Blackwater

[Dechristo]

mercenary

[Dechristo]

The Washington Post article on this topic.

[tvashtarkatena]

The Light of Day just got a little brighter

[Serenity]

I am pretty sure there is not a single reporter in the world that knows more about this stuff than I do. I'd be happy to educate you, but I'm not going to pay for your dinner to do so. I see it as zapping some light and space into your brain cavity.

 

In the meantime you can continue to preach your capitulation routine on the deaf eared.

[olyclimber]

I'd like to hear why it is Blackwater even exists, as opposed to this role being filled by an accountable US Military organization. I still don't understand why Blackwater (and the other like organizations filling these roles) is being used. Do you have any insight to the Serenity?

 

 

[ClimbingPanther]

how many CEO's do you know of in the military making bank & giving politicians kickbacks?

[Crux]

N83BdpNPvgw

[Serenity]

I'd like to hear why it is Blackwater even exists, as opposed to this role being filled by an accountable US Military organization. I still don't understand why Blackwater (and the other like organizations filling these roles) is being used. Do you have any insight to the Serenity?

 

 

Yes, I do have plenty of insight. FACT: Easy formula for success: become a self-proclaimed expert on a subject that nobody who knows what the fuck they're talking about will never publicly address. This is the hack passing you your information.

 

FACT: The Iraqi government is trying to save face, because FACT....they suck so bad, and everyone knows it. It's called propoganda, obscuration.

 

BW was initially a high end training facility providing firearms, and tactical training facilities. It existed partially because of the drawdown which began during President Bush Sr's tenure, which carried over to President Clinton's 2 terms.

 

The 1st ASSUMPTION many of you make is that BW is carrying out a military mission, which they are NOT. The military has no ready equivalent to DS Special Agent. The military does not train people or carry the mission of dignitary protection. That's typically a federal law enforcement role. Diplomatic Security Services provide protection for State Department and special services persons. NOT THE MILITARY. The only units who have in the past performed those roles (for specific reason) are CAG (SFOD-Delta) and DEVGRU (old SEAL TEAM 6). Apparently they are too busy to do that kind of work now. Ya think?

 

If you care to sit down some time, I'd be happy to explain the process of becoming a special agent for the US government, the amount of money it takes to recruit, investigate someones background, pay to send them to FLETC or some other equivalent academy, the cost of carrying a GS-X to retirement, COLA, moving allowances, etc. Versus the temporary hiring of thousands of necessary, and highly trained former SPECOPS/SWAT team members who bring all the skills to the table, and then are released when their services are no longer needed. If all of these guys were being trained as agents, it would be MORE costly, and not TIMELY.

 

Furthermore, Blackwater is a seemingly easy target for media journalists looking for a sensational story. Truth is, Raytheon, Boeing, Northrup-Grunman, eat up a far greater share of defense budget than tiny Blackwater ever will.

[Dechristo]

Is their make-up (face-paint) a deductable expense if they itemize?

[Serenity]

Is their make-up (face-paint) a deductable expense if they itemize?

 

I dunno. Are the dildo barstools you put at your kitchen table working out for you?

[olyclimber]

I guess the thing is that I have almost no idea what Blackwater (and along with Blackwater all like organizations currently doing business in Iraq) is doing over there. I also don't know why they needed a "special agreement" to operate in Iraq, and what that special agreement entails.

 

The basic information I have heard is what you mention below (that they are protecting foreign dignataries). Who exactly are these dignataries?

 

I also understand the efficiencies and economies you might get from contracting (see it in in IT industry all the time).

 

I'm just not feeling all good about using contractors in that capacity, even if it is all non-military missions. I guess that comes from my viewpoint about the war in general. It seems that the war has been fought from a modern business perspective, and that seems to have failed (on many accounts, but in particularly fincancially). While the big contractors might view it as a success, I think that is unpatriotic on their part.

 

When I say "fought from a modern business perspective", I mean the war was has been fought with a volunteer army supplemented with contractors (sure, maybe those contractors are working on non-military missions, but they are still supporting the overall effort, are they not?). This is in contrast to a war like WWII, where there was a draft. The American public was fully engaged in what is going on.

 

We've seen war contractors sucking the American public dry while we go to work everyday like nothing is happening and the "war news" is on page 6. I'm not accusing Blackwater of being one of these companies, but in general I distrust using contractors for fighting a war, no matter what their capacity. I also think that if we are fighting a war, the country should commit to it. Draft up kids and send them to fight...none of this volunteer only army. I know as a defense professional (I think that is what you are, but I don't know, correct me if I'm wrong) you probably don't like this idea because of the quality of recruit you might get, but I think that is the only way to get our country and fully engaged and working to "win the war". I'm not pschyed about it...I have a 6 year old son, and I don't want him going to war ever.

 

At anyrate, I'm having a pain med ramble here, but I'm still really interested in Blackwater and their ilk. Like those paranoid people in the video above, I'm concerned about a "private army" in the United States...especially with one as effective as they might be. Sure they might be only doing a non-military mission now, but I'm sure you agree that they would be extremely qualified to do more.

 

 

[Dechristo]

Is their make-up (face-paint) a deductable expense if they itemize?

 

I dunno. Are the dildo barstools you put at your kitchen table working out for you?

 

I regret admitting this, particularly to you the giver, but we had to do away with your generous gift of the barstools as we, as well as our guests, were reluctant from the start to sit on surfaces bearing the carved likeness of your face.

[Dechristo]

One of the big differences between the current war and those of the past (WWII, etc.) is that in the past, reconstruction did not commence until after everything had been leveled.

 

What a paradox. To simultaneously attempt war and humanitarianism. Little wonder it's so expensive.

[Crux]

"Depending on whether the Blackwater security firm stays in Iraq will inform us whether Prime Minister Maliki has any power or is just a U.S. puppet. My money is on the puppet." -- Larry C. Johnson, The Iraq Blackwater Test. (Sep 17, 2007).

[tvashtarkatena]

I am pretty sure there is not a single reporter in the world that knows more about this stuff than I do. I'd be happy to educate you, but I'm not going to pay for your dinner to do so. I see it as zapping some light and space into your brain cavity.

 

In the meantime you can continue to preach your capitulation routine on the deaf eared.

 

I hate to be the 200 millionth person to break the news to you, Sweet Cheeks, but a sizeable majority of the country is 'preaching the capitulation routine' right along with me. I like to think if it more as preaching a 'let's stop wasting our fucking time, money, credibility, and lives on a project doomed from the start' routine. Sorry you're wasting your career on a debacle, but that's really not my problem.

Edited September 19, 2007 by tvashtarkatena

[crackers]

The 1st ASSUMPTION many of you make is that BW is carrying out a military mission, which they are NOT. The military has no ready equivalent to DS Special Agent. The military does not train people or carry the mission of dignitary protection. That's typically a federal law enforcement role. Diplomatic Security Services provide protection for State Department and special services persons. NOT THE MILITARY. The only units who have in the past performed those roles (for specific reason) are CAG (SFOD-Delta) and DEVGRU (old SEAL TEAM 6).

 

What do you call MARDAT's job?

[scottgg]

After my brief encounters with BW personnel, their professionalism is what stands out in my mind. They are all former SF/Swat operators, and they take their jobs very seriously.

Porter, you asked why companies like this are necessary. I think modern economic theory provides the best explanation: "do what you do best and trade (outsource) the rest".

As Serenity explained, one of the military's core competencies is not VIP protection, so it makes sense to bring in experts to do that job (whether it be federal agents or independent contractors). I'm sure our congressmen and women appreciate having the most highly trained men protecting them while in-country.

And lets keep incidents like this in perspective... if the Iraq government expressed the same outrage over the frequent suicide bombing and terrorist attacks within their own cities, perhaps they would get something done, and take a proactive role in quelling the flow or radical fundamentalists flowing through their borders from Syria and Iran.

[Jim]

Building democracy one mercenary at a time.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/19/iraq.fateful.day/index.html

 

This is the direct outfall of Rumsfield and Cheney's idea to minimize the armed forces and have private companies profit from their war. Rather than have the military do many of the nuts and bolts things they used to, maintenance, logistics, food service, and now guarding facilities and people, they have put this out to bid. BW recently won a $800 million contract. So what used to be done by a soldier is now being done by someone making $250k. Now that's efficiency.

 

It also avoids the necessity of building up the armed forces via a draft. If that was done then there would be an uproar from the public, most of which is relatively untouched by the war. One general put it well when asked about the country being at war "The country's not at war, the army is at war. The country is at the mall".

[olyclimber]

"The country's not at war, the army is at war. The country is at the mall".

 

 

that sums up it up for me, and can be attributed to all the troubles we are having over there.

[Doug]

excellent post Scott. I think it makes sense that the US government pays for these cats to do this job. The Iraqi Government and the press singling out and sensationalizing this story in that environment reminds me of one of my favorite lines from Apocolyse Now: "Charging someone with Murder here is like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500".

[Dechristo]

More on the incident that has stopped U.S. diplomats from travelling outside the Green Zone for a second day and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's response.

[Serenity]

Legal voodoo from a JAG type buddy of mine.

************************************

 

Iraq as war zone, hostile or combat zone there can be agreements; especially as we are not 'hostile' the Iraqi government. It is not an illegitimate question.

 

Status-of-Forces-Agreement (SOFA) according to the DoD Dictionary is "an agreement that defines the legal position of a visiting military force deployed in the territory of a friendly state. Agreements delineating the status of visiting military forces may be bilateral or multilateral. Provisions pertaining to the status of visiting forces may be set forth in a separate agreement, or they may form a part of a more comprehensive agreement. These provisions describe how the authorities of a visiting force may control members of that force and the amenability of the force or its members to the local law or to the authority of local officials. Also called SOFA. See also civil affairs agreement."

 

SOFA is for "forces;" i.e. military types. The agreements are specific to each country that we have diplomatic relations with. Usually, military types (DoD) personnel are immune from prosecution in the performance of their duties. If outside of military duties ("not in the line of duty and due to own misconduct" type incidents) then the case will be dealt with as prescribed in the SOFA and the U.S. Embassy will be engaged. It doesn't mean that you have a "get out of jail free card" at all. It only means that the U.S. Embassy staffers will do everything that they can to ensure that you are afforded all the rights and protections possible under the host nation's law.

 

The next type of document is a an agreement between the U.S. and the host nation called Administrative and Technical Status. This is normally for embassy staffs. Foreign governments can and sometimes do extend to U.S. personnel assigned to military exercises (training, FID, etc.) a status equivalent to that accorded to the administrative and technical staffs of foreign embassies. This status differs from that accorded to “diplomatic agents” (as defined by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations) and provides U.S. military personnel no immunity from the civil and administrative jurisdiction of the host country for “acts performed outside the course of their duties.” The administrative and technical status is described in Article 37 of the Vienna Convention. It is entirely consistent with the provisions of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which recognizes signatory nations’ “obligations under international law” concerning such matters (Part 9, Article 98).

 

Diplomatic Status is for the true diplomats and not most of the staffers. Don't quote me on this one but I think it is position/billet driven for true diplomatic status.

 

Sovereign Territory is another important concept to understand. U.S. Flagged vessels enjoy the right of sovereign territory as well as the U.S. Embassy and grounds. The host nation cannot legally come onto either for arrest or any other reason without express permission. If it is a personnel custody issue it can get dicey but the Ambassador or Ship's Captain will usually stay pretty darn close to the letter of the standing agreements that govern the particular situation. That is why sailors and marines were usually hustled onboard the ship whenever there was any type of incident ashore; soldiers and airmen had to rely more on embassy and DATT for assistance and did their best to get them engaged ASAP or the troops to the embassy compound if at all possible.

 

The problem in Iraq as you noted is that there is no SOFA. It was my buddy's take that this had been address as early as the CAP and evidently still on the back burner under the current 'government.' Early on there was NO Government to draw up an agreement with and now it just hasn't risen that high on the priority list to see daylight.

 

And SOFA only deals with U.S. Forces and not contractors DoD or otherwise. The BW PSD apparently is under a DoS contract so I don't think that would work anyway. There was a recent change by Congress to the USC 10 that made allowances for DoD contractor to be subject to the UCMJ. This was to give commanders some leverage but still begs their legitimate status within Iraq or any other country for that matter.

 

BW has held that they fall under the same provisions and protections as DoD and DoS and that may get tested in the case over the Fallujah law suit.

 

[Doug]

This kind of gets back to the liability question I asked about. Is BW under contract to the US Government, or are they licensed to work there privately undersponsorship of the US Gov? I suspect maybe a combo of both? Do they protect both diplomats and and civilian VIP's/contractors?

 

If working under US Govt' contracts there would normally be some level of protection for BW under whatever SOFA agreement existed between us and Iraq, though you make it sound as though that is non-existent. That is of course if they are performing an adjunct mission to the US Forces. If they are working under contract to civilian contractor or other non US Govt' entity under sponsorship then there may be some provisos in the license that cover them in certain circumstances.

[pdawg]

I don't question BW's proficiency as they recruit from highly trained units. My problem is with whole corporate welfare system that has blossomed under this administration. We shouldn't be paying private sector people any more then our soldiers on the ground- at least not when they're both being paid with tax dollars.

 

For that matter, since the control of Iraq is so important as to justify both the rolling back of habeas corpus and the institutionalization of torture, why aren't we putting a few other American traditions on the shelf? Nationalizing our oil companies would a crucial step towards national integrity. It would save us hundreds of billions of dollars in privatization schemes but mostly it would ensure that every American life lost in Iraq would be a sacrifice towards a better-fueled America- and that's not a guarantee the shareholders of Exxon are ever going to make.

[Crux]

Sep 22, 2:03 AM EDT

Feds Target Blackwater in Weapons Probe:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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...