EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
Blackwater Busted?
After more than five years of rampant violence and misconduct carried out by the massive army of private corporate contractors in Iraq--actions that have gone totally unpunished under any system of law--the US Justice Department appears to be on the verge of handing down the first indictments against armed private forces for crimes committed in Iraq. The reported targets of the "draft" indictments: six Blackwater operatives involved in the September 16, 2007, killing of seventeen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad's Nisour Square.
The Associated Press reports, "The draft is being reviewed by senior Justice Department officials but no charging decisions have been made. A decision is not expected until at least later this month." The AP, citing sources close to the case, reports that the department has not determined if the Blackwater operatives would be charged with manslaughter or assault. Simply drafting the indictments does not mean that the Blackwater forces are certain to face charges. The department could indict as few as three of the operatives, who potentially face sentences of five to twenty years, depending on the charges.If the Justice Department pursues a criminal prosecution, it would be the first time armed private contractors from the United States face justice.
But that is a very big "if."
"The Justice Department has had this matter for fourteen months and has done almost everything imaginable to walk away from it--including delivering a briefing to Congress in which they suggested that they lacked legal authority to press charges," says Scott Horton, distinguished visiting professor of law at Hofstra University and author of a recent study of legal accountability for private security contractors. "They did this notwithstanding evidence collected by the first teams on the scene that suggested an ample basis to prosecute. The ultimate proof here will be in the details, namely, what charges are brought exactly and what evidence has Justice assembled to make its case. Still, it's hard to miss Justice's lack of enthusiasm about this case, and that's troubling."
Even if some Blackwater operatives face charges, critics allege it is the company that must be held responsible. "I am encouraged that the Justice Department is finally making progress in the investigation, but I am disappointed that it took over a year and a lot of pressure for the department to take any action," says Illinois Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky, who introduced legislation that seeks to ban using Blackwater and other armed security companies in US war zones. (She was also the national campaign co-chair of Barack Obama's presidential campaign and is a top candidate to replace him in the US Senate.)
"While it is important to hold these individual contractors accountable for their actions, we must also hold Blackwater accountable for creating a culture that allows this type of reckless behavior," adds Schakowsky. "The indictments do nothing to solve the underlying problem of private security contractors performing critical government functions. The indictments will likely get rid of a few bad apples, but there will be no real consequences for Blackwater. This company is going to continue to do business as usual--the solution is to get them out of this business."
News of potential indictments over the Nisour Square shootings comes as the State Department is reportedly preparing to hit Blackwater with a multimillion-dollar fine for allegedly shipping as many as 900 automatic weapons to Iraq without the required permits. Some of the guns may have made their way to the black market.
Blackwater has served as the official bodyguard service for senior US occupation officials since August 2003, when the company was awarded a $27 million no-bid contract to guard L. Paul Bremer, the original head of the Coalition Provisional Authority. To date, the company has raked in more than $1 billion in "security" contracts under its arrangement with the State Department.
Despite widespread accusations of killings of civilians and other crimes, not a single armed contractor from Blackwater--or from any other armed war corporation--has faced charges under any legal system. Instead, they have operated in a climate where immunity and impunity have gone hand in hand. At present, private contractors--most of them unarmed--outnumber US troops in Iraq by roughly 50,000 personnel.
There is no doubt that the Bush administration will continue enthusiastically to use armed private forces until the second Bush leaves office. This means that the future of Blackwater and the hundreds of for-profit war corporations servicing the Iraq occupation will lay with President-elect Barack Obama. This includes Blackwater and at least 300 other companies, which have been hired by the US government for privatized armed services in Iraq to the tune of about $6 billion in taxpayer money.
"One of the biggest problems that Barack Obama is going to have is turning the government back into a civil service and getting rid of all the private contractors," says Washington Democratic Representative Jim McDermott. "The private contracting thing is the most erosive thing that this administration has done.... You look at all the things that are being run by private contractors, you simply cannot be handing money to a private contractor who is not under the law of that country or the law of this country and can do anything they want. They're really--they're rogue outfits."
Obama has been a passionate critic of the war industry and is the sponsor of the leading Democratic legislation in the Senate to bring more effective regulation and oversight to it. But he has stopped short of supporting Schakowsky and Senator Bernie Sanders's legislation seeking a ban on using Blackwater and other armed contracting companies in Iraq. One of his top foreign policy advisers told The Nation earlier this year that Obama "can't rule out [and] won't rule out" using these companies in Iraq.
In a brief interview with Democracy Now! in February, Obama explained his position when asked about the report in The Nation.
"Here's the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can't draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops," Obama said. "So what I want to do is draw--I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops."
As Obama's inauguration day draws near, he is facing increased calls from Democrats who have spent years investigating Blackwater to ban the company. Most prominent among these is Henry Waxman, chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. He called on Obama to cancel Blackwater's security contracts. "I don't see any reason to have a contract with Blackwater," says Waxman. "They haven't lived up to their contract, and we shouldn't be having these private military contracts. We should use our own military."
As of now, Blackwater's Iraq contract expires in April (it was extended for a year by the State Department despite numerous investigations). "I think there should be very strong handcuffs put on this whole outsourcing question, but particularly with these private security contractors like DynCorp and Blackwater," says Vermont Democrat Peter Welch, who serves on the Oversight Committee with Waxman and supports the calls for Obama to cancel Blackwater's security contracts. "It's just an incredible waste of taxpayer money. It dishonors the Code of Military Conduct. Our soldiers are over there. They abide by rules. Blackwater doesn't."
But not all Democrats agree. Senator John Kerry, who is reportedly among the people being considered for Secretary of State in the Obama administration, shares the president-elect's view. "I don't think they should be banned," says Kerry. "I think they need to operate under rules that apply to the military and everybody else."
As of January 20, 2009, if Obama decides to keep Blackwater and other armed war corporations on the US payroll, these private forces would go from being Bush's mercenaries in Iraq to Obama's. As commander in chief, he would be responsible for their crimes. As for the accountability issue, many critics allege that the most serious problems in holding contractors responsible for their crimes stem from the Bush administration's covering-up of their misconduct and immunizing them from prosecution, and the total lack of political will to bring them to justice. When Obama appoints a new attorney general, there will be more than five years' worth of crimes to investigate--and prosecute.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
47 Comments so far
Show AllA mercenary army is the very definition of "Illegal Combatants". They kill for a paycheque.
How the same country that lables people defending their homes as "Illegal Combatants" thus giving said country the right to torture the same and impriosn them without trial, or kill them at will , can at the same time justify the use of paid killers that work on the behalf of a corporation for PROFIT is beyond me.
It does show how totally corrupt said nation has become.
You are so right.
The true depth of the corruption however has not been revealed, and when it is revealed (if ever), it will shock the readers for generations to come.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Sioux Rose
GWNORTH: The answer is found in that these figureheads think their decisions are "faith based," and thus require no logic. Remember the quote by Rumsfeld (I think) suggesting they will be creating their own reality? That history will study it... but you're totally astute in your observation that the "Rules" have a Twilight Zone-Outer Limits flare to them.
If Blackwater were ever held responsible for any of their crimes it would be an absolute turn around for the USA.
Having been the founder and principle therapist now for three years of a privately funded organization providing counseling and therapy for Native American Veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars I am well aware of the nature of the beast we are dealing with.
The Bush administration is/are just a small group of players in a world wide program designed to dominate as many areas as possible for a doctrine that proved itself criminal at every level.
Prosecuting the Bush admin, and then the founders of Blackwater will do little to prevent the same from happening again in the future.
It WILL however make it harder for those organizations like Blackwater, and the " Muppeteeers" who ran the Bush "muppets"----harder to find "muppets" in the future if these "muppets" face prison and even executions* for the War Crimes they have directly been responsible for. Since we all are basically "talking monkeys"**---making it hard for the "monekys" who have the urge to commit these crimes in the future---to get away with those crimes----might be more effective that anything else available. When the "monkeys" see the other "monkeys" get into trouble, they usually stay away from the trouble.
* I have never believed that Capital Punishment is actually punishment, it does however seem to scare the hell out of many others, so it would be effective as an "adjustment tool" for the behavior of others.
** Some "monkeys" just have a larger "vocabulary" than other "monkeys".....
I think Obama was rushing somewhere's and the question got a fast answer. At the very least, it's got Obama thinking about it. Blackwater keeps getting bigger, e.g. their big training camp near San Diego is the newest. So much of the services done by the US military are now privatized. Blackwater, the company, and the employees need to be charged and tried.
In this case, all that is required of Obama is that he tell the Justice Department
"You may obey the law".
"You may do your jobs".
Joe
I suggest this argues for outlawing corporate 'private' or 'mercenary' armies inside the US, and the use of those armies by the US.
I suggest too, and this ought to be a popular as herpes, a return to somr form of draft - one with limited deferrments where just about everybody has an equal right/responsibility to serve. I like Michael Moore's suggestion that we start with the kids of families at the top of the income scale, but don't think that will fly. Professional armies owe allegience only the guy next to them. Corporate professional armies, like Blackwaters, only owe their allegience to the stockholders.
I know all the arguments against it, but I would argue that it is one of those 'lesser evils' of which life if full. Call it the price we have to pay for a democratic state (even a failing democratic state) if you like.
Right now that price is being paid by a relatifvely small group of full-time volunteers and part-time militiamen who more often than not signed up to get an education or a trade and didn't count on repeatedly serving in a war zone. True, it was a risk they had to take, but many didn't have any real alternative.
We need a return to an accountable 'peoples army'. Call it part of the dues we owe for freedom (that ought to keep the right-wingers happy), call it a necessity of a 'democratic' republic, call it whatever you like. The fact is without a draft, or short of a real economic meltdown where millions of young men and women need to find a 'trade' we are left with the Blackwaters of the world who do what they do in our name without any accountability.
It might even have a salutary effect - with more homelander's kids potentially in line to be drafted into the service and risking their lives, they might become a little less willing to support the next military 'intervention' than they seem to be as long as other family's kids are bearing the burden.
"I suggest this argues for outlawing corporate 'private' or 'mercenary' armies inside the US, and the use of those armies by the US."
Absolutely correct. There is no need of these people ever. Our regular troops don't like them and with good reason. I hope they hold these folks as accountable as our troops.
Lets hope Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky's legislation is successful.
You are right, your suggestion of a draft is not popular. I don't believe we should have a draft ever again unless we are at war. Real war, like WW2. Our military needs can be met with volunteers if we don't use our forces like this again.
"It might even have a salutary effect - with more homelander's kids potentially in line to be drafted into the service and risking their lives, they might become a little less willing to support the next military 'intervention' than they seem to be as long as other family's kids are bearing the burden."
What would happen is the same thing that happened before. Those kids won't serve anyway...they will get deferments like our current leaders did.
Our military needs can be simply met, close a good number of our overseas bases, raise the number of troops in service, less officers, cut military spending and no contractors like Haliburton or Blackwater, but with real oversight on all military contracts for goods.
Most of this makes sense except for "raise the number of troops in service". Why would that be needed or a good thing?
Joe
We would need to raise the number of troops to replace the contractors we get rid of. Mostly service troops.
Thomas More I agree that a draft should not be necessary except in time of war. I agree that volunteers in general can meet actual defense needs if not the needs of building and extending the empire. I agree about closing overseas military bases and cutting spending to contractors. I agree with all these things. What I suggest only pertains to the constitution of the military we have and we are likely to have – not about the necessity or morality of such a military. The military is likely to be around for a long time. I would rather see it populated by accountable citizens than unaccountable mercenaries.
According to the people ‘we’ elected for office, we are at war – a real war. I don’t agree, but I don’t make the rules. It is unlikely we are going to close military bases abroad and are likely to build more if Mister Obama's rhetoric is to be believed. To supply this ‘war’ and those bases we will continue using contractors – including, I am sorry to say Blackwater and Haliburton. It is an ugly fact of our life. I wish it was different, but until we totally reconstitute the government to include actual democratic participation by the majority of citizens, no easy task, I don't see it changing any time soon - for all kinds of reasons I won't go into here.
There is an ethical dimension to this I haven’t mentioned. Serving in the military is doing 'dirty work'. People often get their hands dirty and bloody. Is it right to ask someone else to do the dirty work of a democracy – even assuming we had a functioning democracy - work that most would rather not do? Or in a democracy is it necessary that everybody do what needs to be done – however unpleasant? Right now a small group of people are doing our dirty work. I’m sure most of them would rather be somewhere else doing something else but they signed their name on the dotted line and are mostly honoring that signature. If nothing else give them credit for that - however they got there.
If you closely read what I suggested about a draft it posited the elimination of deferrments so everybody’s kid would be eligible. Again, I understand everybody’s feelings about a draft, and I agree, a better world would not need the military. But my question is that in the real world, the world we’re likely world to live in for the foreseeable future which would you rather have – a draft or Blackwater?
In general and in solidarity with all those who disagreed with the post about the draft, I say in principle I agree with everything you’ve said. In a better world all this would not be necessary. The problem, as usual, is getting from this world to that world and I think it’s a long way off and a hard road. We didn't get where we are by a large leap, but by little steps and that's the only way we make progress.
"It is unlikely we are going to close military bases abroad"
I think it is likely because of economic necessity. I don't see any other way than to restructure our military and bring it up to a more effective but much less effective force.
"I’m sure most of them would rather be somewhere else doing something else but they signed their name on the dotted line and are mostly honoring that signature. If nothing else give them credit for that - however they got there."
If you mean Iraq, you are so right. If you mean serving in the military, you are not. Most would sughn up again, but not for Iraq or Afganistan. These are not what our military should be used for and most know it. I don't view the military as you and some others do. To many people its not dirty work, they truly want to serve their country. We run into trouble when cowards run our government.
"But my question is that in the real world, the world we’re likely world to live in for the foreseeable future which would you rather have – a draft or Blackwater?"
I won't take either and if we get the investigations we need and should have, we won't have either. The military doesn't want Blackwater in the field. It was the neocons and business. The real world has just arrived in my opinion, though I'm still working on that opinion.
I just feel that putting people in the position of going to a war you don't support or think is right, which is the choice most people make in a draft or leaving the country to avoid serving is a choice our citizens shouldn't have to make. Its not a pleasant choice. And its something you have to live with the rest of your life.
I don't believe we will have any difficulty with military recruitment if we are not involved in engagements that we shouldn't be.
Thanks very much for your thoughts on this.
"I think it is likely because of economic necessity."
Perhaps you are right and bankruptcy will cause us to close all our foreign bases. However, it is just possible that the opposite is true – that to be able to maintain the influence of a failing ‘empire’ (or whatever you wish to call it) we will hold tightly to those assets that exert the most pressure on others to do our bidding – grasping for the last straw before going under. It may be irrational to do so, but I would argue that much of what people do seems to be pursuant to something other than reason. Either way, your guess is as good as mine.
"If you mean Iraq, you are so right."
I do mean Iraq – as well as other places where we're needlessly killing and dying. And if the military were maintained merely for ‘self-defense’ of the homeland I would agree with you wholeheartedly that more than enough people would volunteer to fill the ranks. I think too that most enlistees enlist to honorably serve in the defense of what they value, and that cynical governments use those tender feelings for other than the defense of the homeland. Our military is not primarily designed to defend the homeland, it is designed to defend what the owner/operators of our society value - state capitalism. If we had a real homeland defense, how could 20 guys with boxcutters mount a devestating attack on the Twin Towers?
"I just feel that putting people in the position of going to a war you don't support..."
There is something to what you say. In a truly free state soldiers would only serve in ways with which they agree and only against ‘nations’ who they agree are enemies. But even this has its problems - propaganda for example - that creates 'enemies' out of those whose stuff we want.
Unfortunately, the primary attribute of military life is not reasonable choice, but obedience. Germany prior to WWII was one of the most enlighted, ethical, and most technologically advanced societies in the world (before the Nazis, that is). During WWII the Wermacht, the German Army, was the best trained army in the world yet obediently committed the greatest atrocities yet recorded. How do you suppose that happened? There's a lot to say for disobedience and the questioning of authority but it always has costs. It's up to the individual to determine if the costs are worth it.
"I just feel that putting people in the position of going to a war you don't support..."
I meant just the draft. You can't have soldiers deciding if they want to fight or not after the fact. Once you are in, you obey all but illegal orders. The only tyime to decide not to serve is beforehand.
"During WWII the Wermacht, the German Army, was the best trained army in the world yet obediently committed the greatest atrocities yet recorded. How do you suppose that happened?"
For one thing many folks don't realize the Germasn army had many foreign born elements from conquered countries. Take the massacres in the Ukraine, mostly carried out by Ukranians. Many of those atrocities were committed by people that hated the ethnicity or race of the victims. A Balkanized problem. Sort of like the one that destroyed the Ottoman empire. And some of these same peoples were involved in these too. And actually most of the other atrocities weren't committed by German soldiers per se, but by special units like the Waffen SS.
Its entirely possible that American unilateralism is about to be replaced and we will close a lot of those bases anyway.
"You can't have soldiers deciding if they want to fight or not after the fact."
Many soldiers, maybe 100,000 during the Vietnam War, refused to fight after they had become part of the military. They may have violated their military oath to follow whatever orders a superior officer gave, and were sometimes punished for this, but they honored their obligations as human beings not to kill people for reasons other than self-defense.
"And actually most of the other atrocities weren't committed by German soldiers per se, but by special units like the Waffen SS."
The SA was the first part of the military that ran the concentration camps, followed later by the SS when the Nazi process of genocide really hit high gear. Either way, they were both part of the german military establishment, that best trained, most obedient army in the world at the time – which was my point.
..."but many didn't have any real alternative.
We need a return to an accountable 'peoples army'. Call it part of the dues we owe for freedom.."
Seems like a contradiction here. If there is no alternative to signing up to kill people - then where's the Freedom?
I wish when people (especially politicians) use the word "Freedom" they would be asked to define it, because it seems to me to be a well worn platitiude.
It's the same with the word "Democracy". If there was truely a Democracy in the USA, all the candidates would be included in the debates. Most Americans beleive we have "freedom" and "democracy" in this country because that's what they have been told. And we are expected to sacrifice our lives for these things that don't exist.
Blackwater is just the logical extention of secret cabals like the CIA. First the "intelligence gathering" is legalized, then the interference in soverign nations economy and society; then looting and murder. Now the same group have figured out how to make an even bigger profit with the complicity of a criminal government. Are the taxpayers going to keep feeding this monster in the name of "Freedom" until we have the Crusades again?
Revenge Girl I agree that a draft does seem to unjustly ‘compel’ young men to serve in the military but I don’t see a contradiction. Democracy is a participation sport. If you leave everything, governing, deciding policy, controlling resources, and yes – defending it to somebody else then you no longer have democracy and deserve what you get. In ancient Athens, the only true democracy ever tried, every male was expected to serve in the military as a right and privilege of citizenship.
As far as your other points about real democracies and the inclusion all candidates in debates, I agree in principle. But democracy is not about debates, which in the reality of the homeland are nothing more than party commercials. It is about sustaining the democratic institutions that insure participation by the people - not only the candidates. We as a nation have never had very many real democratic institutions and have systematically done away with most of those we have had. Real democratic institutions would mitigate the effects of those you castigate in your last paragraph. Your post assumes that most homelanders won't want to feed the 'monster' in the name of freedom. I'm not as certain of that. I have always been in the minority and often beaten down by the 'tyranny of the majority'. I'm used to it.
I think that the assumptions the majority make about "freedom" and "democracy" are coded in our language to the point that people forget what these words really mean.
I have several friends who served in Vietnam and both Gulf Wars who have faced bankruptcy and homelessness because the VA has denied medical treatment for health problems that were directly caused by their service in the military. I think people often assume that their "responsibilities" to the government will be met with equal responsibility FROM the government, and this is a fallacy.
The government of the United States that exists today has been completely corrupted from the original ideas put forth in the Constitution. It's more like an abusive spouse or parent - claiming rights over people because of precident that they have claimed for themselves, although they have abdicated any responsibility long ago.
The examples I used about debates, is just one of many examples of this degenerate "democracy". Debates are party commercials because the two branches of the corporate party control the debates! I could have mentioned the long history of slavery in America, the broken treaties with Native Americans, the IRS, drug war, prison industrial system, CIA torture and war crimes, illegal spying on Americans, trashing of the Bill of Rights and Habeas Corpus, corporate welfare (various bailouts) and just plain looting and pillaging by military contractors - or all the wars fought for corporate profit etc. etc.
Just the crimes against the Constitution that Bush. & Co have committed in the past eight years should be enough to clue people in that we don't have "freedom" anymore. So, I just take issue with the idea that "freedom" is what will result from the actions of the US military.
There are countries in Europe which haven't had a war on their soil in centuries because their military is reserved for actual defense instead of wars of agression for corporate profits; which are marketed to the sheeple as "defending freedom". Their citizens enjoy a higher quality of life (for example healthcare) than the consumerist/class society we have here which has to be paid for with working class lives - so the ruling class can enjoy their leisure. Most Americans are brainwashed by the spectacle which defines "freedom" and "democracy" in Orwellian doublespeak.
The corporate media and educational system will continue to serve their masters and dumb down the population, (while tantalizing us with celebrity news and tabloid media which is designed to make us believe we all have a chance to get some of that "Freedom" for ourselves). So when we think about FREEDOM - lets really think about what that means. To me it means freedom from this horrible government. All that is really needed for people to begin living the Freedom that they are born with is to see that the Emperor's new clothes are truely lacking.
"I think that the assumptions the majority make about "freedom" and "democracy..."
The terms 'freedom' and 'democracy' are terms loaded with emotion but little understanding. They're part of the propaganda process governments use to manipulate their citizens. Often totalitarian states call themselves "The Peoples Democratic Nation of...whatever" when in no recognizable way are they democratic. Democracy has a very specific meaning and can easily be determined if a country is a democracy or not simply by examining its institutions.
We've probably been propagandized in the US more than other 'western democracies'. Why? Because our system allows (or allowed), at least in principle, the most freedom - freedom being defined by me here as a state of being with no external coercion. True freedom in this world is an illusion. We are all coerced by externals: government, society, family, friends, past decisions, beliefs, predilections, political affiliations, etc..
Edward Bernays, the founder of the Public Relations business suggested that such freedom is anathema to a democracy and propaganda was a necessary part of all democracies. And that for national planners to accomplish their plans they had to regiment people's bodies the way armies regiment their bodies to create consent. I don't agree with Bernays assessment, but a lot of people do.
The bankruptcy and homeless you mention, and especially PTSD are often the price soldiers pay when going to war - 'good war' or not. Whether mercs or citizen soldiers, they often pay this price. Policies made by government, any government, generally sacrifice some for the benefit of many (or as often, many for the benefit of the few). An ethical government takes care of those it sacrifices. As you suggest and I agree, ours often doesn’t. But ‘we the people’ let them get away with it.
"The government of the United States that exists today has been completely
corrupted..."
I would agree that it is corrupt, but I would disagree that this represents some great debasement from the time of our founding. The government today is almost exactly the way it was designed to be by the founders – a tiny privileged class controlling a majority of the citizenry - or as James Madison opined, one of the major functions of government is to protect the minority of the opulent from the majority. Then it used to be privileged persons who controlled things, now it's largely 'virtual persons, that is, privileged special interests that control things. Remember the nation created by the Constitution did not recognize the citizenship of blacks, women, Indians, and white-non-property owners – a majority of the population. I would contend that this was not done by accident.
"The examples I used about debates, is just one of many examples of this degenerate "democracy"..."
I agree with all you have mentioned. But my question to you is would you rather have a citizen's army or a mercenary one?
I used to think that I wanted a "citizen's government". I've seen so much corruption I'm not so sure that is possible with the kind of mass (and class) society, industrial mass production, and corporate hegemony we have in the USA.
The justification for the CIA in the beginning was that if we didn't have a government agency for "intelligence gathering" then president's would have their own secret one. Now we have both and even worse. So anything that is run by the government "for the benefit of citizens" can be twisted pretty well by money and power.
I agree that the Constitution's framers were not interested in democracy for everyone - but I'm sure they are rolling in their graves about the totalitarian nightmare that their original philosophy spawned. Freedom of speech has become freedom to advertize if you have the money. The Boston Tea Party has become "domestic terrorism". Jury nullification has become mandatory minimum sentencing, etc. I think that some Americans had more "freedom" 200 years ago, because the frontier made it possible to survive independently (without wage labor, income tax, rent, etc.) My point is that the idea that "Americans are free" is one of the delusions incoded in the language and culture.
I think the idea of responsibility should go both ways and the government we have now is irresponsible. Defence of the soverign nation has become defense of the US based multinational corporations ability to steal resources and exploit labor. So we really have a mercenary army now - it's just that the Blackwater guys are paid better.
Sioux Rose
TIREBITER: I find most of your postings highly intelligent and well considered, but this one PRESUMES the military is a given, and an important staple at that. Furthermore to institute a draft and provide a president who "takes pleasure in war" with a ready fodder of soldiers is to support the WAR state. I think it's high time the real threat mankind faces (insofar as climate destabilization is concerned) be tackled by nations putting down their arms to join hands peacefully, so as to undertake constructive things in the way of green technology and teaching CREATIVE rather than DESTRUCTIVE skills to youngsters. We have to start somewhere... to decommission the militarized state of the world, with the US its chief trafficker in weapons (not unlike the dark room deals of X-cons who sell guns under the radar).
Ah, damning with faint praise. Sioux Rose you are correct, my comment assumes a military is a given. Whether it is really an ‘important staple’ or not in the real world, we, as in the nations of the world, have made it so and for the foreseeable future must live with it. I assume the majority of homelanders would like a peaceful, non-violent world but would also support a military and would not desire to see it go away. So the only question for me, triggered by the kind of military a mercenary army would be is how the military is to be constituted. I argue that the lesser of two evils is that it be a citizen’s army. This is not to say that I do not, like you, wish governments had no need for militaries, only that in the world as presently constituted, it seems to be a reality we must live with while we work to create that 'better' world.
Sioux Rose
TIRE BITER: Good explanation, and I'm glad "we're on the same peace team."
Tirebiter
Excellent explanation. I would add that if I did have to choose as you said above, I would choose the draft rather than use mercenaries. Mercenaries are usually the worst elements trained by the military that don't like the structure. (trash)
Hopefully, Obama will take his opportunity to push Blackwater into the same space occupied by the Mamertines, the Free Companies of the 30 Years War, and the armies of the British East India Company: as an example from history that mercenaries are always much more trouble than they are worth. Sun-Tzu and Machiavelli both derided the use of them, and Blackwater has spectacularly reinforced this thesis from history. If there is to be a Nuremberg style proceeding to adjudicate the debris of Dubya, Cheney, & Co.'s White House reign, Erik Prince deserves to be one of the defendants on the dock.
www.wunderman-comics.com
LeeAnnG
I love the way they call this "privatizing," as if our tax dollars are not paying for them. Perhaps I misunderstand how it works, but it seems to me that when the government runs something like the military, the taxes of the citizens are used to support that entity directly. Members of the military (using this example) are paid with tax dollars with no middle organization.
When it's privatized under a government contract, the citizens' tax dollars are used to pay that private company, which in turn uses those tax dollars to give its executives huge salaries along with any employees. I've read - although I have not witnessed this personally - that Blackwater employees who do similar jobs to our own troops get multiples of the wages. Millions, if not billions, of our money supports a vast, unregulated, bloated private company, and one that is not doing a particularly good job at that.
It would be the same with educational vouchers. Tax money can go to public schools which make no profit, or it can go to private schools that are not subject to the same scrutiny as public schools. And the private schools make a profit. How can that possibly not cost the public more? On one hand - no profit, on the other hand, profit. Where does that profit come from if not from the extra taxes we pay?
Maybe I am wrong, and the profit comes from the other sources of income the private companies have. But in any case, it's still not PRIVATE if a company works for the government and is paid with taxes. It's like the corporations have the best of both worlds; they get income from their "regular" sources and have tons of government money on top of that. They get to call themselves "free market" businesses while feeding off the public.
Blackwater is an "OFF BOOK OPERATION".....Cofer Black and Rob Richer walked from the CIA into leadership roles in Blackwater......
We have had, for years, a "Shadow Government" that tells Congress what policies should be followed and who should be where......Just recently, Henry Kissinger said, "I think Hillary Clinton would make a wonderful Secretary of State." Henry Kissinger is probably the most influential person outside the U.S. Government....from the bombings in Cambodia to the overthrow of Allende to the decision to go to Iraq and Afghanistan....Henry and "Think Tanks" like: Rand Corporation, Hoover Institute, Brookings Institute et.al. have been making decisions that have resulted in the deaths of over: 3 million Vietnamese, 1.2 million Iraqis,62,000 American Soldiers and hundreds of thousands more dead from cancers contracted from contact with "Agents Orange and Pink". I will not go into the millions maimed for life !!!!
Tha "Shadow Government" destabilizes governments that have hurt American Corporate interests. Like the Taliban giving the Oil Pipeline Contract to Bridas Oil of Argentina was justification to invade Afghanistan.....The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11 and had offerred to turn Osama Bin Laden over to the United States if there was evidence. The FBI had no evidence and and it seems that the Hamburg, Germany Terrorist Cell was more responsible than Osama Bin Laden.(Testimony left out of the 9/11 Commission by Dieter Snell and Philip Zelikow)
So why would the "Shadow Government" allow the contracts to be terminated? Blackwater seems to be involved in murder, illegal export of arms, blackmarket trading of arms and, in essence, probably responsible for the deaths of many American Soldiers.
Workers for Kellogg, Brown, and Root, had been alleged to be raping American Female soldiers and killing them. It was easier for the Department of Defense to say those women committed suicide than to arrest and punish the workers. Remember, Rand Corporation did a study for the Department of Defense and claimed that there weren´t that many suicides of American Soldiers coming back from Iraq and that the suicides were caused by romantic breakups.
I am sure that you can find many ex-cia in DYN Corp.....Its the patriotic thing to do!
The company gets $1,200 a day for each mercenary and the mercenary gets $360 a day.....Its all about money and power.
Sioux Rose
HERBERT: The only thing missing from your factual analysis re: Blackwater is that it's owned by a supposedly born-again Christian. Now anyone who calls himself a Christian who profits from the murder of citizens of a nation invaded on false pretenses is also a blasphemer, and an incredibly dangerous, psychopathic individual who really believes this world is, as Vonnegut cynically put it, "about teams playing out God's will." Eric Prince is everything Jesus would NOT do.
Sioux Rose,
As always your comments are incisive, insightful, and truthful.
Sioux Rose
LEE ANN: Your analysis is valid and true, the only thing you left off is that the private contractors who gain work farmed out to them (that should be under government scrutiny) use their egregious profits to then BUY senators and congressional representatives, and with their support, the gravy train keeps on rolling along. Whenever something gets privatized, as you stated, not only does it become about "The bottom line," quality goes down. Bush put disaster-capitalist style cronies into many U.S. regulatory departments and they ended up kissing up to the industries and completely compromising standards consistent with the greater good/public well-being.
I'll pre-empt Jake Newton, "Sources please?"
LeeAnnG
Great points! I agree with other posters, your insights are always welcome.
LeeAnnG
Seems a good description.
Example's in the private sector would be the attempted privitization of welfare in Texas and elsewhere.
The complete privitization of electrical service in Texas rather than a regulated entity.
Both of these took perfectly working models and raised the cost. You can't have a government function performed by a private company without raisin the cost because you need a profit added to the real cost. Both also failed to deliver the same quality....worse in both cases.
Great - just what we need: tens of thousands of pissed off unemployed battle-hardened paid killers back home with nothing to do and lots of untreated PTSD...
For safety's sake, maybe we can convince the Iraqi government to keep 'em on the payroll and in-country after our soldiers are redeployed to Afghanistan - I mean, withdrawn from Iraq...
Good point. Gotta think of something to keep them off the streets. Maybe a civilian jobs program in green energy for them - and the 50,000 bank employees laid off today.
Joe
Errr maybe if you bust a few the mercenary cowboys, the Iraqis will think America recognises injustice and the Iraqi Parliament will want America to stay........Bin Laden is still roaming about......George Bush is still roaming about...the game continues.....
For some interesting commentary from Tariq Ali about the the mercenary situation There are more of them than US - US military, that is)
http://www.alternativeradio.org/
But I could be wrong !
I apologize - At the time I posted I was unaware there would be a charge to download and listen !!!!!
But I could be wrong !
There are two sides to this: moral issues vs. absolute necessity.
Obama: I am troubled by the use of private contractors when it comes to potential armed engagements... I think it creates some difficult morale issues when you've got private contractors getting paid 10 times what an Army private's getting paid for work that carries similar risks…
Q: Blackwater would argue that they're a bargain: that you get a higher level of ability, that… they can keep top-level talent there perpetually.
Obama: I am not arguing that there are never going to be uses for private contractors in some circumstances.
The Democracy Now link was bad.
Here's what Obama had to say when Amy Goodman took her cheap shots:
AMY GOODMAN: Senator Obama, quick question: 70 percent of Iraqis say they want the US to withdraw completely; why don’t you call for a total withdrawal?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I do, except for our embassy. I call for amnesty and protecting our civilian contractors there.
AMY GOODMAN: You’ve said a residual force—
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, but—
AMY GOODMAN: —which means [inaudible] thousands [inaudible].
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, no. I mean, I don’t think that you’ve read exactly what I’ve said. What I said is that we do need to have a strike force in the region. It doesn’t necessarily have to be in Iraq; it could be in Kuwait or other places. But we do have to have some presence in order to not only protect them, but also potentially to protect their territorial integrity.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you call for a ban on the private military contractors like Blackwater?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: I’ve actually—I’m the one who sponsored the bill that called for the investigation of Blackwater in [inaudible], so—
AMY GOODMAN: But would you support the Sanders one now?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Here’s the problem: we have 140,000 private contractors right there, so unless we want to replace all of or a big chunk of those with US troops, we can’t draw down the contractors faster than we can draw down our troops. So what I want to do is draw—I want them out in the same way that we make sure that we draw out our own combat troops. Alright? I mean, I—
AMY GOODMAN: Not a ban?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Well, I don’t want to replace those contractors with more US troops, because we don’t have them, alright? But this was a speech about the economy.
AMY GOODMAN: The war is costing $3 trillion, according to Stiglitz.
SEN. BARACK OBAMA: That’s what—I know, which I made a speech about last week. Thank you.
Rule of thumb:
Undo EVERYTHING Bush has done.
Tis a gift to be simple!
Joe
We should replace these mercenaries with U S troops. This could be made possible with a no-strings compulsory draft. This would not only would this lessen the shame and damage resulting from our unprecedented and ill conceived engagement of mercenaries who are hardly accountable for their actions; but it would end the war sooner since the relatives of those who support our continued involvement would be subjected to military service. Had such a draft been in effect six years ago, we probably would not be nvolved in this disasterous war.
George C. Brown - Outlaw them! Their whole operation is one of the most illegitimate ever conceived or approved!
"The Justice Department has had this matter for fourteen months and has done almost everything imaginable to walk away from it...... it's hard to miss Justice's lack of enthusiasm about this case, and that's troubling."
The whole damned justice system is troubling! This "alleged" justice system is walking away from everything that involves criminal behavior from Iraq to Wall Street.
Let's hope that Obama recruits the right calibre of personnel in his administration to change this perverse interpretation of justice.
It's time that the US government began handing down indictments of those people at the top of the chain of command, and that includes those military officers and Defense Dept officials who created the environment that led to Abu Graib and Gitmo.
In the same way, the Justice Department (while also policing itself) needs to hold Eric Prince and the rest of the executives of Blackwater and all other mercenary entities that perpetrated crimes against the people of Iraq or any other victims with their profit driven violence.
No more should the people carrying out the orders be the only ones to pay the price. And we all know that the ultimate liability rests squarely in the lap of George Bush and Dick Cheney.
If Barack The Includer turns a blind eye to the crimes of Bush/Cheney, the American people should not. They must be shunned, ridiculed, exposed and stamped with the mark of the traitors that they are.
Even in the unlikely event that this ever sees the light of adjudication, it'll be the latter-day equivalent of the Lynndie England trial.
The killing will continue.
FREE AMERICA
REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY
Just a question in my head: who in this country do you suppose uses Blackwater for their own personal security???