taking criticism from Machiavelli?!

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.

[Sneaky Fucking Russian]

I really hate these guys with a passion. Our country shouldn't be represented by bloodthirsty, pocket lining, mercenaries. Blackwater is probably the most hated PMC in the world and not just by Iraqi locals but by other PMCs as well. Their shoot first, ask questions later tactics only inflame the locals and put our troops into more harm. The only reason they are needed is the fact that this war is hugely unpopular causing a man shortage on the ground. Maybe one day the people in charge will get the fact that when the people don't want to go to war, hiring mercenaries to take their place will only make things worse. But what can you expect from chicken hawks? They think everything can be solved in a lightning strike op like in a video game.

[Yerdaddy]

There is so much shit coming out about just how bad the problems of Blackwater and other private security contractors is as well as the role of the State Dept and the administration and it's Iraqi allies have gone to shelter their profits and cover up their crimes. Also, once again we see that it's the uniformed military on the ground who's opinions have been ignored by the policy-making civilians until the press gets ahold of a story and forces change.

Other Killings By Blackwater Staff Detailed - State Dept. Papers Tell of Coverup (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/01/AR2007100100882_pf.html)
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, October 2, 2007; A01

Blackwater security contractors in Iraq have been involved in at least 195 "escalation of force" incidents since early 2005, including several previously unreported killings of Iraqi civilians, according to a new congressional account of State Department and company documents.

In one of the killings, according to a State Department document, Blackwater personnel tried to cover up what had occurred and provided a false report. In another case, involving a Blackwater convoy's collision with 18 civilian vehicles, the firm accused its own personnel of lying about the event.

The State Department made little effort to hold Blackwater personnel accountable beyond pressing the company to pay financial compensation to the families of the dead, the documents indicate. In a case involving a drunken Blackwater employee who killed a security guard to one of Iraq's vice presidents last Christmas Eve, U.S. government personnel helped negotiate a financial settlement and allowed the employee to depart Iraq.

On the eve of the hearing, the FBI announced that it is sending a team of agents to assist the State Department in investigating the alleged killing of at least 11 Iraqi civilians by Blackwater personnel on Sept. 16.

That incident sparked controversy in Washington and caused the Iraqi Interior Ministry to demand that Blackwater cease operations and turn over those responsible for trial. The ministry was then overruled by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who accepted a joint U.S.-Iraqi government investigation. The FBI is to participate in a separate inquiry being conducted by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service.

Waxman and other critics have said the State Department, which has paid Blackwater nearly $1 billion for security work in Iraq, allowed the company to operate with impunity. "There is no evidence in the documents that the Committee has reviewed," a memorandum released by Democrats said, "that the State Department sought to restrain Blackwater's actions, raised concerns about the number of shooting incidents involving Blackwater or the company's high rate of shooting first, or detained Blackwater contractors for investigation."


Committee Republicans unsuccessfully petitioned Waxman to postpone today's hearing until the investigations are complete. In their own memo yesterday, they accused him of "a rush to pre-judge and lay blame before the facts are known." While they acknowledged the "problems that arise from the use of private military contractors," they cautioned against attempts to label the Sept. 16 incident "the Department of State's Abu Ghraib."

Based on more than 437 Blackwater documents and "a limited number of incident reports and documents from the State Department," the Democratic staff memo said, Blackwater personnel had participated in 195 incidents in which they discharged firearms, with Blackwater firing first in more than 80 percent of them. At least 16 Iraqi casualties resulted.

In a June 24, 2005, incident -- reported in a U.S. Embassy memo that was cited by the committee and obtained by The Washington Post -- a Blackwater security detail in the city of Hilla, south of Baghdad, shot a civilian man standing at the side of the street as the contractors drove by. "This is the case involving the PSD [personal security detail] who failed to report the shooting, covered it up, and subsequently were removed" from the city, an embassy security officer wrote in a July 1, 2005, report.

The officer, who met the victim's family, suggested that "$3,000 is the usual amount paid by the U.S. military civil affairs" in accidental deaths, "and an additional $2,000 is appropriate given the nature of the incident -- as it is the random death of an innocent Iraqi citizen."

In an Oct. 24, 2005, incident in the northern city of Mosul described in the company's documents, Blackwater personnel fired on a vehicle that appeared to be turning into their path. One of the bullets passed through the car and hit a bystander in the head. Blackwater reported the "shooting and probab[le] killing" but reported no attempt to aid the victim or his family.

A Nov. 28, 2005, Blackwater document reported that the company "terminated" two of its employees after a motorcade they were guarding "collided with or came in contact with approximately 18 vehicles -- six vehicles enroute" to the Iraqi Oil Ministry "and 12 vehicles en route back." Blackwater deemed the collisions "acts of random negligence" and said written statements by the two men were "invalid, inaccurate and, at best, dishonest reporting."

On Sept. 23, 2006, a Blackwater convoy escorting a diplomatic limousine was traveling on the wrong side of the road, and a civilian driver lost control of his vehicle while trying to get out of the way. The civilian car plowed into the limousine and crashed into a pole at the side of the road. The Blackwater team evacuated the limousine, disabled its radio equipment with gunfire and drove away.

"Team 46 would have rendered aid to the LN [local national] vehicle," Blackwater wrote in an after-action report, "however, the vehicle was in a ball of flames immediately."

An incident report by a different U.S.-contracted security firm, Triple Canopy, described the Blackwater employee's killing of the vice president's security aide as "murder." In its own assessment, Blackwater cited its employee for violating rules against handling weapons while drinking. Assessing his punishment, the company determined that "given the egregious nature of his violation, he should be prohibited from further affiliation with Blackwater and petition be made for the revocation of his security clearance."

In its own preliminary report, the embassy noted that the "regional security officer . . . authorized the release of Mr. [name deleted] to Blackwater USA."

Although a senior embassy official first suggested that the company pay between $100,000 and $250,000 to the victim's family, the committee memo reported, a diplomatic security official called those sums "crazy" and suggested that they could cause Iraqis to "try to get killed so as to set up their family financially." Blackwater eventually paid $15,000, which the State Department helped deliver to the family.

"[name deleted]" is Andrew Moonen. He gets some good news in the next article down.

Blackwater Faces New Monitoring From State Dept. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/05/AR2007100500865_pf.html)Pentagon Reports Poor Coordination With Security Contractors in Iraq
By Karen DeYoung and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, October 6, 2007; A01

Following the recommendations of a high-level review team sent to Baghdad last week, the State Department said yesterday that it will place its own diplomatic security agents in all Blackwater convoys, mount video cameras in Blackwater vehicles and record all radio transmissions to ensure an "objective" record of any future incident of contractor use of force.

Both the classified Pentagon report and the State Department's actions follow Iraqi and congressional criticism of the use of private security contractors in Iraq after a Sept. 16 incident in which Blackwater employees guarding a State Department convoy allegedly shot and killed at least 14 Iraqi civilians.

The report, which was prepared for Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, found considerable frustration among U.S. military commanders, who complained that contractors working for non-Pentagon agencies, including the State Department, often behave arrogantly, traveling through areas of military operations without prior notification and setting up their own checkpoints and roadblocks.

"There is a feeling that they are untouchable, a perception that they can do whatever they want with impunity," said a Pentagon source, who was not authorized to speak to reporters and demanded anonymity.

But the report also determined that commanders often do not use the authority available to them to hold Defense Department contractors accountable -- including expelling them from bases, disarming them and pursuing sanctions under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Pentagon contracts cover an estimated 7,300 security contractors, including about 1,500 working on personal security teams.

Applying the military justice code to civilians is a "complex process," the Pentagon source said. "We didn't ask for it, and we don't really know how to use it." In some cases, he said, enforcing the rules may be difficult, even if the attempt is made.

"From a practical standpoint, most of the PSD [personal security detail] guys are former Navy Seals and Special Forces with . . . years of combat experience," who are unlikely to take direction from "some 20-year-old corporal" in the military, the source said.

The draft report of more than a dozen pages is to be finalized and presented to Gates when he returns from South America this weekend. Designed as an overall look at the relationship between private security contractors and the military, it includes an assessment by a five-person team that Gates dispatched to Iraq two weeks ago in the wake of the Sept. 16 incident.

Among other findings, the report suggested that the Defense Department needs to increase the personnel and resources it devotes to contractor oversight.

The Pentagon source suggested that the report could generate new scrutiny of broader issues, such as the welter of separate but often overlapping private-contractor arrangements made by the military and the State Department. "An inescapable endpoint is: Why do we have two sets of contractors?" the source said.

Military protection of diplomatic and other U.S. civilian officials ended in June 2004, when the United States returned sovereignty to the Iraqis and opened an embassy in Baghdad. Since then, the State Department has hired its own private contractors, including Blackwater, which protects diplomats and other U.S. government civilians in Baghdad and the surrounding areas of central Iraq. State Department contractors are not liable under the military code, and U.S. officials have questioned whether they are covered by any U.S. law.

Last week, State announced the launch of three separate inquiries into its security arrangements -- a joint U.S.-Iraqi commission, an FBI-led investigation of the events of Sept. 16 and a broad review of private contractors' arrangements to ascertain whether appropriate rules exist and whether they are being followed.

Blackwater has insisted that its personnel returned fire they received from Iraqis wearing police uniforms, but initial U.S. military and Iraqi government investigations have confirmed the reports of witnesses that only the Blackwater guards fired weapons.

Private contractors are supervised by the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service, which briefs them before every "movement" of a protected person outside Baghdad's Green Zone.

Blackwater, which has more than 800 employees under State Department contract in Iraq, conducted 1,800 "movements" there between January and September. The 36 diplomatic security agents stationed in Baghdad occasionally accompany convoys, but having them ride along on every detail would require more than doubling their numbers, a U.S. official said. Worldwide, the service has 1,400 agents.

Meanwhile, another private security firm, Combat Support Associates, which provides logistics support to U.S. troops at bases in Kuwait under a Pentagon contract, confirmed it had hired a former Blackwater employee who allegedly shot and killed a security guard for Iraq's vice president last December, the Associated Press reported.

A company spokesman said that a review, conducted of all prospective employees, found nothing "untoward" in Andrew Moonen's record. Moonen allegedly was drunk when the shooting occurred and is under Justice Department investigation.

Private Security Puts Diplomats, Military at Odds (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092502675_pf.html)
Contractors in Iraq Fuel Debate
By Sudarsan Raghavan and Thomas E. Ricks
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, September 26, 2007; A01

In high-level meetings over the past several days, U.S. military officials have pressed State Department officials to assert more control over Blackwater, which operates under the department's authority, said a U.S. government official with knowledge of the discussions. "The military is very sensitive to its relationship that they've built with the Iraqis being altered or even severely degraded by actions such as this event," the official said.

"This is a nightmare," said a senior U.S. military official. "We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly. It may be worse than Abu Ghraib, and it comes at a time when we're trying to have an impact for the long term." The official was referring to the prison scandal that emerged in 2004 in which U.S. soldiers tortured and abused Iraqis.

In interviews involving a dozen U.S. military and government officials, many expressed anger and concern over the shootings in Nisoor Square, in Baghdad's Mansour neighborhood. Some worried it could undermine the military's efforts to stabilize Iraq this year with an offensive involving thousands of reinforcements.

"This is a big mess that I don't think anyone has their hands around yet," said another U.S. military official. "It's not necessarily a bad thing these guys are being held accountable. Iraqis hate them, the troops don't particularly care for them, and they tend to have a know-it-all attitude, which means they rarely listen to anyone -- even the folks that patrol the ground on a daily basis."

the military has long been wary of private security guards, especially those who, in the military's view, don't follow the rules of engagement that govern soldiers. Often, private guards quickly drive away from the scene of an incident, leaving soldiers to deal with the aftermath, officials said.

"I personally was concerned about any of the civilians running around on the battlefield during my time there," said retired Army Col. Teddy Spain, who commanded a military police brigade in Baghdad. "My main concern was their lack of accountability when things went wrong."

In Iraq, Blackwater operations have been a source of controversy. In 2004, insurgents ambushed four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah and mutilated their bodies. U.S. Marines were ordered to invade the city to capture the assailants, triggering one of the war's most fierce battles. The firm mostly hires former Navy SEAL operatives.

"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers. Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said an Army lieutenant colonel serving in Iraq. Referring to the Sept. 16 shootings, the officer added, "None of us believe they were engaged, but we are all carrying their black eyes."

"Many of my peers think Blackwater is oftentimes out of control," said a senior U.S. commander serving in Iraq. "They often act like cowboys over here . . . not seeming to play by the same rules everyone else tries to play by."

"Many of us feel that when Blackwater and other groups conduct military missions, they should be subject to the same controls under which the Army operates," said Marc Lindemann, who served in Iraq with the 4th Infantry Division and is now an officer in the New York National Guard and a state prosecutor.

An Army brigadier general said finding a way to prosecute security companies for violations was more crucial than regulating them. In Iraq, they were given immunity under a regulation, Order 17, crafted by Iraq's U.S. overseers after the 2003 invasion.

The Iraqi government has backed away from a threat to expel Blackwater, largely because of its role in protecting senior U.S. diplomats and civilian operatives. Officials said they would take action once the investigation by a 16-member U.S.-Iraqi commission is completed.

"I think the military culture fully accepts these days, rightly or wrongly, that we can't go to war anymore without these contractors," said one Iraq war veteran. "I do not expect calls for action from within the structure and have heard none. If action comes, it will be from Capitol Hill or pressure brought by the press."

"The deaths of contractors from Blackwater helped precipitate the debacle in Fallujah in 2004 and now the loss of Blackwater is causing disruptions in the war effort in 2007," a military intelligence officer said. "Why are we creating new vulnerabilities by relying on what are essentially mercenary forces?"

House Acts in Wake of Blackwater Incident (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100400282_pf.html)
Measure Is Passed to Place Wartime Contractors Under U.S. Courts' Jurisdiction
By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 5, 2007; A06

Prompted by last month's deadly shootings in Baghdad by armed guards working for Blackwater USA, the House voted overwhelmingly yesterday to place all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones under the jurisdiction of U.S. courts.

The 389 to 30 vote expanding the scope of the existing Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act came over the strong opposition of the Bush administration, which objected to its broad application to a wide range of contractors working for U.S. agencies overseas.

The bill requires that contractor offenses that would be punishable by at least a one-year prison sentence if perpetrated in the United States be pursued under U.S. law. The Justice Department's inspector general would have to report to Congress on the status of Justice Department investigations of alleged contactor abuses. And the FBI would have to establish investigative units for each U.S. war zone where contractors are operating.

But the White House complained that the bill's scope of U.S. jurisdiction depended on "vague notions of 'proximity' " to conflict that could complicate prosecutions. The Office of Management and Budget said it could have unspecified but "intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities" and would pose an undue burden on the military.

While the administration stopped short of a veto threat, the White House claimed the bill could spawn a rash of litigation, extend federal court jurisdiction overseas far too broadly and burden both the military and the FBI with mandatory overseas activities.

Naturally the White House prefers to have its private contractor friends remain completely outside the rule of law and unaccountable for any crimes at the same time that individual American soldiers are serving sentences in prison because they are held accountable under the US Military Code of Justice.

During those hearings, Blackwater founder Erik Prince suggested he supports a clarification of existing laws governing the behavior of contractors overseas. Of the intoxicated Blackwater shooter, Prince said: "Beyond firing him for breaking the rules, withholding any funds we can, we can't flog him. We can't incarcerate him. We can't do anything beyond that."

The bill was endorsed by the International Peace Operations Association -- a trade group for security contractors, including Blackwater -- which said after its passage that "effective legal structures are necessary to ensure ethical operations in the field."

Even the industry itself isn't as pro-corporate as the freaks in the White House and is beginning to see the need for oversight of itself.

Some Republicans complained that Democrats were ramming through the bill without proper vetting, simply for maximum political effect. But only 30 Republicans voted against it.

Most Republicans should be commended for supporting American principles when it really matters while the other 30 should join the President in disgraced unemployment next year.

In case anyone thought this was a new problem:

Blackwater Broke Rules, Report Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401425_pf.html)
Army Probed Deadly Crash in Afghanistan
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; D02

A private contracting firm flying in Afghanistan for the U.S. military was in violation of numerous government regulations and contract requirements when one of its planes crashed into a mountainside in November 2004, killing all six on board, according to an Army report made public yesterday.

The families of the three soldiers killed -- Lt. Col. Michael McMahon, Chief Warrant Officer Travis Grogan and Spec. Harley Miller -- have filed a wrongful death suit in U.S. District Court in Florida against the contractor, alleging negligence.

The four contracting firms named as defendants -- Aviation Worldwide Services LLC, Presidential Airways Inc., STI Aviation Inc. and Air Quest Inc. -- are all Florida-based subsidiaries of the Prince Group. Prince's military contracting arm operates as Blackwater USA, a firm that has gained prominence for its role providing armed security forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and, more recently, the Gulf Coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Army's Collateral Investigation Board report on the accident was released months ago with many of the findings blacked out. Yesterday, a complete copy of the report released by the families' attorney showed that investigators faulted the pilots for "poor navigation and decision making." It also found that weather, mechanical problems and enemy fire had not been factors in the crash.

The contractor had not provided proper in-country training for the plane's crew, had paired pilots who lacked experience in Afghanistan and had not supplied necessary communications equipment, the report said.

The controversy is belatedly bringing out information about the 2004 incident in Fallujah involving the killing of four Blackwater contractors which led to the military invasion of that city.

Blackwater Focused on Cost, Not Safety, Report Says (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/27/AR2007092701172_pf.html)
By Glenn Kessler and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, September 28, 2007; A14

The private security firm Blackwater USA brushed aside warnings from another security firm and focused on cost, not safety, before it sent its personnel to escort trucks to Fallujah in 2004, resulting in four American deaths that marked a major turning point in the war, a congressional report said yesterday.

Citing e-mails, fresh interviews and previously undisclosed incident reports, the report by the majority staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform provides details about how cost considerations appeared to shape Blackwater's decisions that led to the brutal deaths of its employees at the hands of insurgents on March 31, 2004.

For example, the assessment said that Blackwater, then operating under a Defense Department contract, was supposed to use vehicles with armored protection kits, but as of the date of the killings, no such vehicles had been obtained. A Blackwater internal report obtained by the committee quoted an employee who said the contract "paid for armor vehicles" but that "management in North Carolina . . . made the decision to go with soft skin due to cost."

The report disclosed that another complicating factor was a contract dispute with a different company. The report suggested that Blackwater never intended to armor its own vehicles. Instead, Blackwater employees were told to "string along" the other company in hopes of forcing them out of their contract or giving them "no choice but to buy us armored cars," according to interviews by the committee staff with Blackwater officials.

"These actions raise serious questions about the consequences of engaging private, for-profit entities to engage in essentially military operations in a war zone," the committee report said.

The congressional report also cites an urgent e-mail -- which has been previously disclosed -- that the Blackwater operations manager sent one day before the Fallujah attack to the company's headquarters in North Carolina: "I need new vehicles. I need new COMs, I need ammo, I need Glocks and M4s. . . . I have requested hard cars from the beginning. . . . Ground truth is appalling."

The committee staff obtained evidence about how another security company warned Blackwater of the dangers inherent in the Fallujah mission. Blackwater took the job -- providing security for a company granting logistical services for soldiers -- from a third firm known as Control Risks Group. CRG had twice turned down the request to provide protection for a Fallujah trip, arguing that such a convoy escort should be undertaken by the military, according to documents obtained by the committee. CRG informed Blackwater of its decision, but Blackwater ignored the warnings and reduced the number of security personnel assigned to the mission, the report said.

The Blackwater controversy has stirred a long-running personnel conflict between the State and Defense departments that began with the return of Iraqi sovereignty and the opening of a U.S. Embassy in Baghdad in mid-2004. The military has repeatedly complained that State does not provide enough civilian personnel to perform the many noncombat tasks of nation-building in Iraq, many of which are still carried out by military personnel. At the same time, the State Department has long argued that the military rarely and grudgingly provides security that would allow the civilians to function safely.

That dispute, which we've been hearing about since before the war, is one that should have been resolved long ago inside the White House and would have been resolved by a rational administration like Bush's father's.

Blackwater Faulted In Military Reports From Shooting Scene (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/04/AR2007100402654_pf.html)By Sudarsan Raghavan, Joshua Partlow and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, October 5, 2007; A01

BAGHDAD, Oct. 4 -- U.S. military reports from the scene of the Sept. 16 shooting incident involving the security firm Blackwater USA indicate that its guards opened fire without provocation and used excessive force against Iraqi civilians, according to a senior U.S. military official.

The reports came to light as an Interior Ministry official and five eyewitnesses described a second deadly shooting minutes after the incident in Nisoor Square. The same Blackwater security guards, after driving about 150 yards away from the square, fired into a crush of cars, killing one person and injuring two, the Iraqi official said.

The U.S. military reports appear to corroborate the Iraqi government's contention that Blackwater was at fault in the shooting incident in Nisoor Square, in which hospital records say at least 14 people were killed and 18 were wounded.

"It was obviously excessive, it was obviously wrong," said the U.S. military official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident remains the subject of several investigations. "The civilians that were fired upon, they didn't have any weapons to fire back at them. And none of the IP or any of the local security forces fired back at them," he added, using a military abbreviation for the Iraqi police. The Blackwater guards appeared to have fired grenade launchers in addition to machine guns, the official said.

The company has said its guards acted appropriately after being attacked. Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince, in previously unpublicized remarks prepared for delivery at a congressional hearing Tuesday, said the Blackwater guards "came under small-arms fire" and "returned fire at threatening targets."

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack hinted Thursday that Blackwater guards could face legal proceedings. Announcing a decision to have FBI agents lead a State Department inquiry into the shootings, he said it was "a hedge against the possibility that an investigation leads to the point where there may need to be a referral" to U.S. prosecutors.

In response to the shootings, the Pentagon is also conducting a broad review of its relationship with the private security contractors it employs. The military has issued about 7,000 weapons permits to private contractors, the senior U.S. military official said, but has stopped issuing new permits until it can review who has the weapons and how they have been used.

Many U.S. military officials are critical of Blackwater because its guards have a reputation for reckless behavior that officials say reflects poorly on American troops in Iraq. Iraqi citizens often do not distinguish between U.S. soldiers in Humvees and Blackwater guards in armored vehicles.

"They tend to overreact to a lot of things. They maneuver around town very aggressively, they've got weapons pointed at people, they cut people off, of course their speeds -- I mean a whole bunch of things they do fairly consistently. But when it comes to shooting and firing, they tend to shoot quicker than others," the U.S. military official said.

U.S. soldiers have reviewed statements from eyewitnesses and video footage recorded at Nisoor Square, the official said. Members of a U.S. unit working with Iraqi police were present in the area at the time of the shootings. U.S. soldiers also helped ferry victims to hospitals.

Blackwater, whose primary task in Iraq is to protect U.S. diplomats, has been unwilling to share information about the incident with the U.S. military, the official said, adding that military officials went to Blackwater's compound in the Green Zone but were denied access to company managers.

http://www.spscriptorium.com/Treats/JaneaneGarofalo.jpg

"Our job as message board posters is to read the newspapers, and repeat what we've read on TV, like it is our own opinion."

[A.J.]

"[name deleted]" is Andrew Moonen. He gets some good news in the next article down.

"Moonen! Moooooooooonen!"

http://www.carlspackler.com/archive/cs_163.jpg

[Zorro]

So, I guess this all boils down to the fact the difference between our military and Blackwater is the paycheck.

[Axem Red]

i blame the whitewater

:lol:

[spoon]

"The report disclosed that another complicating factor was a contract dispute with a different company. The report suggested that Blackwater never intended to armor its own vehicles. Instead, Blackwater employees were told to "string along" the other company in hopes of forcing them out of their contract or giving them "no choice but to buy us armored cars," according to interviews by the committee staff with Blackwater officials.

"These actions raise serious questions about the consequences of engaging private, for-profit entities to engage in essentially military operations in a war zone," the committee report said. "

Hence a huge reason we actually do need an acting government that protects the common man wherever he may be. Ralph Nader said years ago that our freedoms won't necessarily be challenged by government, but by corporations due to it's tie and control of it. Take a look at Afghanistan or Iraq and see how well it operates without a government, perhaps that's what we want. Oh wait, we want the pres to have all the power....what's that called again?

[spoon]

So, I guess this all boils down to the fact the difference between our military and Blackwater is the paycheck.

Did you miss the whole thread? ACCOUNTABILITY and ARROGANCE

[torker]

There is so much shit coming out about just how bad the problems of Blackwater and other private security contractors is as well as the role of the State Dept and the administration and it's Iraqi allies have gone to shelter their profits and cover up their crimes. Also, once again we see that it's the uniformed military on the ground who's opinions have been ignored by the policy-making civilians until the press gets ahold of a story and forces change.









"[name deleted]" is Andrew Moonen. He gets some good news in the next article down.























Naturally the White House prefers to have its private contractor friends remain completely outside the rule of law and unaccountable for any crimes at the same time that individual American soldiers are serving sentences in prison because they are held accountable under the US Military Code of Justice.



Even the industry itself isn't as pro-corporate as the freaks in the White House and is beginning to see the need for oversight of itself.



Most Republicans should be commended for supporting American principles when it really matters while the other 30 should join the President in disgraced unemployment next year.

In case anyone thought this was a new problem:



The controversy is belatedly bringing out information about the 2004 incident in Fallujah involving the killing of four Blackwater contractors which led to the military invasion of that city.









That dispute, which we've been hearing about since before the war, is one that should have been resolved long ago inside the White House and would have been resolved by a rational administration like Bush's father's.



http://www.spscriptorium.com/Treats/JaneaneGarofalo.jpg

"Our job as message board posters is to read the newspapers, and repeat what we've read on TV, like it is our own opinion."

In my real life I cite you as a source.:wink:

[epo]

At least we now know why the investigations of Blackwater never went anywhere (http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN14204301):

The State Department's top investigator recused himself on Wednesday from probes into the Blackwater security firm after discovering -- during a break in a congressional hearing -- that his brother was connected with the company.

[patsopinion]

der
wasnt the use of uncontrollable mercs the end of the roman empire
get your bunker in the woods rigged up with solar power ppl
and duck

[Yerdaddy]

F.B.I. Says Guards Killed 14 Iraqis Without Cause (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/world/middleeast/14blackwater.html?hp=&pagewanted=print)

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Federal agents investigating the Sept. 16 episode in which Blackwater security personnel shot and killed 17 Iraqi civilians have found that at least 14 of the shootings were unjustified and violated deadly-force rules in effect for security contractors in Iraq, according to civilian and military officials briefed on the case.


Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.

The case could be one of the first thorny issues to be decided by Michael B. Mukasey, who was sworn in as attorney general last week. He may be faced with a decision to turn down a prosecution on legal grounds at a time when a furor has erupted in Congress about the administration’s failure to hold security contractors accountable for their misdeeds.

Investigators found no evidence to support assertions by Blackwater employees that they were fired upon by Iraqi civilians. That finding sharply contradicts initial assertions by Blackwater officials, who said that company employees fired in self-defense and that three company vehicles were damaged by gunfire.

Government officials said the shooting occurred when security guards fired in response to gunfire by other members of their unit in the mistaken belief that they were under attack. One official said, “I wouldn’t call it a massacre, but to say it was unwarranted is an understatement.”

Among the 17 killings, three may have been justified under rules that allow lethal force to be used in response to an imminent threat, the F.B.I. agents have concluded. They concluded that Blackwater guards might have perceived a threat when they opened fire on a white Kia sedan that moved toward Nisour Square after traffic had been stopped for a Blackwater convoy of four armored vehicles.

Two people were killed in the car, Ahmed Haithem Ahmed and his mother, Mohassin, a physician. Relatives said they were on a family errand and posed no threat to the Blackwater convoy.

Investigators said Blackwater guards might have felt endangered by a third, and unidentified, Iraqi who was killed nearby. But the investigators determined that the subsequent shootings of 14 Iraqis, some of whom were shot while fleeing the scene, were unprovoked.

Under the firearms policy governing all State Department employees and contractors, lethal force may be used “only in response to an imminent threat of deadly force or serious physical injury against the individual, those under the protection of the individual or other individuals.”

A separate military review of the Sept. 16 shootings concluded that all of the killings were unjustified and potentially criminal. One of the military investigators said the F.B.I. was being generous to Blackwater in characterizing any of the killings as justifiable.

In addition, investigators did not have access to statements taken from Blackwater employees, who had given statements to State Department investigators on the condition that their statements would not be used in any criminal investigation like the one being conducted by the F.B.I.

I doubt anyone will ever be charged.

[JerseySean]

Yes I understand they're ex military, and yes they're still part of the fucking scum I detest. The fact that they make $2500 a week means nothing other than they're lining their pockets nicely from an unsanctioned occupation of a foreign country. Yeah, "not bad at all" minus all the innocent civilians they've killed and buildings they've destroyed, but hey doesn't affect you right BDC? Why not try to make a quick buck? I really don't give a rats ass what happens to these for-profit folks over there. It's their choice to risk their lives in Iraq or elsewhere to put food on the table back home, they are not enlisted. And look what happened when they fucked up--anybody remember Fallujah?

By their nature, companies like Northrop-Grumman and McDonald-Douglass stay profitable by ongoing international conflict across the globe. More war = more business, literally. Do I think they are scummy war profiteers too? Yep. They see their cruise missiles and assault rifles as dollar signs, while others see death and destruction, broken families, communities, and countries. Does this mean the government will ever stop buying weapons and equipment from them? Of course not, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna support what they're doing.

Enjoy the free Mumia rally. You are just ridiculous and uniformed. It is laughable

[TheMojoPin]

Enjoy the free Mumia rally. You are just ridiculous and uniformed. It is laughable

Haw-haw! That's a great impression!

[suggums]

i love those free mymeema chicks cause theres always a chance you might score with them

[suggums]

yeah resurrecting my own thread, its about time:

FACE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/08/blackwater-iraq-shooting-guards)

[Syd]

good start to prosecuting war criminals

[scottinnj]

i love those free mymeema chicks cause theres always a chance you might score with them

As long as you can smoke enough pot to stand the smell. HIPPIES!

Oh, uh, wakka wakka.

[scottinnj]

yeah resurrecting my own thread, its about time:

FACE (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/08/blackwater-iraq-shooting-guards)

Guess they didn't make the Bush Administration "Pardon Me" list.

[Sir Galahad]

i love those free mymeema chicks cause theres always a chance you might score with them

Bravo! Bravo!

Great reference. Ron will actually live forever.

[Crispy123]

You would think this would be a bigger story.
Blackwater Hit Squads: What Was the CIA Thinking? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090821/us_time/08599191775900)

It's one thing, albeit often misguided, for the agency to outsource certain tasks to contractors. It's quite another to involve a company like Blackwater in even the planning and training of targeted killings, akin to the CIA going to the mafia to draw up a plan to kill Castro.

Bush gave George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. I would have to say that was a pretty good call looking back.

[Jackie Puppet]

Washington (CNN) -- (http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/21/us.blackwater.settlement/?hpt=T1)Xe, the private security firm once known as Blackwater, has reached a $42 million settlement with the U.S. State Department over alleged export violations, a State Department official said.

Darby Holladay, a State Department duty officer, said the civil settlement was reached Wednesday for 288 violations between 2003 and 2009, when the company personnel were guarding U.S. staff overseas.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/US/08/21/us.blackwater.settlement/story.iraq.blackwater.afp.gi.jpg
A deadly incident involving Blackwater personnel in Iraq in 2007 stoked controversy.

They involve the "unauthorized export" of defense articles and services to "foreign end-users in multiple countries" and "false statements and misrepresentation or omission of material facts in information provided to the department."