Blackwater

I know I'm a little behind the times, but: http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/dad.blackwater/index.html

Here's the best part:

Blackwater CEO Erik Prince told CNN Sunday...that his guards committed no "deliberate violence."

Really? Isn't deliberate violence your job?

How does such an entity even legally exist? It's sick. I really hope those guys see jail time, but none of them will. Killing people is fine, as long as you're getting paid for it, I guess.

Fuck Erick Prince, that scavenger of human misery.

Your thoughts?

There is nothing in that "news story" that even says what happened. There is the account of the family of what they say two Iraqi police told them and not much at that.

Infact, there is nothing to disprove Erik Prince's statement. There is no evidence listed in that story that these certain Blackwater guards engaged in deliberate violence.

US soliders who have been over there do not paint Blackwater guards as very competent, despite their backgrounds. Apparently they do not even have proper radios and often get stranded, and the US has to go rescue them.

They do contend that groups like them do provide a valuable service in security, so the military can do more important things.

Of the State Department's dependence on private contractors like Blackwater for security purposes, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told the U.S. Senate: "There is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts

They should definately be subject to US law however.

Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security staff was involved in 195 shooting incidents; in 163 of those cases, Blackwater personnel fired first. 25 members of staff have been fired for violations of Blackwater's drug and alcohol policy and 28 more for weapons-related incidents.

They are certainly no different from police/security guards normally, they are just in a more stressful situation.

It is not justification for such an act if true, and I hate that I have to say that. But just like so many other things, the actions of one set of people should not condemn all of them.

There is nothing in that "news story" that even says what happened. There is the account of the family of what they say two Iraqi police told them and not much at that.

Except for the alleged eyewitness reports. Regardless, this was really intended to provide some discussion of the issue of "private defense contractors", more so than to discuss this specific article. Just a jumping off point, I guess.

Infact, there is nothing to disprove Erik Prince's statement. There is no evidence listed in that story that these certain Blackwater guards engaged in deliberate violence.

Except the alleged eyewitness reports.

US soliders who have been over there do not paint Blackwater guards as very competent, despite their backgrounds. Apparently they do not even have proper radios and often get stranded, and the US has to go rescue them.

Doesn't this statement kind of discredit this one:

They do contend that groups like them do provide a valuable service in security, so the military can do more important things.

Of the State Department's dependence on private contractors like Blackwater for security purposes, U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, told the U.S. Senate: "There is simply no way at all that the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security could ever have enough full-time personnel to staff the security function in Iraq. There is no alternative except through contracts

How valuable can they be if they're that incompetent? Reeks of political crony-ism to me.

They should definately be subject to US law however.

Agreed, as well international law.

Between 2005 and September 2007, Blackwater security staff was involved in 195 shooting incidents; in 163 of those cases, Blackwater personnel fired first. 25 members of staff have been fired for violations of Blackwater's drug and alcohol policy and 28 more for weapons-related incidents.

Surprise surprise.

They are certainly no different from police/security guards normally, they are just in a more stressful situation.

Well, the police are not privately contracted, at least not in Canada, and I'm almost certain that's the case the US as well. I'd be shocked if it weren't. There is a parallel with security guards, but there are also fundamental differences. With a few exceptions (armored-car drivers for banks, for example), security guards are not generally subject to anywhere near the amount of potentially life-threatening situations that Blackwater employees would be. As you said, the level stress would be much more intense, thereby significantly heightening the potential for such situations as the one cited in the article.

It is not justification for such an act if true, and I hate that I have to say that. But just like so many other things, the actions of one set of people should not condemn all of them.

It's the nature of the beast, though. The combination of the legal gray area in which Blackwater operates and the types of people likely to be attracted to that kind of "work" should make these types of situations, as well as the drug and firearms infractions, come as no surprise. Additionally, I'd say that if the US needs to rely on private contractors in order to successfully wage a war, perhaps they shouldn't enter into such a war. Why does Blackwater get a relatively free pass, when all other invading combatants must be under the strict rule of the military? Isn't that kind of a double standard? Why even have the military at all, then? Why not just take the military-industrial complex to its logical capitalist extreme and wage war exclusively with private contractors (especially because the federal government is so incompetent and would be outperformed by private enterprise, apparently)? It would certainly be a fucking boom to the economy.

Except for the alleged eyewitness reports.

The second-hand "eyewitness" reports. That say nothing beyond they shot first and too much. There was nothing describing the situation. The car could have been speeding towards them, the situation may have been more chaotic. The report makes it sound like he was just driving along and they opened fire. There must have been some reason they thought they needed to.

Doesn't this statement kind of discredit this one:

How valuable can they be if they're that incompetent?

No, not really. They are incompetent at doing things above what they are supposed to be doing. Driving off to "assist" the military they apparently have a problem with easily doing. They are there to be the security guards for buildings, man checkpoints, etc. So that the US military can be a mobile force to do things like raids/etc. Since they are former/retired soliders, special ops guys, etc. they are like most men and feel they need to involve themselves, they just are not equipped or prepared to do so.

(Oh my, all those etc.)

There is a parallel with security guards, but there are also fundamental differences. With a few exceptions (armored-car drivers for banks, for example), security guards are not generally subject to anywhere near the amount of potentially life-threatening situations that Blackwater employees would be. As you said, the level stress would be much more intense, thereby significantly heightening the potential for such situations as the one cited in the article.

Well, I meant they are tasked to provide security guard type situations. But they are a company that has a "force" that can provide more for advanced security situations like the one in Iraq, or in other locations. Their role is clearly not to assist the military, but to provide security the military would otherwise be tasked to do. Something they are apparently good at. (Although, like all things government pays for, clearly not worth the payment they are getting.)

Additionally, I'd say that if the US needs to rely on private contractors in order to successfully wage a war, perhaps they shouldn't enter into such a war.

It is not using contractors to wage war, it is using them for security purposes. The UN does the same. There are numerous private contractors who do things better than the government providing various support over there to not just the US, but Iraqi government, etc. The US military is an offensive force, it is not one designed for day-to-day security. These type of private contractors have been used seemingly forever, they just never had global reach and their own personal logistics until the recent technological revolutions.

Why does Blackwater get a relatively free pass, when all other invading combatants must be under the strict rule of the military?

They are not getting a free pass, they simply cannot be held ultimately accountable to Iraqi law without consent of the US, just like members of the military. The FBI is investigating, and I assume that means they have decided they have legal jurisidiction over the matter, which likely means the individuals not get a free pass.

I believe the Geneva Conventions could consider the security contractors like Blackwater to be "unlawful combatants" if they were captured in combat so they likely do not have a free pass there either. I am sure however that Donald Rumsfeld knows more than I on this:

Bateman: "There are currently thousands of private military contractors in Iraq and you were just speaking of rules of engagement in regards to Iraqi personnel and US personnel. Could you speak to, since the private contractors are operating outside the Uniform Code of Military Justice, could you speak to what law or rules of engagement do govern their behaviour and whether there has been any study showing that it is cost-effective to have them in Iraq rather than US military personnel. Thank you."

Rumsfeld: "Thank you. It is clearly cost-effective to have contractors for a variety of things that military people need not do and that for whatever reason other civilian government people cannot be deployed to do. There are a lot of contractors. A growing number. They come from our country - but they come from all countries; and indeed sometimes the contracts are from our country, or another country, and they employ people from totally different countries; including Iraqis and people from neighbouring nations. And there are a lot of them and it's a growing number. And of course we've got to begin with the fact that, as you point out, they're not subject to the uniform code of military justice; we understand that. There are laws that govern the behaviour of Americans in that country - the Department of Justice oversees that. The [long hesitation] there is an issue that is current as to the extent to which they can or cannot carry weapons and that's an issue. It's also an issue of course with the Iraqis but, if you think about it, Iraq is a sovereign country, they have their laws and they're going to govern. The UN resolution and the Iraqi laws, as well as US procedures and laws, govern behaviour in that country depending on who the individual is and what he's doing, but I'm personally of the view that there are a lot of things that can be done on a short time basis by contractors that advantage the United States, and advantage other countries who also hire contractors. Any idea that we shouldn't have them I think would be unwise."

It also appears that there has already been a law change since that response in 2005, likely in result to Blackwater's actions prior to this specific event.

"SEC. 552. CLARIFICATION OF APPLICATION OF UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE DURING A TIME OF WAR. Paragraph (10) of section 802(a) of title 10, United States Code (article 2(a) of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended by striking `war' and inserting `declared war or a contingency operation'."

That seems to have closed the only loophole they had in regards to protection from US law. It appears they would be subject to a military court, although I assume the military would hand them off to DOJ as it does not like to deal with civilians.

I do not see what there really is to talk about here. Some people may have done some bad things and should be punished if they did. That does not condemn all private contractors. But we all know that, so again I do not really know where there is to jump off and discuss. I do not think any rational person would demand a forced withdrawl of all private contractors in all the nations of the world because of one incident. Nor that they would believe private contractors should not exist. So unless it is just to rail against an easy target, I guess do not see the point?