or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq: Blackwater Massacre
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iraq: Blackwater Massacre - Page 4

post #121 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

But do you think it's a good idea for the US Government to hire mercenaries, period.

By continuing to extoll the virtues of Blackwater leads me to believe you support Blackwater's presence in Iraq. Even without tight controls.

Are you reading what I am typing? Or just playing the broken record one more time?

I am not "Extolling the Virtues" - I am trying to get you to understand, apparently in vain, what BWUSA does, who they are, and how they operate, and how they should be controlled in my opinion. You have no interest in having a discussion on this. Show me ONE fucking place I have said that they should not have tight controls. Another baseless, strawman of an argument.

To review, for you, because you seem to be the only one in the entire thread that does not get it:

1- Blackwater performs a valuable service to the effort.
2- Blackwater allows many veterans to contribute skills and experience after their formal duty is complete.
3. Blackwater should be under tight controls and subject to the UCMJ.
4. Blackwater staff that I know personally are not the kind of people that you are characterizing.

Now, do you have something of substance to discuss, or are you just here to make me rehash the same four statements over and over again?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #122 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Cute. Tired, but cute.

AsLan^'s post shows what is wrong with private armies and some they attract.

They don't believe in Bush's war, but will go for the money.

I think my "cute" term was entirely appropriate.
post #123 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

They don't believe in Bush's war, but will go for the money.

Prove it. Damn it screener, you look so incredibly stupid here. I know a number of these people personally. You are one big fountain of "Bush's War" and "mercenaries" and "murderers." I have yet to meet even one of them that does it just for the money. You have blown this "mercenaries" bugaboo up so big inside your head that it's distorting your thinking. Don't forget that many of these same people VOLUNTEERED in the first damn place to go over there when they were in the US military.

You don't know a damn thing about what they do or do not believe.

I'll tell you like I told Northgate in this very thread... "Yoosa sticka to whatcha know.. jes?"
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #124 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Prove it. Damn it screener, you look so incredibly stupid here. I know a number of these people personally. You are one big fountain of "Bush's War" and "mercenaries" and "murderers." I have yet to meet even one of them that does it just for the money. You have blown this "mercenaries" bugaboo up so big inside your head that it's distorting your thinking. Don't forget that many of these same people VOLUNTEERED in the first damn place to go over there when they were in the US military.

You don't know a damn thing about what they do or do not believe.

I'll tell you like I told Northgate in this very thread... "Yoosa sticka to whatcha know.. jes?"

From AsLan^'s post,
Quote:
Even though I'm completely against the war, I would be over there in a heartbeat if it wasn't for my wife. We're talking salaries of around $250,000 a year (actually only the first $82,000 is tax free, but any travel pay, allowances etc. are also tax free). Again, if you have the background and don't mind applying yourself you would have to be retarded not to go, it's free money!

See what he said there?

You left out the first line of my post,
Quote:
AsLan^'s post shows what is wrong with private armies and some they attract.

Don't take things out of context, it may change the whole meaning of what was said.

I also posted this,
Quote:
I can see a true belief in the war as a reason for going, but just for money?, and not believing in it?

Do you see what I said here?

And I never said "murderers".
Read what I said, not what you think I said.

You admitted earlier that there were probably some "high-speed types", what makes you think there aren't some like AsLan^ that actually are there.
post #125 of 228
What do you think about the regular soldiers over there?

In a way, they're mercenaries too. Soldiers in the US Army are very highly paid by international standards and it's completely voluntary too.

I'm pretty certain that if we paid the same wages other governments pay to their armies (Korean conscripts get about $15 a month) we would have an order of magnitude fewer volunteers.

So what makes them so different from people working for PMCs?
post #126 of 228
Psst... hey, screener....

Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

"Don't take things out of context, it may change the whole meaning of what was said."

"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #127 of 228
I think the the major problem with privatised forces is this:

The monopoly on violence that states have and which defines them is being broken up.

States have developed a certain legitimacy over the centuries, they have managed to civilise their populations by denying them vigilancy and selfjustice, in exchange for an army-, police- and justice-system, that's controlled by the judiciary, legislative and executive, of which at least the personnel for the latter two are democratically elected.

By allowing privatised forces the rule of law is being denied and the role of the state questioned.

Haven't you watched Robocop?

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #128 of 228
Quote:
A single Blackwater security contractor costs the government $1,222 every day to guard U.S. civilian personnel, or $445,000 per year. That's six times the cost of getting a U.S. Army soldier to perform the same function.

As P.W. Singer observed last week, private security companies increasingly exist to free up tasks for U.S. troops, ensuring a sort of dependence on contracting occurs for a military coping with the strain of deployments for two wars.

And we want to attack Iran?
post #129 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Psst... hey, screener....




Show me where I took what you said out of context and changed the gist of what you said.

Like you did to me.
post #130 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsLan^ View Post

What do you think about the regular soldiers over there?

In a way, they're mercenaries too. Soldiers in the US Army are very highly paid by international standards and it's completely voluntary too.

I'm pretty certain that if we paid the same wages other governments pay to their armies (Korean conscripts get about $15 a month) we would have an order of magnitude fewer volunteers.

So what makes them so different from people working for PMCs?

Not the same, mercenaries by definition are guns for hire.

The US Military has a long history of service to their country and I admire them.
post #131 of 228
Blackwater has 861 employees in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/wa...kwater.html?hp

Quote:
Blackwater has dismissed 122 of its employees over the past three years for misuse of weapons, drug or alcohol abuse, lewd conduct or violent behavior, according to the report. It has also terminated workers for insubordination, failure to report incidents or lying about them, and publicly embarrassing the company. One employee was dismissed for showing signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

That is a pretty high rate don't you think?
Why weren't these guys weeded out before they were hired?

Quote:
The report by the Democratic majority staff of a House committee adds weight to complaints from Iraqi officials, American military officers and Blackwaters competitors that company guards have taken an aggressive, trigger-happy approach to their work and have repeatedly acted with reckless disregard for Iraqi life.
post #132 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Show me where I took what you said out of context and changed the gist of what you said.

No problem...

Quote:
Hired guns, heroes, really?

Misquote. Out of context. I was clearly referring to US Military members.

Quote:
How can you believe unregulated mercenaries are a good thing.

Strawman- I never said that, nor even hinted at it because I don't believe that.

Quote:
Sounds like you think hiring mercenaries is a good idea.

I do not believe that we are talking about the same thing... you're hell bent on the entire "unregulated" thing. I think that PMCs serve a useful purpose if proper oversight is in place. Which, for the last time, should be in place with the UCMJ.

Let me bring you back here... do you have anything to add to this?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #133 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

Not the same, mercenaries by definition are guns for hire.

The US Military has a long history of service to their country and I admire them.

Do you think that the soldiers you admire should do it for free? They carry a gun. They get shot at. They do it for a mission. And they get paid. I'm sorry to point out the obvious for ya, but every US Military recruiting office is there to "hire guns" or the people to support them.
And once again, most of BWUSA operators are former members of the US Military.

Careful... you are walking right into the trap of admitting that the all-volunteer US Military must be joining up and doing it because they care about the mission, not because they are victims of "Bush's War for Oil." Alternatively, we can take the John Kerry tack that the ones in Iraq are there because they are stupid.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #134 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No problem...



Misquote. Out of context. I was clearly referring to US Military members.



Strawman- I never said that, nor even hinted at it because I don't believe that.



I do not believe that we are talking about the same thing... you're hell bent on the entire "unregulated" thing. I think that PMCs serve a useful purpose if proper oversight is in place. Which, for the last time, should be in place with the UCMJ.

Let me bring you back here... do you have anything to add to this?

None of these are direct quotes cherry picked from what was actually said.

These are impressions I got from what you said.

See the difference?
post #135 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Do you think that the soldiers you admire should do it for free? They carry a gun. They get shot at. They do it for a mission. And they get paid. I'm sorry to point out the obvious for ya, but every US Military recruiting office is there to "hire guns" or the people to support them.
And once again, most of BWUSA operators are former members of the US Military.

Careful... you are walking right into the trap of admitting that the all-volunteer US Military must be joining up and doing it because they care about the mission, not because they are victims of "Bush's War for Oil." Alternatively, we can take the John Kerry tack that the ones in Iraq are there because they are stupid.

I'd like to think those that the majority join the US Military do it to serve their country.
No one gets rich serving their country, although some do, after leaving the service, right?

I'd like to think the majority don't join up so they can kill people, although that is what you get trained to do.
I'd like to think killing some one isn't easy, bad guy or not.
I'd like to think that after your service you wouldn't want to be put into that position again.
I'd like to think they weren't okay with it and not go back to Iraq.

I'm not walking into any "trap".
You do what you gotta do and what you feel is right and what you're okay with.
Doesn't mean I have to agree with you.
Doesn't mean I have to respect your decision to become a mercenary.

The Kerry remark is another example of your cherry picking what some one says to fit your view.
post #136 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I'd like to think those that the majority join the US Military do it to serve their country.
No one gets rich serving their country, although some do, after leaving the service, right?

Correct. I love being OT.

Quote:
I'd like to think the majority don't join up so they can kill people, although that is what you get trained to do.

Neither do BWUSA operators "join up" just to go "kill people."

Quote:
I'd like to think killing some one isn't easy, bad guy or not.

It isn't for 98% of people... did you know that BWUSA does combat psychology training wherein they deal with the topic of taking the lives of others, and the mental effects of such things? It's brutal stuff- pictures, stories, etc- explaining how it affects everyone when that trigger is pulled. The other 2% are simply dangerous people who should be handled in a very careful way, both during and after their service. Operators with blood-lust have no place in a situation like this.

Quote:
I'd like to think that after your service you wouldn't want to be put into that position again.

I see your point, but some of these people DO care about the mission, DO want to provide a nicer lifestyle for their families, and have talent in this particular area. Warriors belong in wars.

Quote:
I'd like to think they weren't okay with it and not go back to Iraq.

Some are not interested in it, and don't ever approach BW. There are as many opinions on Iraq as there are soldiers and PMCs that are fighting there. This is not a homogenous group.


Quote:
You do what you gotta do and what you feel is right and what you're okay with.

Yep.
Quote:
Doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

Nope. Dissent is a good thing.
Quote:
Doesn't mean I have to respect your decision to become a mercenary.

No, you don't have to respect anyone's decision if you so choose. I just think that your opinion should be based on more than what the MSM says about BWUSA.

Quote:
The Kerry remark is another example of your cherry picking what some one says to fit your view.

He did say it. Talk to him about it. Kerry apologized for a "poorly stated joke." That's called truth, not cherry pickin'.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #137 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Are you reading what I am typing? Or just playing the broken record one more time?

I am not "Extolling the Virtues" - I am trying to get you to understand, apparently in vain, what BWUSA does, who they are, and how they operate, and how they should be controlled in my opinion. You have no interest in having a discussion on this. Show me ONE fucking place I have said that they should not have tight controls. Another baseless, strawman of an argument.

To review, for you, because you seem to be the only one in the entire thread that does not get it:

1- Blackwater performs a valuable service to the effort.
2- Blackwater allows many veterans to contribute skills and experience after their formal duty is complete.
3. Blackwater should be under tight controls and subject to the UCMJ.
4. Blackwater staff that I know personally are not the kind of people that you are characterizing.

Now, do you have something of substance to discuss, or are you just here to make me rehash the same four statements over and over again?

No offense, but the Hessians that were hired Mercs for Britain against the lowly Colonies weakened England's position and these Mercs don't help the US's position either.

If you have to hire Mercs in a "officially non-granted war declaration" then it should be clear that in a country of nearly 300 Million it can't manage to convince a couple hundred thousands of its citizenry that this War is just and worthy of their time.

The job is extreme high risk and kudos to them for attempting it. Unfortunately, their position is one where they are outside the boundaries of the Law and that makes them a threat to the Republic, whether they like it or not.

Research the facts their CEO is requesting a no-compete clause contract and the fact they currently aren't held by Military Law makes zero sense to any reasoned person.

Hire these talented soldiers under the same conditions of any other Soldier and with THE SAME PAY.

These former Soldiers I reckon wouldn't be chomping at the bit if they got such dirt pay.
post #138 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

No, you don't have to respect anyone's decision if you so choose. I just think that your opinion should be based on more than what the MSM says about BWUSA.

No comment on the report I linked to and quoted from earlier.
Everything in this report has been all over the internet.

Then there's this,
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_New..._in_iraq/6574/

Quote:
"This is a nightmare," said one senior U.S. military officer. "We had guys who saw the aftermath, and it was very bad. This is going to hurt us badly."

At least three separate investigations into the incident involving the Blackwater employees are under way, the report said. The company hires mostly former Navy Seals, which another U.S. officer said made for trouble.

"They are immature shooters and have very quick trigger fingers.
Quote:
Their tendency is shoot first and ask questions later," said a U.S. Army lieutenant colonel.

And this,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100101435.html

Quote:
But uniformed U.S. military officers understandably resent the private fighters, who tend to be preening and much better paid than the average soldier. Army sources grumble that Blackwater plays by far more aggressive rules than U.S. troops and needlessly alienates Iraqis.

I suppose this is all bullshit in your opinion?

Not a way to win hearts and minds, but then, that isn't their mission.

Quote:
For some time to come, Blackwater or other security companies will be needed to protect senior U.S. diplomats and other personnel. The focus of the current reviews should be ensuring that they conform to the standards governing U.S. troops and can be held accountable when they commit excesses.

One can only hope.
post #139 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

He did say it. Talk to him about it. Kerry apologized for a "poorly stated joke." That's called truth, not cherry pickin'.

When you admit it was a poorly stated joke, yet continue to expound the rights "He called the troops stupid" crap, yeah, it's cherry pickin'.

When I first heard it, I thought it was a jab at Bush, but because of omitting "us" it allowed, well you, to never forget.
post #140 of 228
post #141 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by screener View Post

I suppose this is all bullshit in your opinion?

You suppose... wrong. You know, that "misrepresentation" thing again. I have never said that there (a) are not bad people somewhere within Blackwater that should be severely punished or (b) that there should not be more oversight.

The funny part is that you answer my request to get informed outside the MSM by... throwing me a bunch of links to the MSM. So much for making "progress" here.

And BTW, good luck with getting me to care about the MSM postings you link to. They're in the tank. Sorry. I'll stick to what Congress, the DoD, and Iraqi government find after the investigation, and what I know of their MO and tactics from firsthand observation. I'm sure you'll have no problem with Weasel Waxman running the circus.

Do note there that there are, and will always be inter-service rivalry- refer to Operation Just Cause for an example of these territorial disputes.

Their purpose is not to win hearts and minds. Send the United Way and Peace Corps for that. They are there to defend high-value targets. That is inherently dirty business, one where things are bound to get screwed up... like in the situation we have here.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #142 of 228

Does that qualify for a Darwin Award?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #143 of 228
Quote:
Jubelum;1151316]You suppose... wrong. You know, that "misrepresentation" thing again. I have never said that there (a) are not bad people somewhere within Blackwater that should be severely punished or (b) that there should not be more oversight.

I meant the MSM links, and you did admit to "high speed types" probably being there.
We agree on more oversight, although I don't think they should be there.
Enlighten me, out of 861 employees, 122 were fired, and an unknown number for other reasons.
Isn't that a high percentage, and how does that compare to the regular forces.

Quote:
The funny part is that you answer my request to get informed outside the MSM by... throwing me a bunch of links to the MSM. So much for making "progress" here.

Where would you suggest I get informed about Blackwater's deeds?
And where do they get their information, and where does the MSM get their information?
Show me where to get the information you like.

Quote:
And BTW, good luck with getting me to care about the MSM postings you link to. They're in the tank. Sorry. I'll stick to what Congress, the DoD, and Iraqi government find after the investigation, and what I know of their MO and tactics from firsthand observation. I'm sure you'll have no problem with Weasel Waxman running the circus.

First hand observation? Care to elaborate?
Weasel Waxman, cute.

Quote:
Do note there that there are, and will always be inter-service rivalry- refer to Operation Just Cause for an example of these territorial disputes.

I believe it goes further than that.
I'd link to other examples, but sadly, they are from the MSM, making it pointless for me to do.

Quote:
Their purpose is not to win hearts and minds. Send the United Way and Peace Corps for that. They are there to defend high-value targets. That is inherently dirty business, one where things are bound to get screwed up... like in the situation we have here.

Which causes further resentment against the US.

When do you suggest we send in United Way and Peace Corps?
I know you're joking, I think, but if you could talk these organizations to go there now, Blackwater would have more people to protect.
A win for everyone no?
post #144 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Sorry. I'll stick to what Congress, the DoD, and Iraqi government find after the investigation, and what I know of their MO and tactics from firsthand observation.

post #145 of 228
Waxman thinks that Blackwater is a rogue force:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071002/...kwater_iraq_39

anybody agree?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #146 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


I have HUGE faith in Waxman, consistent with the spirit of the Pelosi Administration, he should not stop until he gets the answers (he wants). We can just add it to the other 10000 investigations we have going about everything up to and including toilet paper contracts within the White House.

The iraqi govt has little incentive to cover-up for BWUSA either.

That's the difference... I believe the truth will come out. Many of you don't, regardless of what ends up happening. Nothing that happens will satisfy some of you, and we'll always hear "cover up."

... much like the 911 Truthers.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #147 of 228
From Errand to Fatal Shot to Hail of Fire to 17 Deaths

Quote:
Interviews with 12 Iraqi witnesses, several Iraqi investigators and an American official familiar with an American investigation of the shootings offer new insights into the gravity of the episode in Nisour Square. And they are difficult to square with the explanation offered initially by Blackwater officials that their guards were responding proportionately to an attack on the streets around the square.

The new details include these:

¶A deadly cascade of events began when a single bullet apparently fired by a Blackwater guard killed an Iraqi man whose weight probably remained on the accelerator and propelled the car forward as the passenger, the mans mother, clutched him and screamed.

¶The car continued to roll toward the convoy, which responded with an intense barrage of gunfire in several directions, striking Iraqis who were desperately trying to flee.

¶Minutes after that shooting stopped, a Blackwater convoy possibly the same one moved north from the square and opened fire on another line of traffic a few hundred yards away, in a previously unreported separate shooting, investigators and several witnesses say.

But questions emerge from accounts of the earliest moments of the shooting in Nisour Square.

The car in which the first people were killed did not begin to closely approach the Blackwater convoy until the Iraqi driver had been shot in the head and lost control of his vehicle. Not one witness heard or saw any gunfire coming from Iraqis around the square. And following a short initial burst of bullets, the Blackwater guards unleashed an overwhelming barrage of gunfire even as Iraqis were turning their cars around and attempting to flee.

As the gunfire continued, at least one of the Blackwater guards began screaming, No! No! No! and gesturing to his colleagues to stop shooting, according to an Iraqi lawyer who was stuck in traffic and was shot in the back as he tried to flee. The account of the struggle among the Blackwater guards corroborates preliminary findings of the American investigation.

What cover-up? What conspiracy? Seems it's Blackwater who is doing the covering up.
post #148 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

What cover-up? What conspiracy? Seems it's Blackwater who is doing the covering up.

I'm sure with ALL of the resources we have in Washington, we can break through any such effort by a private corporation. After all, this is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we are talking about. They are a lot like the Roman Catholic Church... almost unlimited resources, slave labour, and time can accomplish anything.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #149 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

I'm sure with ALL of the resources we have in Washington, we can break through any such effort by a private corporation. After all, this is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT we are talking about. They are a lot like the Roman Catholic Church... almost unlimited resources, slave labour, and time can accomplish anything.

The Bush administration's ties to Blackwater.

post #150 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

The Bush administration's ties to Blackwater.


Um, don't the "loyal opposition" control the investigative powers held by the Congress?

I'll ask again- how do we get you satisfaction here?
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #151 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubelum View Post

Um, don't the "loyal opposition" control the investigative powers held by the Congress?

I'll ask again- how do we get you satisfaction here?

Oh I don't know...how about the Pentagon tears up their new $92 million dollar contract deal with them and hire someone else?

As Blackwater's "Prince" said, "We fired him and that's all we could do...".

Well, your fired jackass.
post #152 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Oh I don't know...how about the Pentagon tears up their new $92 million dollar contract deal with them and hire someone else?

Sounds like it's time to call your representatives.
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #153 of 228
Blackwater to guard FBI team probing it

Not only is Blackwater in charge of investigating Blackwater, they're also protecting FBI agents sent to Iraq to investigate Blackwater.



post #154 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


I love that graphic...
Scanners rocks, too. Ahhh, the college days...

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Well, your fired jackass.

Erik Prince's fired jackass:


"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #155 of 228
House moves to rein in private contractors

Quote:
Lawmakers vote to make security contractors subject to U.S. prosecution

he House passed a bill Thursday that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts. It was the first major legislation of its kind to pass since a deadly shootout last month involving Blackwater employees.

Democrats called the 389-30 vote an indictment in connection with a shooting incident there that left 11 Iraqis dead. Senate Democratic leaders said they planned to follow suit with similar legislation and send a bill to President Bush as soon as possible.

There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity for tens of thousands of individuals working in countries on behalf of the United States, said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas.

No question Bush'll sign it and he should. Hired security in situations like Blackwater need to fall under a legal jurisdiction.

They're not commissioned by the state as military officers are: they don't fly our banner and represent our intentions.

Civilians should flat-out not be allowed to kill people under any circumstances.

Police are commissioned, prison guards are commissioned, and enlisted men in the military act under the accountability of their commissioned officers above them.

Why should it be legal to kill human beings without a commission from the state? Without a commission, they're civilians just like you and me and have no special authority above what you or I have.

...I'm satisfied. Now to the investigations...
post #156 of 228
<lurking >
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
"Stand Up for Chuck"
Reply
post #157 of 228
US military faults Blackwater and supports the Iraqi government story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071005/....b3YAIwtSs0NUE

This is getting good.

Now who do we believe? It's 2 to 1.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #158 of 228
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

As Blackwater's "Prince" said, "We fired him and that's all we could do...".

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/...tor/index.html

Quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A Blackwater USA employee who was fired after he allegedly shot and killed an Iraqi security guard on Christmas Eve last year was hired by another private contractor to work in the region less than two months later.

Andrew J. Moonen returned to the United States within a few days of the incident, his attorney said, but in February he returned to Kuwait, working for Defense Department contractor Combat Support Associates (CSA), a company spokesman said.

Mooney worked for CSA from February to August of this year, spokesman Paul Gennaro said.

Because the State Department and Blackwater kept the incident quiet and out of Moonen's personnel records, CSA was unaware of the December incident when it hired Moonen.

According to Moonen's personnel record, the U.S. Army tried to call him back to service in April 2007, but canceled the request when they were notified he was overseas.

According to the report, Moonen went to the guard post of another contracting firm, Triple Canopy, and said he'd been in a gunfight with Iraqis. He said they were chasing him and firing at him, but a report by Triple Canopy says its guards had not heard gunfire.

Fucking Hell!
post #159 of 228
Does anyone remember the Haditha-massacre, where US soldiers went on a rampage murdering 24 iraqi civilians after they were attacked by insurgents?

Well it seems like four of the eight soldiers involved were let off the hook, and the US-investigating officer recommends to the judge that dismissed the charges against the four to lower the accusation against the ring-leader from murder to negligent homicide, and to drop the charges of false statement:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7029183.stm

I try not to act shocked and surprised, since for me it was clear that some whitewashing would happen.

What really surprised me if not shocked, although it has nothing to do with this, is that Saudi Arabia reformed/revolutionised its legal system: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7029308.stm

Wow, just wow.

Nightcrawler
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
I disagree, and could prove you're wrong; care to offer any proof that you're not wrong?
Reply
post #160 of 228
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/04/wo...ontractor.html

Quote:
Asked about the accusations that his son was involved in the fatal shooting last December, Mr. Moonens voice fell. They train these guys like they do and then theyre surprised? he said.

Quote:
Mr. Moonen acknowledged that he had served in Baghdad, which he described as scary, particularly for a Westerner who found himself alone and isolated in the city. He did not explain why he felt isolated while serving as one of nearly 1,000 Blackwater security agents in Iraq and living in a secure compound in the Green Zone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Iraq: Blackwater Massacre