Iraq Pushes For Quicker Removal Of Blackwater
- Status
senojekips
Active member
Not true! They are also "illegal" in their present form, in most civilised countries in the world.
Ignorance???? Not at all, my son has worked in Iraq.... and Oman,... and Mozambique and a few other places, as a mercenary, I do have a very good understanding of what is involved. He was also sneaking around the back blocks of Iraq with the legitimate special forces long before regular coalition troops were committed in this war, I am very proud of him, but it does not cause me to lose sight of the truth of the matter.
Like I have already posted, the quality of the men is not in dispute, it is the fact that we are employing mercenaries to do the legitimate work of our troops, and the fact that this is dragging our credibility through the mud in the eyes of the civilised world.
It is vital that must be seen to be doing the right thing, unlike our opponents.
As for the old "employ another vet" argument, I hardly see this as the answer to the unemployment crisis. As an argument, it's very emotive but not vaguely valid.
Last edited:
Tsunami
Active member
I was not arguing legality - heck, the death penalty is also outlawed in most "civilized" nations. I was arguing necessity - who else then is going to provide the service? Better yet - should we just switch roles, have combat units provide protection and civilian contractors fight the war? Sounds like a aound idea come to think of it... :2guns:
--
Back to reality - I never said Blackwater was the answer to all vets unemployed... If that was derived - I apologize. I would say its a nice job to land when your skills consist of all combat arms has to offer.
--
Blackwater fills a void, many a think tank agreed to utilize them - could it once again be their record?
================
All that said, here is where I take issue with Blackwater. They have enjoyed immunity and free reign in Iraq for quite some time now - they need to be reigned in. The idea of an independent airforce and maritime force is scary and there has been multiple complaints of them getting in the way...
Heck - my own brother was shot at by these cowboys!
Thus, lay down the parameters and make them accountable. If there is another alternative I am all for considering it...
--
Back to reality - I never said Blackwater was the answer to all vets unemployed... If that was derived - I apologize. I would say its a nice job to land when your skills consist of all combat arms has to offer.
--
Blackwater fills a void, many a think tank agreed to utilize them - could it once again be their record?
================
All that said, here is where I take issue with Blackwater. They have enjoyed immunity and free reign in Iraq for quite some time now - they need to be reigned in. The idea of an independent airforce and maritime force is scary and there has been multiple complaints of them getting in the way...
Heck - my own brother was shot at by these cowboys!
Thus, lay down the parameters and make them accountable. If there is another alternative I am all for considering it...
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Tsunami
I was a soldier long before I was a sailor ... my service started at age 17 in 1961, when I enlisted in the Army ... by the time I was 18, I was in Vietnam. The sailor 'thing' came long afterwards.
The "moral was shot and discipline was a joke" comment is false ... I was there and I can vouch that at the foot-soldier level, we didn't give a darn why we were there ... all we cared about was each other and getting back to the world. Our morale was as high as any I have seen during the rest of my career. What happened after I was back in the world, I can't speak for. The General wrote his book ... but ... who is to say which of us is right ... I can ONLY speak from my own experiences.
Blackwater is making the foot-sloggers jobs even more difficult than it should be. Blackwater forces have even pulled weapons on our own military members who are trying to do an almost impossible job under very difficult conditions.
So, you tell me ... are they a help ... or are they loose cannons that need to be removed from Iraq before they make matters even worse?
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Tsunami, we attack the same problem from different points of view, but i must say that we tend to agree on the basics. I have a son in this work, but I sometimes like to play the Devil's Advocate, and I try to never let the truth suffer for the sake of convenience.
It can be a hard row to hoe at times, but someone's got to do it. If we all agreed that, yes they are Good guys, or no they are vicious criminals, the world would go to hell in a hatbox, very quickly.
The truth as always probably lies somewhere in the middle ground.
It can be a hard row to hoe at times, but someone's got to do it. If we all agreed that, yes they are Good guys, or no they are vicious criminals, the world would go to hell in a hatbox, very quickly.
The truth as always probably lies somewhere in the middle ground.
Tsunami
Active member
I truly dislike the communist news network, but I thought this might shed some light on the question of what provoked Black water:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html
"Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince said Sunday the team was attacked and was defending itself at an intersection not far from the heavily guarded Green Zone.
"There was definitely incoming small arms fire from insurgents," Prince said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." There was no "deliberate violence," he added."
-----
I have read through your posts senojekips - I tend to agree with you as well.
-----
Chief Bones - I would like proof of your accusation that Blackwater employees "pulled weapons on our own military."
Link and source please.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/16/iraq.blackwater/index.html
"Blackwater founder and CEO Erik Prince said Sunday the team was attacked and was defending itself at an intersection not far from the heavily guarded Green Zone.
"There was definitely incoming small arms fire from insurgents," Prince said on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer." There was no "deliberate violence," he added."
-----
I have read through your posts senojekips - I tend to agree with you as well.
-----
Chief Bones - I would like proof of your accusation that Blackwater employees "pulled weapons on our own military."
Link and source please.
senojekips
Active member
The fact that Blackwater operatives found themselves in hot water really isn't the issue, what is being pointed out here is that they shouldn't have been there in the first place. If this happened using regular troops, we would have had some legal argument for what happened.
But here we find ourselves with a group of unregulated civilians operating completely outside of the accepted rules of warfare, and not covered by the Geneva convention. This leaves us in a legal and moral black hole.
It could, ... and I only say "Could" lead to the present administration, or that part of it who condoned this, to be considered as War Criminals by the International Court of Justice.
If Blackwater is a responsible operator, they will have explained this to their operatives. Not only about the Top echelons, but the operators themselves, I do know that my son is well aware of this fact.
But here we find ourselves with a group of unregulated civilians operating completely outside of the accepted rules of warfare, and not covered by the Geneva convention. This leaves us in a legal and moral black hole.
It could, ... and I only say "Could" lead to the present administration, or that part of it who condoned this, to be considered as War Criminals by the International Court of Justice.
If Blackwater is a responsible operator, they will have explained this to their operatives. Not only about the Top echelons, but the operators themselves, I do know that my son is well aware of this fact.
Last edited:
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
He is lying, he was not there at the time, and the investigation is still ongoing, with the Iraqi Government and early word out of the United States Government, along with the US Military that it looks like Blackwater shot and shot at unarmed people.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
You asked ... so ...
This is just a short excerpt:
From Newsweek:
The colonel was furious. “Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers.”
He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad’s Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV.
His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company.
Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, “This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press.”
Another private security company? How many of these cowboy mercenaries do we have running around Iraq?
For the rest of the story visit this site:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42487
Tsunami
I assure you I wouldn't post a story like this without having a source [Newsweek is JUST one] ... I thought you and the others discussing this topic would have already been familiar with the charges against Blackwater employees and the actions they were accused of, when they disarmed US Troops. It was widely talked about when charges began surfacing having to do with Blackwater troops "Jack Booted" tactics and was the topic of several forums where I am a member.
Tsunami said:
This is just a short excerpt:
From Newsweek:
The colonel was furious. “Can you believe it? They actually drew their weapons on U.S. soldiers.”
He was describing a 2006 car accident, in which an SUV full of Blackwater operatives had crashed into a U.S. Army Humvee on a street in Baghdad’s Green Zone. The colonel, who was involved in a follow-up investigation and spoke on the condition he not be named, said the Blackwater guards disarmed the U.S. Army soldiers and made them lie on the ground at gunpoint until they could disentangle the SUV.
His account was confirmed by the head of another private security company.
Asked to address this and other allegations in this story, Blackwater spokesperson Anne Tyrrell said, “This type of gossip has led to many soap operas in the press.”
Another private security company? How many of these cowboy mercenaries do we have running around Iraq?
For the rest of the story visit this site:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/42487
Tsunami
I assure you I wouldn't post a story like this without having a source [Newsweek is JUST one] ... I thought you and the others discussing this topic would have already been familiar with the charges against Blackwater employees and the actions they were accused of, when they disarmed US Troops. It was widely talked about when charges began surfacing having to do with Blackwater troops "Jack Booted" tactics and was the topic of several forums where I am a member.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
Way I see it, Blackwater cannot be trusted, and, at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America, while being Under Arms in a Declared Combat Zone.
So, if I had my way I would declare all Blackwater Employees currently in the Combat Zone an Enemy Combatant, plus collecting as many Employees who have already left the Combat Zone, send them to US Base OCONUS and let them sit there for a few years before they ever see the inside of a Court Room.
Afterwards, anyone found to be actively engaged in Anti-American Activities, or acting outside any and all Treaty Obligations would be Stripped of their US Citizenship.
Conspirators working for the Company inside the United States of America proper would merely be Imprisoned and or Fined.
Tsunami
Active member
Nice move - declaring US taxpayers enemy combatant's! Better yet - US taxpayers who contracted by the US Government.
:bang:
The best part of all -
"at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America"
-
Who the heck do you think these guys are tasked to protect? I will give you a hint, it aint the local towel waiving mullah.
irate2:
:bang:
The best part of all -
"at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America"
-
Who the heck do you think these guys are tasked to protect? I will give you a hint, it aint the local towel waiving mullah.
irate2:Nice move - declaring US taxpayers enemy combatant's! Better yet - US taxpayers who contracted by the US Government.
:bang:
The best part of all -
"at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America"
-
Who the heck do you think these guys are tasked to protect? I will give you a hint, it aint the local towel waiving mullah.
And that ain't all. His full agenda goes like this:-
He is completely against the war.
But he objects to Britain scaling down.
But he thinks USA should pull out at once.
But he wants to absolutely destroy Iraq with big bombs.
But he wants to send other peoples' young sons to fight in Iraq, on a compulsory basis, to the war he doesn't want and wants America out of.
And he wants the hired help incarcerated .
How great is that?
Bulldogg -
Last edited:
The Other Guy
Spam King
They don't care about American soldiers.
senojekips
Active member
Nice move - declaring US taxpayers enemy combatant's! Better yet - US taxpayers who contracted by the US Government.
:bang:
The best part of all -
"at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America"
-
Who the heck do you think these guys are tasked to protect? I will give you a hint, it aint the local towel waiving mullah.
If you pull your weapons on the legitimate military forces and go so far as to disarm them, you immediately cease to enjoy the privilege of being considered as law abiding tax payer in my books, you are a loose cannon and must be taken out, immediately. It is a great credit to those troops involved that they obeyed their ROEs. This demonstrates the difference between being legitimate and a mercenary. There is no place for them and if this occurrence does not send that message loud and clear nothing ever will.
bulldogg
Milforum's Bouncer
What treaties would you be referring to, can you quote chapter and verse or are you foaming at the intellect again?
Kid, you are out of your depth here. Do you know these contractors? Have you talked to them personally or even read any interview with them anywhere where one of them said that? You are talking about a couple men I call friend and I will not abide b******t comments about them like yours. I'd ask you either put up a source or change this statement from one that looks like a fact to one that clearly shows this is your assinine opinion... tick tock.
Last edited:
Gator
U of B and B Alumnus
Nice move - declaring US taxpayers enemy combatant's! Better yet - US taxpayers who contracted by the US Government.
:bang:
The best part of all -
"at best is acting outside the best interests of the United States of America"
-
Who the heck do you think these guys are tasked to protect? I will give you a hint, it aint the local towel waiving mullah.
How much of that ill-gotten gain is Taxed again?
And I need no hints from you on this issue, your "loyalties" are very clear in my view.
Chief Bones
Forums Grumpy Old Man
Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) ........
-BD-
The ONLY thing I can think of, would be Status of Forces Agreememts (SOFA). The ONLY problem as I see it, is the very real possibility that Blackwater 'may' not fall under SOFA (unless as a satellite or sub-set of the military SOFA due to their contract with American or other country's government representatives. (See last post entry) ...
In Bermuda, we (Police), carried guns on the Naval Air Station in Bermuda under a SOFA. There was more than just guns covered under the Bermudian/American SOFA however.
I realize that a Wiki reference is sometimes suspect, however ... they DO explain what a SOFA is in fairly accurate terms.
Intro: "A Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agreement
According to Wiki, there is NO SOFA between the United States and Iraq. That rules out a SOFA as a treaty that Blackwater falls under.
-BD-
The ONLY thing I can think of, would be Status of Forces Agreememts (SOFA). The ONLY problem as I see it, is the very real possibility that Blackwater 'may' not fall under SOFA (unless as a satellite or sub-set of the military SOFA due to their contract with American or other country's government representatives. (See last post entry) ...
In Bermuda, we (Police), carried guns on the Naval Air Station in Bermuda under a SOFA. There was more than just guns covered under the Bermudian/American SOFA however.
I realize that a Wiki reference is sometimes suspect, however ... they DO explain what a SOFA is in fairly accurate terms.
Intro: "A Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) is an agreement between a country and a foreign nation stationing military forces in that country."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Forces_Agreement
According to Wiki, there is NO SOFA between the United States and Iraq. That rules out a SOFA as a treaty that Blackwater falls under.
Last edited:
senojekips
Active member
Roughly 100,000 American contractors are working in Iraq, but there has yet to be a prosecution for a single incident of violence, according to Scott Horton, a specialist in the law of armed conflict who teaches at Columbia University.
"Imagine a town of 100,000 people, and there hasn't been a prosecution in three years," Horton said. "How do you justify the fact that you aren't addressing this?"
One remedy is not being discussed: the State Department can waive immunity for contractors and let the case be tried in the Iraqi courts under Order 17, which is the section of the Transitional Administrative Law approved in 2004 that gives contractors immunity.
L. Paul Bremer III, who supervised the drafting of the immunity order as administrator of the United States occupation authority, said: "The immunity is not absolute. The order requires contractors to respect all Iraqi laws, so it's not a blanket immunity."
The order was intended as a substitute for a status of forces agreement, which can be made only with a sovereign country, Bremer said. While the military has immunity from Iraqi law, it agrees in exchange to subject its members to American military law. In contrast, civilian contractors have immunity, but it is unclear which laws, if any, can be used to hold them to account.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/11/africa/11legal.php
- Status