REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Me and My Shadow.... Army

POSTED BY: DAYVE
UPDATED: Thursday, April 5, 2007 09:36
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1305
PAGE 1 of 1

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 10:46 AM

DAYVE



I'm not sure if this has come up here before - I missed it if it did, but I imagine there will be strong opinions on both sides of the issue - that is, do we need independent contractors engaged in open warfare working separately from the military.

On the surface it seems that contractors are a necessity to carry on a mission such as the war in Iraq, but there also appears to be some serious war profiteering here as well.

The article in the April 2 edition of The Nation is taken from the book Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army by Jeremy Scahill. A very sobering assessment of the shadow army funded by the U.S. government and your tax dollars.

A link to the online edition of The Nation below.
A short video as well here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill




NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 12:31 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"On the surface it seems that contractors are a necessity to carry on a mission such as the war in Iraq ..."

Not really. 'Private armies' and contractors are phenomenally more expensive than public ones. Public armies are truly 'faster, better, cheaper'. AFAIK the only reason to use private armies is b/c they are not technically under the rules of war. I hope the UN rectifies that loophole SOON.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 12:34 PM

ERIC


Ahh, Blackwater. These guys are a favorite butt of jokes in my lab. We ordered some of their 'gear' from their proshop just to have stuff to play with.

Mercenaries are always going to be employed as long as people are willing to provide the services. The question in this case I think is what rules to they operate under? These guys don't seem to be subject to US laws, Iraqi laws, or the UCMJ. If one of these guys decides to shoot some civilians just for the hell of it, what consequences are there? Are they just being used to do jobs our oh-so beloved and divinely spotless troops can't be seen soiling their hands with?

As far as profiteering, the whole war is a profit deal...

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 1:31 PM

CITIZEN


Sounds like the East India Company.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 2:29 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"The question in this case I think is what rules do they operate under?" Which I think should be decided by - who pays the bill? If a government pays then they are government agents and fall under all appropriate restrictions and regulations.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 4:09 PM

DAYVE


Quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
....question in this case I think is what rules to they operate under? These guys don't seem to be subject to US laws, Iraqi laws, or the UCMJ.



from the article:
Quote:

This past fall, taking a different tack--much to the dismay of the industry--Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, an Air Force reserve lawyer and former reserve judge, quietly inserted language into the 2007 Defense Authorization, which Bush signed into law, that places contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commonly known as the court martial system. Graham implemented the change with no public debate and with almost no awareness among the broader Congress, but war contractors immediately questioned its constitutionality. Indeed, this could be a rare moment when mercenaries and civil libertarians are on the same side. Many contractors are not armed combatants; they work in food, laundry and other support services. While the argument could be made that armed contractors like those working for Blackwater should be placed under the UCMJ, Graham's change could result in a dishwasher from Nepal working for KBR being prosecuted like a US soldier. On top of all this, the military has enough trouble policing its own massive force and could scarcely be expected to monitor an additional 100,000 private personnel. Besides, many contractors in Iraq are there under the auspices of the State Department and other civilian agencies, not the military.


Quote:

by Eric
If one of these guys decides to shoot some civilians just for the hell of it, what consequences are there?



from the article
Quote:

While much of the publicity Blackwater has received stems from Falluja, another, more recent incident is attracting new scrutiny. On Christmas Eve inside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone, an American Blackwater contractor allegedly shot and killed an Iraqi bodyguard protecting a senior Iraqi official. For weeks after the shooting, unconfirmed reports circulated around the Internet that alcohol may have been involved and that the Iraqi was shot ten times in the chest. The story then went that the contractor was spirited out of Iraq before he could be prosecuted. Media inquiries got nowhere--the US Embassy refused to confirm that it was a Blackwater contractor, and the company refused to comment.

Then the incident came up at the February 7 Congressional hearing. As the session was drawing to a close, Representative Kucinich raced back into the room with what he said was a final question. He entered a news report on the incident into the record and asked Blackwater counsel Howell if Blackwater had flown the contractor out of Iraq after the alleged shooting. "That gentleman, on the day the incident occurred, he was off duty," Howell said, in what was the first official confirmation of the incident from Blackwater. "Blackwater did bring him back to the United States."

"Is he going to be extradited back to Iraq for murder, and if not, why not?" Kucinich asked.

"Sir, I am not law enforcement. All I can say is that there's currently an investigation," Howell replied. "We are fully cooperating and supporting that investigation."

Kucinich then said, "I just want to point out that there's a question that could actually make [Blackwater's] corporate officers accessories here in helping to create a flight from justice for someone who's committed a murder."







NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 4, 2007 4:27 PM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!


"Many contractors are not armed combatants; they work in food, laundry and other support services."

I personally recognize that as well. BUT - everthing that holds true for armed contractors v fighting military also holds true for intelligence/ supply/ transport/ engineering/ etc contractors v military. The military IS 'faster, better, cheaper' in all those functions AND subject to the UCMJ no matter what rank or duty. Doesn't matter if you're a truck driver, translator or bridge-builder

Why shouldn't private contractors be subject as well?

So it's good to know that contractors are, at least for the present, being held to a reasonable standard.

added: if they are NOT subject to the UCMJ they must be subject to civilian laws - which have a lot less leeway - instead. Can you see a contractor of any stripe being subject to laws like assault in a war zone? If I were a contractor I'd definitely opt for the UCMJ.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 3:12 AM

DAYVE



This whole thing just smells bad. It really brings into question the basic reasoning for starting this catastrophic war in the first place. Democracy? Freedom from a tyrannical dictator? War on terror….? It sure looks to me like the whole thing was planned around a corporate take over of the dept. of defense.

Quote:


On September 10, 2001, before most Americans had heard of Al Qaeda or imagined the possibility of a "war on terror," Donald Rumsfeld stepped to the podium at the Pentagon to deliver one of his first major addresses as Defense Secretary under President George W. Bush. Standing before the former corporate executives he had tapped as his top deputies overseeing the high-stakes business of military contracting--many of them from firms like Enron, General Dynamics and Aerospace Corporation--Rumsfeld issued a declaration of war.



It sure looks like Blackwater was setting itself up as Bush’s shadow army even before 9/11.

Quote:


’This company's success represents the realization of the life's work of the conservative officials who formed the core of the Bush Administration's war team, for whom radical privatization has long been a cherished ideological mission. Blackwater has repeatedly cited Rumsfeld's statement that contractors are part of the "Total Force" as evidence that it is a legitimate part of the nation's "warfighting capability and capacity." Invoking Rumsfeld's designation, the company has in effect declared its forces above the law—………..

While the initial inquiries into Blackwater have focused on the complex labyrinth of secretive subcontracts under which it operates in Iraq, a thorough investigation into the company reveals a frightening picture of a politically connected private army that has become the Bush Administration's Praetorian Guard.



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 5, 2007 9:36 AM

MALBADINLATIN


Quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
Mercenaries are always going to be employed as long as people are willing to provide the services.



Don't you just love how every Republican calls then "contractors"? never Mercenaries. But you're right, mercs have been a part of human existance since forever

Quote:

The question in this case I think is what rules to they operate under? These guys don't seem to be subject to US laws, Iraqi laws, or the UCMJ. If one of these guys decides to shoot some civilians just for the hell of it, what consequences are there?


PBS had a special on these Blackwater guys, they claim that they do mostly body guard/security work. They claim not to take part in military actions. That may be true...I mean we still have the CIA, NSA, and scary black ops guys to do the dirty work that Americans can't handle hearing about.

Quote:

As far as profiteering, the whole war is a profit deal...



Hear Hear!

"The world is still turning and you're on it....count yourself lucky" My Dad, 2007.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, November 28, 2024 17:48 - 4779 posts
Russian losses in Ukraine
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:32 - 1163 posts
Trump, convicted of 34 felonies
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:10 - 45 posts
Salon: How to gather with grace after that election
Thu, November 28, 2024 14:04 - 1 posts
End of the world Peter Zeihan
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:59 - 215 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:58 - 1540 posts
Kamala Harris for President
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:46 - 650 posts
Elections; 2024
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:41 - 4847 posts
Dubai goes bankrupt, kosher Rothschilds win the spoils
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:31 - 5 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:29 - 7515 posts
Jean-Luc Brunel, fashion mogul Peter Nygard linked to Epstein
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:27 - 14 posts
All things Space
Thu, November 28, 2024 13:17 - 270 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL