V-Twin Forum banner

1 - 20 of 96 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Iraqi Government Officials have suspended operational licenses for Blackwater after an incident in which 10 civilians were indiscriminantly killed. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2973551.ece

I wonder how the US will respond to this issue. In the past Blackwater has been widely supported by the US. Do you think this private mercenary force will get to continue to make millions from the US government?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
I’m sure all Blackwater mercenaries are on flights home tonight.^rolleyez^
A feature of the (Bremer US) Iraqi constitution was immunity for all foreign contractors from the impact of Iraqi laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,992 Posts
Linky no worky but I did see something on this and I gathered they ( or a subsidiary) will continue to provide security for the State Dept. and others. I also heard a brief mention that Blackwater did things right as in they were under heavy fire and responded correctly. Not expounded on so we'll see if anything on that front breaks today.

96 - Do you have anything you can post on your statement? I had not heard that.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
547 Posts
cwo2lt said:
Linky no worky but I did see something on this and I gathered they ( or a subsidiary) will continue to provide security for the State Dept. and others. I also heard a brief mention that Blackwater did things right as in they were under heavy fire and responded correctly. Not expounded on so we'll see if anything on that front breaks today.

96 - Do you have anything you can post on your statement? I had not heard that.

CWO- 96 must be thinking of the old Defense Federal Aquisition Requirement Support (DFARS) -DFARS 252.225-7040(b)(3)(iii) (Apr 26.2007)" Civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces loose their law of war protection from direct attack if and for such time as they take a dircct part in hostilities"
Now the quesiton is were they providing static security i.e. base ops or were they "patrolling" the when you define military or non military functions in nature gets REALLY fuzzy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,992 Posts
Buddha4 said:
CWO- 96 must be thinking of the old Defense Federal Aquisition Requirement Support (DFARS) -DFARS 252.225-7040(b)(3)(iii) (Apr 26.2007)" Civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces loose their law of war protection from direct attack if and for such time as they take a dircct part in hostilities"
Now the quesiton is were they providing static security i.e. base ops or were they "patrolling" the when you define military or non military functions in nature gets REALLY fuzzy
Thanks Buddha but I'm not sure that is what 96 is referring to, I think he's saying Bremer put a clause in the law exempting contractors from Iraqi law.

As to the patrolling question, it was reported they were escorting a convoy of armored SUVs and came under attack. One of the SUVs was disabled and the Blackwater guys got out of the other vehicles and returned fire.
 

·
EASY DOES IT
Joined
·
8,914 Posts
cwo2lt said:
Thanks Buddha but I'm not sure that is what 96 is referring to, I think he's saying Bremer put a clause in the law exempting contractors from Iraqi law.

As to the patrolling question, it was reported they were escorting a convoy of armored SUVs and came under attack. One of the SUVs was disabled and the Blackwater guys got out of the other vehicles and returned fire.
The "News" reported that they were immune from prosecution by the Iraqis but not from military law.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
547 Posts
swmnkdinthervr said:
The "News" reported that they were immune from prosecution by the Iraqis but not from military law.
I think the Iraqi's don't want to give the impression that they are going to start charging US. Citizen's that are working there under Iraqi law(would think that would cause a mass exodus) With no SOFA would you really want to be subject to "their" laws.
 

·
killer sperm
Joined
·
2,852 Posts
What's a merc to do? The soldiers of the religion of peace sometimes hide behind women and children when they launch their attacks. The Iraqi politicans then point at the guys defending themselves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,657 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Iraqi Government Officials have suspended operational licenses for Blackwater after an incident in which 10 civilians were indiscriminantly killed.
Indiscriminantly or accidently, it's a war, there will be civilian casualties.
 

·
FOG
Joined
·
6,970 Posts
sthorp said:
Indiscriminantly or accidently, it's a war, there will be civilian casualties.
Exactly. How many civilians on all sides were killed in WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Iran/Iraq and all other wars, major and minor, in history.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Yes I did

DJW said:
Toy, did you read the story or just the headline?
Sure enough I did read the entire story as well as a number of the other stories covering the incident. I try to rely on substance as apposed to opinion when I chose a story to follow. In this instance the observations of a media from outside the US proves to be my choice.

It seems there are definitely two versions of the story: Backwater's and the Iraqi version. Given the history of similar issues with Blackwater (watch the National Geographic program) my instincts say the truth lies somewhere closer to the Iraqi version than Backwater's.

Facts are simple enough to put into perspective: Blackwater is a private contractor who operates with minimal supervision by the US. They are not a group of US military who got some special assignment; they are real life mercenaries. They don't fall under the military protocol within the military chain of command, they don't have to comply with the military rules of engagement and they sure don't meet any criteria laid out in the Geneva Convention. Unlike our military who serve at the will of our leaders the employees of Blackwater are there for the money alone. No-one can say to an employee your going to Iraq and if if you don't like that you can ask for a court marshal and end up in prision.

Trooper and sthorp seems to fail the civilian casualties in previous wars fall in the same category as those killed by mercenaries. I believe those previous casualties were the result of military actions and not caused by private contractors. Incidents with military personnel have a set of procedures to determine if the actions fall within the scope of the operation. Blackwater on the other hand seems to be operating with no level of responsibility for their actions: hired by the US they do not fall under the UCMJ.

Blackwater is getting paid a phenomenal amount for the services they provide. It not unreasonable for the actions of Blackwater to be scrutinized for appropriate actions. I keep thinking of the Contra fiasco where we held the General to the specifics of his actions as they related to US policy. To expect the same of Blackwater is within the same level of supervision.

Before this is over I expect there will be some video from out of the dark spaces of Iraq that will surface and provide a good insight into the incident.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
547 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Sure enough I did read the entire story as well as a number of the other stories covering the incident. I try to rely on substance as apposed to opinion when I chose a story to follow. In this instance the observations of a media from outside the US proves to be my choice.

It seems there are definitely two versions of the story: Backwater's and the Iraqi version. Given the history of similar issues with Blackwater (watch the National Geographic program) my instincts say the truth lies somewhere closer to the Iraqi version than Backwater's.

Facts are simple enough to put into perspective: Blackwater is a private contractor who operates with minimal supervision by the US. They are not a group of US military who got some special assignment; they are real life mercenaries. They don't fall under the military protocol within the military chain of command, they don't have to comply with the military rules of engagement and they sure don't meet any criteria laid out in the Geneva Convention. Unlike our military who serve at the will of our leaders the employees of Blackwater are there for the money alone. No-one can say to an employee your going to Iraq and if if you don't like that you can ask for a court marshal and end up in prision.

Trooper and sthorp seems to fail the civilian casualties in previous wars fall in the same category as those killed by mercenaries. I believe those previous casualties were the result of military actions and not caused by private contractors. Incidents with military personnel have a set of procedures to determine if the actions fall within the scope of the operation. Blackwater on the other hand seems to be operating with no level of responsibility for their actions: hired by the US they do not fall under the UCMJ.

Blackwater is getting paid a phenomenal amount for the services they provide. It not unreasonable for the actions of Blackwater to be scrutinized for appropriate actions. I keep thinking of the Contra fiasco where we held the General to the specifics of his actions as they related to US policy. To expect the same of Blackwater is within the same level of supervision.

Before this is over I expect there will be some video from out of the dark spaces of Iraq that will surface and provide a good insight into the incident.

Would you go so far as to say they are unlawfull combatants and subject to Law of War violations? Could an argument made that there is a very narrow distiction between how a contractor "might" opperate and an insurgent. i.e


Distinctive uniform-(you can pick the operator out of any photo)
There is a heirarchy in the company and on the ground

They engage in "defense" operations then go back to "civilian" status. No wonder they would be under scrutiny If they were not working for the US would you consider them innocents?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
toybox99615 said:
Before this is over I expect there will be some video from out of the dark spaces of Iraq that will surface and provide a good insight into the incident.
I wouldn't be surprised, is this how they operate?
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Aegis-PSD.mov
You may need to copy and past the link to your browser to view the video.



The U.S. occupation government of Iraq was named the "Coalition Provisional Authority," or CPA. It was headed by L. Paul Bremer, III. From May 16, 2003 to June 28, 2004, he enacted 100 Orders in Iraq. The Orders established new laws with full legal force over all Iraqis.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,820 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
great shots at both sides

96FXD said:
I wouldn't be surprised, is this how they operate?
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Aegis-PSD.mov
You may need to copy and past the link to your browser to view the video.

.
Interesting to see the aforementioned site and the current pages. There did not seem to be room for taking any prisoners by their site. It appears there is more foolishness going on than Americans can ever catch on to. Politicians have done a great job in their endevours to rule the country.

A question to research (as I did not find an answer) would be the status of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the 100 orders originally given. There has been all these elections and the establishment of numerous Iraqi constitutions since Bremer made his edicts. Are they all still in force or have the been overridden by the Iraqi parliament.

if you read the contents of http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Coalition_Provisional_Authority it would appear the CPA was preempted with the creation of Iraq sovereignty on June 30, 2004. The unanswered question would be the status of Bremer's orders ongoing legitimacy. Iraq sure seems to think they are going to prosecute someone in the latest Blackwater case. And with the US agreeing to the sovereign status of Iraq how can they usurp Iraq's position if Bremer's orders no longer stand?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,389 Posts
toybox99615 said:
A question to research (as I did not find an answer) would be the status of the Coalition Provisional Authority and the 100 orders originally given. There has been all these elections and the establishment of numerous Iraqi constitutions since Bremer made his edicts. Are they all still in force or have the been overridden by the Iraqi parliament.
:dunno:
All I know is everything I've seen or heard of Blackwater is their "above the law", Iraqi or US military.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
547 Posts
96FXD said:
I wouldn't be surprised, is this how they operate?
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Aegis-PSD.mov
You may need to copy and past the link to your browser to view the video.



The U.S. occupation government of Iraq was named the "Coalition Provisional Authority," or CPA. It was headed by L. Paul Bremer, III. From May 16, 2003 to June 28, 2004, he enacted 100 Orders in Iraq. The Orders established new laws with full legal force over all Iraqis.

Order No. 17 grants foreign contractors, including private security firms, full immunity from Iraq's laws. Even if they, say, kill someone or cause an environmental disaster, the injured party cannot turn to the Iraqi legal system. Rather, the charges must be brought to U.S. courts.

The problem is that if the "contractor's" could be charged by another country if the investigation's determine that some LOW violations occured. (And there is no statute of limitations). Regardless of how much more money you make at least as a Service Member your protections are better define in case you "step on it and it gets videotaped"
 

·
Live Free or Die
Joined
·
8,686 Posts
First off--

These PSCs/PMCs are not mercaneries. That's nothing more than rhetoric.

Secondly-
We have been usng contractors since the Revolutionary War.

Thridly-

Contractors will continued to be used. However, there are many a problem with their use right now and we had better figure out if we want a profit-driven organization to take on some of these responsibilities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,083 Posts
96FXD said:
:dunno:
All I know is everything I've seen or heard of Blackwater is their "above the law", Iraqi or US military.
You should consider seeing or hearing something else. That is not the case.
 
1 - 20 of 96 Posts
Top