There has always been comments since our invasion of Iraq that the "duly elected Iraqi goverment" is a really a puppet/client goverment of the USA, which the BA always denies. I find it interesting, however, that the Iraq goverment ordered out Blackwater- but, guess what? They are still there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7006697.stm

So- to get back on track of the Milton Friedman thread- and combine some other issues together

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this furrther proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

First let me say this. I know people who work for Blackwater in their computer security section. They are a hardcore security company. These are NOT Rent A Cops these are whatever 1 notch down from Mercenaries are. When you absolutely, positively need to survive and you don't care how - call Blackwater.

1) I don't know that the Iraqi Gov't gets to decide this. In some ways it does seem to chip away at their legitimacy.
2) See above.
3) Well... yes. Blackwater should leave if the Iraqi Gov't asks again. Somehow, I suspect they won't.

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this further proof that the Iraqi government is simply a puppet of the BA?

What I haven’t learned yet is whether it is Blackwater that has made the decision, or its employer, the Department of State.
Clearly we have some level of influence with the Government of Iraq. Many people try to connect the dots, but I haven’t run across any actual proof that the US is pulling strings ala puppet master. Having read minutes from meetings with Ministry of Defense officials and our commanders, I can say that our people often bang our heads against the wall at the perceived intransigence of the Iraqi’s on many issues. If we were running Iraq behind the scenes, I have no doubt that the security situation would be a bit different than it currently is.


2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

I stand by my earlier definition. Mercenary is a charged term and carries more impact than ‘private security’, ‘security contractor’ or ‘bodyguard’. Hence detractors of the policies that allow Blackwater and others to operate in Iraq and in the employ of our government will use it. But Blackwater, Aegis, Triple Canopy, Armor Group and others do not fit the definition of mercenary, at least as I see it.

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

I would immediately say yes. Except for the problem that will remain, diplomatic security. The problem stemmed from the fact that until 2003, the Department of State had never experienced the vast scale of violence in its diplomatic functions. State’s Diplomatic Security Service does not have the manpower to fulfill the role. I don’t know why. I know that if they would waive the Federal Law Enforcement maximum age requirement, they would attract many recently retired military men and women. Part of the same demographic that Blackwater and others look to for manpower.
So I guess the obvious answer would be to force Blackwaters expulsion, and simply scale back or cease any travel by DOS personnel.



FWIW, I didn’t intend to take the Freidman thread off topic. I thought a clarification on one of Naomi Klein’s points was in order.

I agree with these excellent points. I happen to have a relative that works for Blackwater, in a non-security role. I've been told that if Blackwater lost their contract in Iraq, it would have zero effect on the company because they have more work then they can handle. The reason they are able to fulfill their role for the State Dept is their large fleet of helicopters. Blackwater is unique in that they have have a large fleet of Little Bird helicopters to fulfill the mission, and Blackwater has apparently resumed their security duties. While Blackwater was recently on hold, the State Dept could not fulfill its mission around the country. That should tell you something.

No worries DTOM, I know how it is

1) A very good argument would be made by DTOM, is that if it is a puppet goverment- it is a lousy one. But that would be saying that the power behind the goverment is incompetent- and no one would be accusing the GW regime of being incompetant, now would they? - Also- couldn't it be a more complex thing than than DTOM- like, for instance, the awarding of very, very lucrative contracts to folks like Blackwater is part and parcel of the way the GW regime has been operating in Iraq anyway? Plum contracts for the "right" poeple- no matter of whether they are the best for the job, and with little or no oversite? The immunity from prosecution, plus not having the USMJ over thier head SHOULD be a screaming sign that this is a corrupt from top to bottom organization- an ethical and "good" corporate citizen isn't afraid of oversite!

And, I believe the , um, Marines have a slightly larger fleet of helicopters for the mission?

2) I believe that many definitions we have today "communist" "liberal" "fascist' "conservative" are badly defined and don't have a very good handle on universal definitions either. I believe these folks are straight up mercs. No accoutability for hienous acts. Cowboy mentality, no concern for loss of civilian life. Former military now in private hire. Also- the marines are the traditional protectors of the diplomacy corp- something they obviously do far better than this company. Mostly because there are military policies and USMJ consequences for acting outside thier rules of engagement etc.

3) I believe the Iraqi goverment will back down on this due to arm twisting on the part of the GW regime.

You may have a point, but I will counter with this. If the DOS is obliged to use security outside of the DSS, which it clearly is, then Blackwater in my estimation is the only obvious choice. Of PMC's large enough and well equipped enough to fulfill that role, the only domestic company is Blackwater. Aegis is very comperable, but a British firm. I don't believe an administration of any flavor would hire a foreign PMC to protect one of it's agencies. Aegis has won a renewal US government contract to provide security for Reconstruction Security Support Services in Iraq, but that's not the same as agency protection.


I can only speak on behalf of my experience, and let me temper with the fact that every company has it's nitwits; the Blackwater folks I have dealt with have been some of the most professional guys I've run across. BW isn't in the habit of hiring immature, unprofessional or (especially) incompetant people. The vast majority of their guys are from the SF/SEAL/MARSOC community. These guys aren't former Army cooks who got a gung-ho streak. These guys are from the ranks of what is commonly called a community of 'quiet professionals'. Guys who take life and death seriously. Cowboys and Hotdogs don't last long in the business, if they ever get in in the first place.

But I agree without reservation, that if a PMC is employed by the US government in theater, then it and its members should be held accountable to the same Laws of Land Warfare and Geneva/Hague Convention tenets as US servicemembers are.

And lest we forget Aegis, the Brit version of Blackwater is on video shooting up Iraq and Iraqis. I don't believe that they have been fired.

DTOM makes a very good point, to which I will have to concede- that incompetence will kill you over there- we all have our blind spots I suppose- however- being super aggressive is not really anti-survival for them either. They may be hard core proffesionals- I also know some of those folks- can't get away from it in a veteran heavy state like Alaska- but they also reveled in the freedom from the same rules of engagement- and none would be guys I would consider the type to NOT be super aggressive. The main topic of conversation for the fellas I know is how they don't have to behave in as restrained a manner as they were in the marines/SF/Seals.

We have a blackwater and haliburton recruiting office up here- makes since- in a population of about a half a million state wide- we have over 70k veterans!

BA- Whatever the British do is thier concern- I am not a british citizen, and have no say in the way they run thier country.

I don't want to run their country. I just want to end our contract with Aegis.

It looks like we haven't heard the end of mercs. Maliki wants an apology, compensation for victims or their families and for the guards involved in the shooting to be held "accountable." How do you retroactively hold individual Blackwater and Aegis employees accountable? It's not gonna happen. As to who ordered Blackwater to resume, it appears it was the Interior Ministry after the U.S. agreed to a joint investigation.

While you're correct in your assesment of your ability to run Britan you're missing the bigger picture.

Aegis is a Security Contrator just like Blackwater. They were hired the same way Blackwater was. Unlike Blackwater they have absolutely NO defense that the innocent civilians they killed were shooting at them. They simply shot up cars and people for fun. Yet, they were not removed from Iraq. So how can we reasonably expect Blackwater to be removed from Iraq when Aegis has not been?

Wait...

We can't.

Since both Blackwater and State are standing by their accounts, Blackwater will likely not issue any apology until the video the Iraqi's claim they have, is produced. Prudent course of action.
In any case Blackwater is covered by the 2004 immunity agreement for foreign officials and contractors. Until that is revised, or a legal Status of Forces Agreement (that includes contractors), Iraqi law apparently has no jurisdiction. Not saying that is right, just that it is what it is.


Let's look at this from a legal standpoint. Was a video clip that was posted on a non-Aegis affiliated website grounds for terminating a contract? Was there any coroborating evidence that proved Aegis employees were the shooters?
This case certainly could have been a reason not to renew the Aegis contract, but that renewal occurred anyway.

Very good point BA= I think using mercs or contractors is a very, very bad idea- and it is obvious that there is a HUGE problem with these contractors, and, due to their actions, they ARE NOT making it safer for our soldiers- they need to go.

I must have missed the fact that OUR state department is paying them- I thought the brits were- so yea, fire thier crazy butts and throw the perps in jail- they are no different than any murderer in our country.

More today on this:


http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/beware-of...362.html?page=3

Founded by a former Navy SEAL and scion of a wealthy Republican family, Erik Prince, it has secured $US500 million in US government contracts since the war on terrorism was unleashed. As well as providing security for the US Department of State, it also protects the US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus - an extraordinary task that reflects both the inability of the US to put enough troops on the ground in Iraq and the close links between Blackwater and the US security establishment.

Most of Blackwater's 1500 operatives in Iraq are former US military personnel, while its vice-chairman is Cofer Black, the former head of the State Department's counterterrorism division.

Black joined Blackwater in 2005, a year after four Blackwater employees were found hanged in the streets of Fallujah, their bodies dismembered by a bloodthirsty mob.

The Blackwater operatives parked their vehicle in the ambulance bay, close to the front door to aid a rapid exit if required.

While they waited, a nearby Iraqi checkpoint was hit by a roadside bomb. As the ambulances rushed to the hospital and the designated drop-off point, the Blackwater guards opened fire, killing more police and ambulance staff. Blackwater had "been doing this kind of thing for years", says the contractor, who remains in Iraq.

Mark Munro, a former Australian soldier who worked as a security contractor in Iraq and was caught in an attack by a suicide car bomber, says Blackwater "had a terrible reputation over there".

What infuriates Iraqis - and increasing worries US lawmakers - is that the soldiers of fortune who work for the likes of Blackwater seem to operate outside the law.


Moreover, "Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the multinational forces in Aired, according to a US congressional paper released this year.

It is clear that allegations of gross misconduct by security contractors - at least until Sunday - do not appear to have concerned the US Government at all.

Last year, an infamous video was widely circulated showing employees of the British firm Aegis taking pot shots at any car that got within 100 metres of their convoy.

Edited to the sounds of Avails Brashly, the Aegis contractors can be seen indiscriminately firing automatic rounds at cars, smashing wintergreen and causing at least two vehicles to veer violently after their drivers were apparently shot.

Soon after, Aegis was awarded a two-year $Asci million contract to provide security services to the US military.

A senior Australian Army officer, who has done three tours of duty in the Middle East since 2001, says the Australian Defence Force had as little as possible to do with contractors.

It is apparent- they are "soldiers of fortune"- i.e.-mercs.

they are above the law

and the Iraqi goverment can't do anything about it.

Before we start gathering pitchforks and torches, I'll ask again; was there actual evidence that could convict Aegis or Aegis employees for the shooting that appeared on the video clips? If not, and my law experience comes from Boston Legal, then is circumstantial evdience enough to terminate a government contract?

Incidently, there is framework in place to bring charges against companies such as Blackwater. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000, or MEJA. This act in a sense amends the Uniform Code of Military Justice to cover US contractors and sub-contractors. What is not clear is if this act could be used against foreign based firms such as Aegis. Additionally, the Department of Defense seems to have not issued any guidance for commanders on how to implement the policy, so it remains unused, apparently.

CR, I still disagree with the characterization that all these guys soldiers of fortune, cowboys or hotdogs, based on editorialized articles. I believe and again every organization has its turds, that if most people actually knew some of these guys, or saw them in action, they would have a far different perception than the sensationalized accounts from the media and activists.

I am curious though DTOM- are you exposed to Blackwater employees that much? According to the article I posted- which is Australian, which is very pro-Iraq war- it claims that only 10% of the force Blackwater hires is US- that would mean that 90% of them ARE NOT navy seals, SF or Force recon types- as those are all American military services- and are Munro's comments to be slanted or valid?

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this furrther proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

Can you know the answer to this based on reports in the media? If the Iraqi government orders them out then they should leave, end of story. If however, as much of the news from Iraq these days seems to indicate, only certain elements of the Iraqi government are opposed to the presence of these 'contractors', then obviously the story is not quite so clear.

There is also the realpolitk perspective that indicates the Iraqi government is indpendent of the USA, but still requires the US military and its hired forces to continue to function.


2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

Yes. I'd put them into the same catagory as the old Italian Condottieri (it even translates to contractors). Its worth noting that the Condottieri were as often as not a heavily armed law unto themselves.


3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

Yes.

I deal with BW guys around once a week on average. All are American, except one guy from the Phillipines. All the Americans are former Special Operations, minus one who came from an LE background. Now, I only see a few of these guys at a time, and many times (though not all) they are some of the same that I see regularly. I don't have their resumes, but after shooting the breeze with most of them, my bovine fecal radar hasn't gone off.
Here is the minimum requirements for Blackwater's contract positions:

General Contract Requirements:
Must be willing and able to deploy for 6 months.
Must be a U.S. Citizen, proof of citizenship is required.
Weight must be proportionate to height.
Must maintain a neat and clean appearance.
Must be in good health and pass a physical test.
Most positions require ability to obtain/maintain a secret or higher clearance.
No history of major illness or mental disorder.
Must have an Honorable Discharge and DD-214.
No felony, violent crimes, spouse or child abuse convictions(NO WAIVERS)
No personal bankruptcy or significant credit problems with past seven (7) years.

And here are the minimum requirements for their PSS positions:

Blackwater USA is seeking qualified candidates who have one of the following skill sets:

8 years of US Military Service with a Special Skill Identifier within SOF (Special Operations Forces) i.e US Army Special Forces, Ranger's, US Navy SEALs, USMC Force Recon/MARSOC, US Air Force CCT, PJ.

* Must have or recently held a USG "Secret Clearance"
* Must be a native US Citizen
* Valid Drivers License
* Current Passport
* Must be in good physical condition and height/weight proportionate
* Honorable Discharge

BW Link


Obviously, not being a spokeman for Blackwater, I'm not privy to any waivering or other loopholes in the hiring process, so I can't really say where Munro gets his numbers.
After reading the Iraqi 'eyewitness' account of the recent BW event, placing myself in their shoes, the account doesn't seem to ring true. I'd really like the Iraqi Government to cough up this alleged videotape.

The employees of Blackwater are the same people that the military would send out to protect the State Dept employees if they chose to use SOF. The difference is employer. The Govt contracts out lots of work these days. This is just another.

I tend to give great credence to DTOMs post- but the differing accounts from reliable sources still bother me- are they strictly an American group, or are they primarily foreign based as the Australian source says? Bears some research, certainly.

It also appears, at the very least, true or not, the "contractors" have become the flashpoint- as if there isn't enough of those?

I do have a personal account of an Afghanistan incident of a needless civilian killing, by a first hand source that I was counselling, of over-zealous contractors- and the lack of responsibility of those contractors.

What I see as most troubling is the way the state department has handled the many allegations of abuse by these contractors, and have not taken the trouble to investigate and keep thier own house clean in this matter.

Anything is possible to but again, according to its own website, Blackwater requires all contract employees to be US citizens, and further, PSS employees to be native born US citizens. It's based in Moyock, NC.......I am at a loss as to how other accounts may believe them to be composed primarily of foreigners. Aegis and Armor Group are British firms, but have no citizenship requirement; Triple Canopy and Custer Battles are US firms and also require US citizenship. Perhaps some of these other sources are confusing companies? And if they are making a mistake on this point, perhaps their research isn't solid. Just speculating.
Another reason I've been networking with PMC guys since I've been here, is that I retire next year, and am exploring all career opportunities that my skill sets apply to. I've already ruled out working for Blackwater and others, primarily because I will not come back to Iraq. I want to spend time with my family. The pay isn't worth it.

DTOM- you are right and I am wrong- Blackwater IS mostly US_ it is all contractors combined in Iraq that it turns out, is what are being talked about- Blackwater only makes up 10% of the TOTAL of all "security" contractors- i.e.- guns for hire- NOT counting engineers or infrastructure type contractors. My bad.

They are simply viewed as the most hated and gun happy of the all of the groups represented.

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this further proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

I can not conclusively say it is a puppet at this time CruisingRam. I think B.W.'s refusal mearly underscores the belligerance of how American law overwhelms Iraqi law. The question people must ask is "Can we prove impunity has been abused on a regular basis?"

2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

Yes I would think so.

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

Tough question. Ethically yes. Legally this is an uphill battle because there has been protective legislation put in place. The Iraqi government must somehow overcome L. Bremer's old orders like "Order 17". This document is essentially the 21st century level of extraterritoriality. The Iraqis must submit a request for a "waiver" (Section 5) which if successful sends the offending members back to their sending states. Private security companies to the best of my knowledge are only answerable to the Coalition Provisional Authourity. Given the CPA's record so far I'm not optimistic. One either has to submit the issue to the CPA and hope for an investigation or submit a written request to have the offender removed from Iraq. Either way strikes me a colonial styled "just let us handle it wink wink" version of law.

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this furrther proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

The article cited directly contradicts the assertion in this question.



Beside that point, your statement that Blackwater is "owned" by the US government is simply wrong.

2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

In a certain sense they are mercs, but they only have defensive assignments. Garrison troops, as it were. That does not mean that they aren't involved in gunfights and cause (or escalate) unrest.

The UN frowns upon mercenaries, but that has not prevented the UN from employing them.

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

Of course. That would be lawful. I'm not sure at this point that Iraq ever ordered Blackwater or any other outfit out of Iraq.

One more bit of further proof of the fact that the Iraqi goverment is merely a puppet- the holding of an Iranian official by the US, Iraq saying he was invited, and the US refusing to let him go, which caused Iran to close the border to the Kurds, which is vital to the Kurdish economy, and the US refusing to listen to Maliki on this one.

I'm not sure how this relates to the thread. NO links. No quotes. Nada.

Blackwater is necessary. KBR and other resources for the military don't have military security, and without that deterrent they'd never work in the war zone. They have to defend their interests as well as themselves. It's impossible to not see why a force such as this is necessary.

Blackwater's employees are almost exclusively ex-Military people. Of course the Iraqi gov't wants them out, as they stop the insurgents from robbing and killing 'easy target' convoys of supplies, etc. That's a no-brainer.

Should they leave? Not so long as the Iraqi gov't wants US troops on their soil. If they think they can handle it themselves, let them go to the media on a global scale and say 'go home Americans'. When the supplies and services leave behind the troops... so will their security detail.

Can't believe you haven't heard the news about the Iranian siezed Aevens?

http://www.feedsyndicate.com/articles/7008601735

Also Aevens- are you saying that our military presence there is conditional to a private contractor, from America, being allowed to operate? Sounds pretty puppet-goverment to me "You let us have whomever we want in your country, with you having no jurisdication over those poeple, can't charge them with crimes when they act outside the laws of the land- or we withdraw our support for you"

That pretty much defines puppet goverment.

For the Iraqi goverment to say " we are revoking thier license, get out"- if the US says "no" - then there is no Iraqi soveriegnty- same with the Iranian official.

If the PRESIDENT WE INSTALLED says "he is our guest, let him go" and the Kurds agree, th most pro-American group in the country- and we say "so what, we are going to hold him anyway"- once again, that shows that the Iraqi goverment is nothing more than a puppet of the US, because it highlights that the Iraqi has no soveriegnty over it's borders or it's choice of to whom to issue visas.

Even more (Aevens- this is all over the news- I don't know how you missed it)

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5h54TV1...IOO1vgytBRwGVfg

The US military charges that Mahmudi Farhadi is an officer in the covert operations arm of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, accused by American commanders of helping Shiite militias involved in Iraq's bloody sectarian conflict.

"We have closed the border and we hope the Iraqi authorities will act as quickly as possible to release our colleague," the governor of Iran's northwestern Kordestan province, Esmaeel Najar, told AFP.

"We had said that if he (Farhadi) was not freed rapidly, we would reconsider our commercial ties" with the Iraqi Kurdish region, Najar added.

Asked when the border would reopen, he replied: "We hope that the Iraqi authorities will act as swiftly as possible to free our colleague."

Iran has made clear that it regards Iraq's sovereignty as being at stake in Farhadi's continued custody after both the regional and national authorities said he had been visiting with their consent.

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, had warned senior US officials on Saturday that Iran was poised to close the border over the Farhadi affair.

In an indignant letter to General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq, and US ambassador Ryan Crocker, Talabani said the arrest of Farhadi who came at the invitation of the Kurdish authorities was "a humiliation for the regional administration."

The row comes as Iran intensifies its pressure on the Iraqi authorities to close the rearbases of separatist Kurdish guerrillas active in the Islamic republic's western provinces.

CR. I can see our point there, but on the other hand, if they were puppets of the US government, woud the Iraqi's be complaining at all? If anything their vocal frustration indicates they are nothing of the sort.

It could, and probably does indicate that the US government is not too bothered about the viability of Iraqi autonomy, but thats hardly the same thing.

I would call them "semi-autonomous client states" similar to Russia in the old days- they let you run the stuff they let you run, otherwise, shut the heck up, we will do what we want. Complain loudly so you look more important- not that it will do you any good.

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this further proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

The Iraqi government is weak and corrupt, but it's not a US puppet. Or if it is, it's a badly broken puppet, with somebody else pulling many of the strings. The interior ministry, which hastily prepared the report saying Blackwater was "100% guilty," has often been called one of the most corrupt parts of the Iraqi government, sanctioning Shia militias (including death squads) to operate in its uniforms. Blackwater may be guilty in this case, but there's no way they've killed even 1% as many Iraqi civilians as the sectarian death squads have.

Here's a good analysis from UPI on the legal status of contractors/mercenaries:


It looks like Blackwater is not covered by the UCMJ. If they were "accompanying an armed force in the field," they would be subject to the UCMJ, but since their only contract is with State, not DoD, they do not appear to be covered. They probably could be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, however.



Not to worry, the CPA's record ended on June 30, 2004. It hasn't existed for over three years.


I don't know all the details of the Farhadi situation, but I get tired of seeing Talabani, Maliki, and others described as leaders "WE INSTALLED." The (admittedly dysfunctional) Iraqi government was chosen by the elected parliament. Remember the purple fingers of 2005? Iraq had three elections in 2005, and the last one was to elect a parliament under the newly ratified Iraqi constitution. The government was chosen by that parliament, not by Americans.

2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

Well, some people call our armed forces mercenaries because they're volunteers rather than draftees. Mercenary is an ugly word, and I think it should be reserved for people who wage offensive war for another country, for the sake of money. If every security guard is a "mercenary," the word is loses its meaning.

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

Yes, but I don't think it will come to that. It's ultimately a diplomatic question. If Blackwater is forced out, the State Department will be unable to work in Iraq. I don't think the Iraqi government really wants the U.S. Department of State to stop all projects in Iraq and get out. Iraq needs the help, and there aren't a lot of other countries willing or able to give any.

Section 11: Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

Aren't they accompanying the armed forces in some capacity? Also, Section 12: Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

If our government wanted to read "accompanying" as in, in support of the military, it could. Whatever became of this:

Early in the period when Iraq was still under American administration, the U.S. government unilaterally exempted its employees and contractors from Iraqi law. Last year, Congress instructed the Defense Department to draw up rules to bring the tens of thousands of contractors in Iraq under the U.S. laws that apply to the military, but the Pentagon has not acted. Thus the thousands of heavily armed private soldiers in Iraq operate with virtual immunity from Iraqi or American law.

What's the holdup at the Pentagon?

A prosecutor could certainly argue that, but the defense would ask where the accompanying forces were. I think contractors should be held to the same standards as soldiers, but the law as it stands doesn't make that clear. (It's much more clear that cooks working for KBR are covered by the UCMJ, which is kind of perverse.)


Again, a defense lawyer will argue that a Baghdad street is not "leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States."


Beats me. I think Congress is going to have to handle this themselves. Lindsay Graham was responsible for the legal changes that put DoD contractors in Iraq under the UCMJ. The UPI article I linked above says that there's another bill pending that would apply the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act to all contractors, including Blackwater:

I imagine the US citizenship has much to do with security clearances. It also insulates them from legal issue related to employment, even of non-security employees.

I happened across this article about a Blackwater-piloted plane crash investigation.

Apart from the apalling casualness (and immaturity!) of the pilot, the wife of one of the military officers who was killed in the crash made a very good point: "It's ironic and unfortunate that he had to be a passenger on this plane versus one of the people responsible for its safe operation."

Call them what you will, Blackwater shouldn't be part of US military operations. Maybe Blackwater will hire Luke Skywalker next time around?

Huh..........a pilot with two weeks in a combat zone opining about how fun it was to fly in that type of environment. Not exactly breaking news where I come from. Not really sure how this seals the notion that they shouldn't be in a US combat zone. There are arguments based on reason that could make that case, this isn't one of them; but it will undoubtedly be used as ammunition against the big Blackwater Boogeyman.
The entire case, from what I have so far read, is based on hyper sensationalized name calling. It's truly amazing how hypocritical and righteous pundits and others can be when they are on a crusade. But at least the left wing blogs are more entertaining to read than have been in a while.

In all fairness, these transcripts are more "gallows humor" with a healthy mix of bravado thrown in than anything else. It's not atypical in the aviation community. Way back when I was learning to fly an airplane I had the following exchange with my instructor during my night flight training.



Aquilla

No. We need security companies in Iraq if we want to secure convoys and Congressmen. Our current Army is, thanks to cuts by Bush I and then Clinton, much smaller than it was in 1991.

?

No they are contractors – same as the people driving the trucks etc. The CEO made some good points to Congress yesterday – Blackwater people are in far fewer fire fights than regular troops and not one person protected by them has ever died – yet they lost 32 including the men hung from the bridge in Fallujah.


They are part of our forces and we need to get to the bottom of the incident first.

Yep- gearing up for a big ol' pro-blackwater propaganda war for corporate USA mercs. I just can't feel sorry for blackwater mercs being killed over there anymore- it is clearly an overzealous outfit with no oversite to speak of. For pete's sake- they spirited out a guy that shot somebody while drunk- instead of turning him over to the Iraqis, or at least our own goverment. They have been literally getting away with murder. It is time to start by locking up the board of directors for this outfit and throwing away the key.

We keep talking about the mission in Iraq to create a stable democracy etc- it is readily apparent that these guys harm that mission, at the very least. They are universally hated over there, and everyone seems to buy into thier cover-ups and lies here- instead of holding them accountable- as they should.

As long as Blackwater is in Iraq- they are flaunting the "puppet state" goverment that we have installed there, and prove to the Iraqi poeple that they are only good for target practise.

Thank you for making my point. People use mercenary, trigger-happy, over-zealous, cowboy, gun-toting and other sensationalized terms like lemmings without even trying to discern facts.
Blackwater CEO Erik Prince said before Congress yesterday:

Link
A mercenary engages in offensive and military missions at the behest of a foreign employer. Contrary to the screeching harpies in the press and congress, Blackwater does not fit any definition of Mercenary.

Army veteran Matt from Blackfive Blog says it better:
If you simply caught the tone of the breathless headlines you would assume they have been leaving a trail of bodies everywhere they go. And yet the very report that has gobsmacked so many says they have been in an average of 1.4 escalations of force per week that involved gunfire, and 80% were initiated by Blackwater. Since this number would include warning shots fired, this means that of more than 16,000 missions run by Blackwater they have had only 195 incidents of shooting and they have had a grand total of ZERO of their protectees killed. Let's say that again, ZERO of the most important targets in Iraq were killed while under Blackwater protection.

Additionally, on every State Department or State sanctioned convoy, at least one member of the Diplomatic Security Service is required to be present and supervisory. In the rush to get torches and pitchforks, one should include State in their indictment.

There's a propaganda war on alright................

Oh yeah, if Blackwater were such a nice, peaceful group of armed guards they wouldn't be in this predicament in the first place,

You get a quote from Prince- who cares? I mean, really- whatever he spews from his cakehole should just be discarded immediately- it is pretty obvious he is going to say whatever is neccessary to keep his billion dollar contracts. And he is connected to the GW family/RNC. You can pretty much figure that whatever they say has the same amount of truth as Bahgdad Bob.

they have 0 credibility DTOM, because of cover-ups, lies and murders.

Oh yeah, not to mention lack of oversite and no way to punish wrongdoing.

You made my point again......

I included the quote by Erik Prince to see if anyone would step up and try to refute the stated mission and purpose of Blackwater. I see that you have not, but simply fallen back on the talking points and rhetoric.
I'm not their defense attorney, but knowing some of these guys, and definetly knowing the operating environment, I'm not going to let the scripted mantra go unchallenged.
I've stated previously that there needs to be reform and oversight, but the way left wingers and their myrmidons have turned Blackwater into this weeks boogeyman is laughable.......but predictable.

CruisingRam, would you be satisfied if the Blackwater employees responsible for the wrongful deaths of Iraqis were prosecuted in the US? Then write your congresscritters. David Price (D-N.C.) introduced a bill last spring to clarify the law to make all contractors subject to the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. I think it should pass, and I've written my representative (Madame Speaker) to let her know.

And you're still wrong about the Iraqi government being a "puppet." My argument is the same as it was last year, so I'll just quote it:

JFK WAS EATEN BY A TIGER, TED KENNEDY ACCIDENTALLY DROVE HIS CAR OVER A BRIDGE AND KILLED A WOMAN YET FORGOT, AND THE MOON LANDING WAS A HOAX.

Now that we've gotten all the absurd comments out of the way...

Blackwater employees are in a tough spot. Don't shoot unless shot upon, watch for civilians, collateral damage could bring criminal charges, etc.

Anyone that's ever been in a combat zone knows that it's alot like a car accident. Ever been in a car accident and sat afterwards and tried to piece everything together?

My opinion is that if someone's shooting at them, and Blackwater employees shoot back- Iraqi's will automatically say that it was a Blackwater induced death. It makes good press for them. Do they do autopsies to see why the people died? Probably not.

If bullets are flying and Blackwater has their hide and the hides of others to protect, they need to be there. They're all professional soldiers hand selected.

Puppets of the RNC and George Bush? Good job CR with the rhetoric. Go ahead and throw in the "war is for oil" statement to complete the DNC's sounding board of statements. Oh - I forgot, "Bush lied and soldiers died".

IF the Iraqi goverment- who relies on the US for their very survival, have revoked thier license for wrongdoing- no amount of handwringing and "poor us, being picked on by mean ol' liberals" by the merc leader SHOULD convince anyone.

They are obviously an out of control, murder for hire group that the state department gets to say "gee, it wasn't the goverment" - and then provide cover for the corporation. Good ol' plausible deniability.

The Iraq goverment and poeple hate this group- told them to get out of the country- yet, they are still there. Murderers have not been held accountable except to be fired.


Corporations hide behind mission statements and policies all the time- we had quite a bit of that right here in the AK- BP, Veco anyone? Got away with it for decades until the FBI finally got enough evidence to start bugging poeple.

Erik Prince's testimoney is refuted by the very fact that the Iraqi goverment is ordering out Blackwater for thier murdering ways. Yet they remain anyway.
Pretty neat system if you got the political clout to pull it off, and you don't happen to be the ones getting murdered.

CR, you’ve gone from making my point to missing my point.

Prince stated: Blackwater "does not engage in offensive or military missions, but performs only defensive and protective duties."
Refute that. If you can't, then you cannot logically call Blackwater mercenaries.


Except the Iraqi Government hasn’t revoked their license:

NYT

And in no point of Prince’s testimony did he elude hand wringing and being picked on. Those are your charged words, not his. You are following the script nicely…..


As has been stated before, they are still there with the acceptance of the Iraqi Government. By the way, how does Blackwater impose judicial punishment on it’s employees? Does any other company take the law into their own hands when an employee does or may have done something criminal? Isn’t that the job of the Department of Justice? Look not at logic or reason, merely follow the herd, eh?

I ask again, since State convoys protected by Blackwater are under the supervision of at least one Diplomatic Security Service agent, are you prepared to call DSS murderers also?


Third time you’ve said this in the same post, I expected more of an argument from you. Third time you’re wrong by the way.

And I do love the term ‘murdered’. The leftist blogs and pundits have taken to the term ‘executed’ lately. Maybe you haven’t received your latest instructions. I wonder where the alleged Iraqi video tape evidence of Blackwater’s criminal act is. No worries, Blackwater has been convicted already by a jury of lemmings who refuse to understand the case they’re hyperventilating about.

As usual- we only get the "truth" that the corporate types tell us- they control the information- how is anyone supposed to come up with any numbers to refute anything when they get to make the numbers up as they go? Look at the Iraqi dead for instance- the goverment wants us to believe that only about 60k+ has died- when the reality is closer to 10 times that?

It is the same old story played over and over again- corporations doing awful things using some goverment cover- the list is quite long- Haliburton, Blackwater, Veco, BP, Exxon etc. It isn't until years later often that we find out that the truth was even WORSE than we thought.

The problem is the hand in glove roles these guys play with the state department. Prince is heavily connected to the GW politico machine. So no one can refute thier so called numbers- because they control the numbers and the reports.

They have already been caught covering up and lying- and, of course, they have favorable legislation in place that prevents them from any oversite or judicial review.

I don't get marching orders from any "liberal" rag of any type-

this is a classic example of why corporations should NOT be given the same constitutional rights as an individual- they need to have them stripped away- and probably move to a burden of proof that makes them guilty until proven innocent.

They are just too powerful, too well connected to pay for thier wrongdoing when caught, and can delay justice for decades just because of thier enormous resources (see Exxon Valdez oil spill- 20% the plaintiffs have died while awaiting thier just rewards from a very evil company)

We have been complaining for nearly 20 years that Veco was bribing and had bought out the republican party- and, of course, like with your comment- anyone that said it was "a left wing whacko that just hates corporations"- well, whadya know- they WERE bribing senators and legislators galore, all from the republican party- and they, of course, had been voting and fighting for lower taxes from the oil industry.

It will be probably decades before we find out the truth of how truly horrific this company REALLY was, and what we are hearing today is just the tip of the iceberg- as usual.

Where there is smoke, there is fire DTOM- and there are already flames here- but, as usual , Blackwater defenders will say "oh, they are just being picked on by the liberal media" or whatever- instead of really going in for the kill, as what SHOULD happen with these types.

If you have a gun, for a private company, in a war zone- you can split hairs all you want- you are a merc. You can call them bodyguards as a euphemism all you want- but they are mercs- they are hired guns, nothing more, nothing less, with no real rules at all, and no oversite, and no justice for those killed.

Each and every one of those accused should face the same courts that tried and killed Saddam, instead of being spirited out of the country to face no punishment at all.

And chaning the law will have 0 effect on the bad guys that have already done the murdering/executing- can't make the law retroactive, now can we?

Without the rules of engagment and USMJ that you guys have to operate under while working for Uncle Sam- what is to stop the excesses of a rogue merc organization like blackwater?

Ooooo- the guy could actually be fired- oh my gawd- what awful punishment that is!

The ROE and USMJ stop war crimes, executions and murder- or rather, at least, make it clear you will be punished if you disobey them- and blackwater doesn't have to operate under this- and, in fact, have immunity from it.

The best thing we could do to stop the hatred that Iraqis have for this firm, and to avenge the innocents killed, is to just turn over Prince to the families who's loved ones were killed, and let them decide what justice he deserves.

Each and every time a corporation is accused of some wrong doing- the same things happen- a lengthy hearing, nothing is done, no one pays for thier crimes, the right wingers say "oh, you just hate america" or some such stupidity - and a couple years later- everything that was said not only was true- but it was even far worse than we thought.

Call it splitting hairs all you like, I call it being accurate. If one can't be accurate, then how is credibility established for the rest of ones argument? I contend that Blackwater does not fit the definition of mercenary, and it has not been proven to be otherwise. The term mercenary is being used by the left the same way the right uses its charged terms: for emotional impact. Obviously you're OK with that technique, at least when the left uses it.



As usual - you only seem to rely on the mainstream media. The MSM has printed virtually nothing except vaguely based rants against Blackwater and give voice to the screeching harpies who spew them. Did you ever read the Iraqi 'eyewitness' account of the recent event, where some claimed that the convoy was caught in a traffic jam and allegedly opened fire without provocation, and say to yourself, hmmm, that doesn't make any sense? Do you ever read a news account and use your own experience and knowledge and say, that doesn't sound right? You rail against the MSM, yet it appears you are proselytizing for them.

On Yahoo News today, an article states: The official Iraqi investigation into the Blackwater shooting last month recommends that the security guards face trial in Iraqi courts and that the company compensate the victims, an Iraqi government minister told The Associated Press on Thursday.

If found complicit, then I agree that they operators in question should be indicted, by the US judicial system. However, the article goes on to state: But the official Iraqi investigation found that the Blackwater guards had not been fired on when they unleashed the fusillade. It said no shots were fired at Blackwater personnel throughout.

Does it make sense to anybody, that the operators would unleash a, and I quote, "fusillade" against civilians without provocation. You'll have to pardon me while I engage my brain and not be taken in by an account like this without some sort of evidence.

The article further states: Security officials in Baghdad said the State Department report was expected to include information that two Blackwater guards involved in the incident suffered gunshot wounds. The officials would not be further identified because the report had not yet been made public.
Blackwater has said its guards used their weapons only after they came under fire.
Yahoo

What's this, two sides to the story? Say it isn't so......

And just as you may immediately discard the testimony by Blackwater operators and State Diplomatic Security personnel, you'll have to excuse me when I don't take Iraqi 'eyewitnesses' at their word without corroboration. I've encountered firsthand their overall level of integrity. Blackwater may engage in a CYA campaign, but don't for a moment believe that Iraqi's aren't going to lay ALL blame at the BW/US doorstep.




Is that really what I'm saying? Or am I saying look at the facts before the mob goes for the lynching tree. The rest of your post doesn't really refute my argument, just appears to be an anti-corporate/anti-right wing rant.

1) Since the US owned company has ignored the expulsion order- is this furrther proof that the Iraqi goverment is simply a puppet of the BA?

It's proof that the Iraqi government has no teeth. It's a mouse ordering the tiger out of the cage.

2) Would it be accurate to call Blackwater Mercs- older definitions as provided by DTOM notwithstanding?

mer·ce·nar·y (mûrÆsà nerÅ"), adj., n., pl. -nar·ies.
–adj.
1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.
2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc.
–n.
3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.
4. any hireling.
[1350–1400; ME mercenarie < L merc"nn!rius working for pay, hired worker, mercenary, perh., repr. earlier *merc"d(i)n!rius, equiv. to *merc"din-, s. of *merc"d$, a by-form of merc"s, s. merc"d- payment, wage (akin to merx goods; cf. MERCHANT) + -!rius -ARY]
—mer·ce·nar·i·ly (mûrÅsà nârÆà l", mûrÆsà nerÅ-), adv.
—merÆce·narÅi·ness, n.
—Syn. 1. grasping, acquisitive, avaricious, covetous.
—Ant. 1. altruistic, idealistic, unselfish.

Mercenary fits. Don't try to tell me that Blackwater is in Iraq out of altruistic motives. It's a corporation. It has no altruism.

3) Bonus question- if Iraq continues to order Blackwater out- should Blackwater be forced to get out?

Shouldn't the Iraqi government force Blackwater out?

Yes, but it can't.

The obvious situation is that Blackwater answers to the Bush administration, not the Iraqi government.

Umm.... let's not point out the obvious and state that without Blackwater (or someone just like them, likely less well trained and professional) that the supply companies in Iraq wouldn't be able to do business. It's not like insurgents only pick fights with armed and trained soldiers.

Why are people so up in arms? It seems like a load of crap that the Iraqi gov't even thinks that the Blackwater people intentionally killed anyone out of anything other than self defense.

Yes they seem to be the convenient boogey of the week for the Dems.

Meanwhile they continue to do a dangerous job and save lives as in:

Blackwater saves Polish convoy pinned down in Baghdad attack
The Associated PRess
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 10.04.2007

BAGHDAD — A daring ambush of bombs and gunfire left Poland's ambassador pinned down in a burning vehicle Wednesday before being pulled to safety and airlifted in a rescue mission by the embattled security firm Blackwater USA. At least three people were killed, including a Polish bodyguard.
The attack — apparently well planned in one of Baghdad's most secure neighborhoods — raised questions about whether it sought to punish Poland for its contributions to the U.S.-led military force in Iraq. But Poland's prime minister,

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/204474

Ted, then again perhaps the attack on the Polish diplomats was really an attack on their Blackwater escorts?



Why are you so quick to characterize "left wing criticism?" I find much of the left's opinion pieces put the behavior of Blackwater guards in the perspective of the madness of our aggression in Iraq and the total mismanagement of the occupation. (See this Nation Piece). On the other hand, there is criticism on the right that is as vituperative as anything from the left. Take a look at This Piece by the Libertarian, Justin Raimondo.



I don't doubt that there are some excellent individuals among the Blackwater employees but they lack effective command and control and are mixed in with more irresponsible elements. The company itself is a political creation build on personal connections and has done great damage. The poor Blackwater souls who were sent ill equipped into Fallujah weren't to blame for what became the escalation of the Sunni insurgency but Blackwater was!

(See the conclusion of this report prepared for the COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Blackwater was not protecting the Polish convoy.

U.S. Embassy officials dispatched Blackwater helicopters to evacuate the ambassador and others. Blackwater was not involved in protecting the Polish convoy. Link



I'm not being quick at all, it doesn't take much reading to see where the screeching is coming from. And after all the articles I've read by Raimondo, I have never viewed him as anything close to a right winger, but that's just my opinion. My opinion of the characterization of critique comes from examples such as this:

Congress is finally asking questions of Erik Prince, the head of Blackwater, the private mercenary organization that massacred seventeen civilians in Iraq recently. Naomi Wolf

Note the choice of words. They're attempting to make your mind up for you.

The present administration may have allowed the escalation of contract security firms allowed to work in combat zones, but the practice started in the late 70's, as the Carter Administration's DoS started the pratice of hiring contractors to work in Beirut. The answer here isn't to demonize the entire security industry, but to finally alow legislation like MEJA to hold contractors under a rule of law that is both disseminated to the lowest level and clear. That and not allow installed bureaucratic sultans like L. Paul Bremer to authorize blanket immunity for everyone.