Democrats criticized the Bush administration Tuesday for giving immunity to Blackwater USA bodyguards, calling the move a failure to hold the security contractors responsible for the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians.

The State Department, whose investigators initially promised to shield the bodyguards' statements in the criminal inquiry of the Sept. 16 shootings, maintained that any lawbreakers "must be held to account" as a result of the inquiry that has since been taken over by the Justice Department and FBI.

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy, who sits on two Senate panels that oversee the State Department and the Justice Department, called the immunity deal an example of "the amnesty administration."

The offer for limited immunity, first reported Monday by The Associated Press, has delayed the government's criminal inquiry of the shootings that enraged the Iraqi government, and threatens to derail prosecution as investigators seek other evidence from the crime scene now six weeks cold.

"In this administration, accountability goes by the boards," said Leahy. "That goes equally for misconduct and for incompetence. If you get caught, they will get you immunity. If you get convicted, they will commute your sentence."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g8j2u56IMqRcZhCnXxakvpIEJ3-QD8SJLFT00


What a surprise :zzz:

Here's how this scenario is going to play out. Blackwater guards get immunity, they testify against "Blackwater". Blackwater gets fined, loses it's contract, and that's pretty much it.

Here's how this scenario is going to play out. Blackwater guards get immunity, they testify against "Blackwater". Blackwater gets fined, loses it's contract, and that's pretty much it.

They wont even lose their contract.

They won't lose their contract.

How angering. How on Earth can this be justified? There was even a freaking video, what does immunity help a prosecutor with. How can you give immunity to ALL of them.

Is there any law to punish people for giving out undeserved immunity?

How angering. How on Earth can this be justified? There was even a freaking video, what does immunity help a prosecutor with. How can you give immunity to ALL of them.

Is there any law to punish people for giving out undeserved immunity?


War is hell, ain't it.

Or would y'all prefer that our soldiers, Marines and security forces use cheerleaders' soft, fluffy pom-poms to fight the enemy?

Baron Max

Except they ain't soldiers.

they weren't fighting the enemy. Would these guys be in trouble if they had shot armed people in self defense?

a failure to hold the security contractors responsible for the shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians.

the Blackwater contractors are heroes. they should get fucking medals for what they do. they do THE MOST dangerous things and are at a much greater risk than regular soldiers.

what the Democrats are saying is just political fluff to score points. with a Democratic president this sort of demagoguery would not be said.

Sickening, honestly.

the Blackwater contractors are heroes. they should get fucking medals for what they do. they do THE MOST dangerous things and are at a much greater risk than regular soldiers.

what the Democrats are saying is just political fluff to score points. with a Democratic president this sort of demagoguery would not be said.

since when has randomly shooting up a street corner been considered medal worthy?

Or would y'all prefer that our soldiers, Marines and security forces use cheerleaders' soft, fluffy pom-poms to fight the enemy?

That would be kinda neet.

~String

The precedent is also disturbing.
Now instead of troops where there is a system of accountability - however flawed - wars, occupations, etc. can be manned by people who break US rules of engagements - along with other standards - are not accountable within the companies they work and are not held accountable anywhere else.
Remember, everything that gets done abroad gets used at home.

i still want to from otheadp how randomly shooting up a street corner is medal worthy

War is hell, ain't it.

Or would y'all prefer that our soldiers, Marines and security forces use cheerleaders' soft, fluffy pom-poms to fight the enemy?

Baron Max

So your position is that they should be allowed to do anything.

the Blackwater contractors are heroes. they should get fucking medals for what they do. they do THE MOST dangerous things and are at a much greater risk than regular soldiers.

what the Democrats are saying is just political fluff to score points. with a Democratic president this sort of demagoguery would not be said.

Why should they have immunity? If they are doing brave, necessary things then they have no problem. Do you want the police in your neighborhood to have immunity because their job is more dangerous than yours?

Except they ain't soldiers.

Neither were the civilians living in Dresden and other German cities during World War II, nor all the Japanese in the cities that we bombed.

But we couldn't have won the war in Germany if we hadn't bombed those cities ....ever stop to think about that?

War is hell, boys n' girls, and to fight a war any other way is idiocy.

Baron Max

So your position is that they should be allowed to do anything.

They should be permitted to protect themselves and their charges if they feel threatened.

Baron Max

They should be permitted to protect themselves and their charges if they feel threatened.

Baron Max

But unlike soldiers in the army you want them to be completely immune from any possible criminal prosecution.

What you are doing is confusing support for the actions you think they have taken with saying they should have no oversight and should never be punished for actions deemed crimes.

What you are defending is, for example, is that if they shoot unarmed 12 year olds they will be immune from prosecution.

The topic is not
were these actions on this or that day acceptable combat behavior. The topic is should they be immune from law.

Why should they have immunity? If they are doing brave, necessary things then they have no problem. Do you want the police in your neighborhood to have immunity because their job is more dangerous than yours?

they don't have immunity. just like US soldiers (which are subject to military policing, which is far harsher than civilian policing).

i'm not sure which code the Blackwater guys are subject to, but i'm 100% certain they have no immunity. using such terms is really misleading. they do not have a blank check on killing anyone they feel like. quite the opposite.

they don't have immunity.
So the OP is wrong?

the people in the government who are bashing Blackwater and the Bush Administration are playing fast and loose with buzzwords and demagoguery. which is typical in Washington (please tell me you know this)

my understanding is that whatever the Blackwater people did was not criminal (which was determined after an investigation, as is usually the case when high profile incidents or any kind of killing happens), and Bush decided they should not stand trial.

for example, when US soldiers get ambushed, return fire and kill the attackers and then are not charged with offences it does not mean they have immunity. it means they followed the rules.

but a demagogue might say "they were granted immunity for killings"

that's what i think is happening with Blackwater.

They give immunity to people who haven't done anything wrong? Why?

but a demagogue might say "they were granted immunity for killings"

that's what i think is happening with Blackwater.

No. The Bush Administration made a call not based on the facts and their decision inhibited a complete investigation. This is not at all what you are saying. The Bush administration is trying to move private armies outside the scope of legal punishment. It is not a one case affair.

You don't offer immunity, limited or otherwise, if you think a specific case points to innocence. Immunity means that innocence of guilt is no longer the issue. It means it does not matter and the Bush A does not want it to matter.

No. The Bush Administration made a call not based on the facts and their decision inhibited a complete investigation.
i think there hasn't been an "official" and "public" inquiry. but it is safe to say that there have been more than one internal investigations -- by Blackwater itself, by the people they report to (on the field) and maybe in another higher level. but the top tier of government haven't conducted those investigations. well actually there have been public inquiries, e.g. when the CEO of Blackwater and others were summoned before the Senate (or was it Congress?) and it was all televised on CNN.

the issue here is that some assume Blackwater has committed blatant massacres and are being shielded by Bush. i have more faith in them as they are rational players and the most experienced soldiers (or i should say 'combatants') and therefore less likely to commit mistakes or blatant massacres. you can make an issue out of anything when you bring it to such a high level of government. it becomes a political game full of buzzwords and hyperbole

I haven't really been following this, but I assume that we only granted them immunity from prosecution in the U.S.? Or am i wrong? If we somehow granted them immunity from prosecution by Iraqi authorities, then I have seriously misunderstood our level of control over the Iraqi government.

In any event, I am of two minds on it. Sure, the suspicion is that we're winking at the murder of civilians, but it's very hard to tell what happened to who from afar with a confused place like Iraq. The suspicion is hard to shake though because we need to to hire mercenaries (like Blackwater) to take the pressure off of our regular troops which are already spread thin. Prosecuting mercenaries (even for murder) should reduce the availability/increase the costs of hiring mercenaries, so we do have an interest...but as deplorable as murder is, the point is not "we want to help the murderers" it's "if we don't help the murderers, then all the non-murderers get scared out of the market too."

Still, if I were running Iraq, I'd let the State Department know that I was issuing a "arrest on sight, shoot if they resist" order to any Iraqi police forces who run into Blackwater. It's one thing to need American support; it's one thing to suck it up when the Americans behave badly; it's another thing when the Americans hire goons and want to you bend over and take it when the goons behave badly.

the issue here is that some assume Blackwater has committed blatant massacres and are being shielded by Bush. i have more faith in them as they are rational players and the most experienced soldiers (or i should say 'combatants') and therefore less likely to commit mistakes or blatant massacres. you can make an issue out of anything when you bring it to such a high level of government. it becomes a political game full of buzzwords and hyperbole

And again. Then there is no need to give them immunity. In fact it is not an intelligent move. It leads one to believe that they need immunity. They may or may not have committed crimes in another country. It should be seen as a priority to see that justice is done, rather than alienating US allies in the Iraq government, many of whom are the ones calling for investigations.

they are most likely immune from Iraqi prosecution. as Pandaemoni said, this needs to be in place so contractors (mercenaries is a negative word) make themselves available for this job.

US allies in the Iraq government, many of whom are the ones calling for investigations.
you forget that they have constituencies to which they have to pander once in a while. when US soldiers in South Korea accidentally ran over a few kids there they were not immune from all prosecution - only from prosecution by South Korean authorities - but they were definitely prosecuted by US authorities (military in their case), and then too some SK politicians were angry and wanted them to be prosecuted in SK. i'm sure some politicians and parts of the public in the US would agree to that, but that's not how things work.

same with diplomats stationed in other countries - they are immune. one Russian diplomat killed 2 women when he was driving drunk here in Canada. when he was arrested he presented his credentials and released by Canadian police. he was then deported, prosecuted and jailed in Russia.

Blackwater is subject to the same rules. if any of them commits murder as defined in American military (or civilian?) code while on assignments in Iraq they will certainly get prosecuted. these incidents do get investigated. the only conclussion that i have about their incident is that investigations did occur.

you may say then "well they are civilians, not government, so they shouldn't be subject to the same rules". but given the nature of their work, in my opinion they deserve to have that same type of immunity.

War is hell, ain't it.

Or would y'all prefer that our soldiers, Marines and security forces use cheerleaders' soft, fluffy pom-poms to fight the enemy?

Baron Max

I think we'd all prefer it if you yanks stopped shooting women, children, and your allies and then getting away with it.

I haven't really been following this, but I assume that we only granted them immunity from prosecution in the U.S.? Or am i wrong? If we somehow granted them immunity from prosecution by Iraqi authorities, then I have seriously misunderstood our level of control over the Iraqi government. Immunity from prosecution by Iraq authorities was granted years ago, by Paul Bremer.

Blackwater's lawyers have always claimed they are not subject to the UCMJ, and those lawyers seem to be correct.

So that leaves stateside US law, which Bush has just deflected.

Neither were the civilians living in Dresden and other German cities during World War II, nor all the Japanese in the cities that we bombed.

But we couldn't have won the war in Germany if we hadn't bombed those cities ....ever stop to think about that?

War is hell, boys n' girls, and to fight a war any other way is idiocy.

Baron Max

and want to what those meet the definition to be considered terrorist acts

i still want to know how shooting up a damn street corner is supposed to be medal worthy

The Iraqis found them guilty and demanded something like 8 million dollars per victim's family, along with other stuff. They are changing their laws to remove the prosecution immunity put in place by Bremer.

Immunity from prosecution by Iraq authorities was granted years ago, by Paul Bremer.

Blackwater's lawyers have always claimed they are not subject to the UCMJ, and those lawyers seem to be correct.

So that leaves stateside US law, which Bush has just deflected.

so which laws are they subject to???

so which laws are they subject to???

none

gravity

seriously though... ?

the Blackwater contractors are heroes. they should get fucking medals for what they do. they do THE MOST dangerous things and are at a much greater risk than regular soldiers.


Who needs medals when you're ripping off you're own nation. A blackwater contractor earns up to three times as much as a regular US marine. Wouldn't you rather see the money that goes into these contracts,help protect the marines rather than a bunch of profiteering mercenaries ?

Who needs medals when you're ripping off you're own nation. A blackwater contractor earns up to three times as much as a regular US marine. Wouldn't you rather see the money that goes into these contracts,help protect the marines rather than a bunch of profiteering mercenaries ?

someone mentioned here that it's actually cheaper over the longterm to use a contractor because of all the training and overhead costs spent on an army soldier

even if that was not the case - these contractors do the most dangerous jobs so technically they should be paid more.

Its a mistake to think all blackwater contractors are 'amercian's' because they work for the firm. Many are ghurker's, UK vets, ex-seals, south and cental american soldiers, Fijians, etc. They are civilian professional soldiers, mercenaries, doing a job they are paid to do. If there was any hint of prosecution no one would take the job and then the U.S military would really be in shit because they are unwilling to pull up the slack themselves. They need them ergo IMMUNITY.

They are given immunity because the U.S needs them and they can choose not to fight, unlike the enlisted. We don't want a draft, its an unpopular war so its easier to farm out the work.

As far as killing civilians Iraq is a continuous hell! When one is unsure of what is coming their way one has to act promptly and yes sometimes this may mean civilian casualties. To think one can carry out ANY WAR without these occurrences is childish.

If anyone checked the list of all the PMSC's in Iraq one would find a lot of them are not even american based companies. Also contractors tend to be more experienced. They tend to be vets, tier 1 soldiers who have gone more than 3 terms of duty. They are not the little boys who are military but unseasoned. Iraq is fucked so of course there will be some very nasty stories of troop behaviour. The war was a mistake but as long as we are there we will have to pay FOREIGN contractors to do our dirty work for us.

so which laws are they subject to??? The "laws" that put people in Gitmo, possibly. The mercenaries in Iraq seem to meet the alleged qualifications for "combatant".

The laws that create legal liability - civil lawsuit stuff - for US companies whose foreign-based employees commit murder or steal lots of money in various ways.

Probably a few others, such as a "commonlaw" argument extrapolating from the ordianry legal agreements that govern such situations elsewhere.

These are all speculative. No one has shown any mercenary in Iraq to be subject to any law or legal authority in their treatment of Iraqis, civilian or otherwise.
you forget that they have constituencies to which they have to pander once in a while. when US soldiers in South Korea accidentally ran over a few kids there they were not immune from all prosecution - only from prosecution by South Korean authorities - but they were definitely prosecuted by US authorities (military in their case), and then too some SK politicians were angry and wanted them to be prosecuted in SK. i'm sure some politicians and parts of the public in the US would agree to that, but that's not how things work.

same with diplomats stationed in other countries - they are immune. - -

Blackwater is subject to the same rules. No, it isn't. The legal situation of US military and diplomatic personnel in foreign countries is governed by formal, legal, treaties and agreements between those countries. No such treaties or agreements exist with respect to Iraq.

There are a couple of other places in which the agreements have broken down, and in those places US military personnel are confined to their bases.

Didn't they just get busted bringing silencers into Iraq? WTHell do you need silencers for?

Didn't they just get busted bringing silencers into Iraq? WTHell do you need silencers for?

so they can conduct secret murders. like the mafia. /sarcoff

what the f do you think they need silencers for???

so they can conduct secret murders. like the mafia. /sarcoff

what the f do you think they need silencers for???

How the hell would I know!? :shrug: I've never even shot a gun, let alone seen a silencer. What I know about them is from movies and TV.

Iceaura: You're dreaming. PMC's will never be subject to any law. Many don't even serve more than six weeks at a time, they make their money and they leave and take up duty on their own terms. There are many things PMC's are not protected against, for example they dont receive free medical care or are not protected if they get hurt in battle unlike the enlisted. They take a huge risk. We shouldn't blame the agencies, its the U.S who is farming out their own responsibility at tax payers expense. Blackwater has made a billion dollars from this war and they are among many other agencies. Blackwater only need change their name and its business as usual. If blakwater leaves their employees go to another agency in Iraq and its business as usual.

This offers a good example of a contractors position:

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=118

Its a mistake to think all blackwater contractors are 'amercian's' because they work for the firm. Many are ghurker's, UK vets, ex-seals, south and cental american soldiers, Fijians, etc. They are civilian professional soldiers, mercenaries, doing a job they are paid to do. If there was any hint of prosecution no one would take the job and then the U.S military would really be in shit because they are unwilling to pull up the slack themselves. They need them ergo IMMUNITY.

They are given immunity because the U.S needs them and they can choose not to fight, unlike the enlisted. We don't want a draft, its an unpopular war so its easier to farm out the work.

As far as killing civilians Iraq is a continuous hell! When one is unsure of what is coming their way one has to act promptly and yes sometimes this may mean civilian casualties. To think one can carry out ANY WAR without these occurrences is childish.

If anyone checked the list of all the PMSC's in Iraq one would find a lot of them are not even american based companies. Also contractors tend to be more experienced. They tend to be vets, tier 1 soldiers who have gone more than 3 terms of duty. They are not the little boys who are military but unseasoned. Iraq is fucked so of course there will be some very nasty stories of troop behaviour. The war was a mistake but as long as we are there we will have to pay FOREIGN contractors to do our dirty work for us.

Or we could act morally and demand moral behavior by them and not make them immune and let the cards fall where they may.

You realize you argument above justifies immunity from any action.

Personally I think the U.S should ditch this fiasco in Iraq altogether. I am not saying immunity is the 'right' thing to do, I am saying its impractical to pull immunity from the deal when it will mean PSMC's refusing to send employees. If you were a contractor would you go to Iraq if it would mean legal quagmire? Its impossible to completely avoid civilians in a situation like Iraq.

The most that can happen is for these agencies to fire anyone they find irresponsible.

Personally I think the U.S should ditch this fiasco in Iraq altogether. I am not saying immunity is the 'right' thing to do, I am saying its impractical to pull immunity from the deal when it will mean PSMC's refusing to send employees. If you were a contractor would you go to Iraq if it would mean legal quagmire? Its impossible to completely avoid civilians in a situation like Iraq.

The most that can happen is for these agencies to fire anyone they find irresponsible.
Why not stick with the broad based 'ditch this fiasco' position which could include the fact that it is such a mess we would need to offer immunity to keep it going?

It may sound like a small point, but I think it shifts the emphasis.

When you say it is impossible to complete avoid civilians, this is beside the point. No one is saying everyone who kills a civilian should be prosecuted. Soldiers can be prosecuted and do not have this immunity.

The contractors have lobbied for this war. I do not want to figure out what would be practical for people who have acted immorally, are making a mint off of it, and could easily be lobbying for the end of it if they had a moral bone in their bodies.

The contractors have not lobbied for the war its the agencies who bid for the contracts offered by the U.S government. If the U.S did ditches the war so would the agencies unless the Iraqi government was willing to foot the bill.

Ditching immunity is a practical form of making it worth the agencies as well as the contractors time and effort. The U.S NEEDS these agencies to remain in Iraq even if they deploy extra troops. Immoral acts will occur by mercenaries and military proper alike, its inevitable. Who would be able to convict the miscreants anyway? The U.S? The Iraqi government? The Hague? Don't you see this will not happen as long as they are needed. How will the U.S persuade them to stay if immunity is lifted?

I do agree with you on the basic stupidity and immorality on the war at large

The contractors have not lobbied for the war its the agencies who bid for the contracts offered by the U.S government. If the U.S did ditches the war so would the agencies unless the Iraqi government was willing to foot the bill.

1) these are not separate groups, they exchange personell all the time. 2) it is not either or, it is both. They are part of the same circles that wanted this or some other war. Arms manufacturers, security companies or whatever you want to call something like Haliburton, and all the other 'businessmen' who stand to gain from armed conflict, make their case directly and indirectly to their friends in the oil business and government about what they want and what will grease everyone's palms.

Ditching immunity is a practical form of making it worth the agencies as well as the contractors time and effort.

I can't understand why you need to defend something as practical that is part of an immoral enterprise and is immoral in itself. But I think we will go in circles from here so we can just spend a moment enjoying our common ground...



I do agree with you on the basic stupidity and immorality on the war at large
Great.

They are separate. Contractors are those who take the job, the agency is the one who hires. Haliburton does much more than simply hire people to work in Iraq. None perhaps save Haliburton actually lobbied for the war unless you have proof of otherwise. It was American hysteria after 9/11 which granted this war. If you want to call contractors and their firms parasites that's ok but you cannot call them orchestrators of the war itself. Armed conflict has always lined pockets, this we know.

You ask: I can't understand why you need to defend something as practical that is part of an immoral enterprise and is immoral in itself. But I think we will go in circles from here so we can just spend a moment enjoying our common ground...


I'm not defending as much as speaking the obvious, its practical for the U.S government to set these terms with these agencies as they need them. To say the whole thing is immoral is a given but it doesnt do much to change nor alter the players nor the situation.