"unless President Bush is prepared to say that the terms of Blackwater's contracts or its operational doctrine is covered under executive privilege."

Maybe they are really in Cheney's 4th branch of government...

Isn't the Congress part of the U.S. Government? The contract specifies that documents, etc. are for the "sole use of and become the exclusive property of the U.S. Government." Nothing about the State Department exclusively.

There is that part about "prior written authorization of the Contracting Officer," but since the information is for a legal investigation into Blackwater's activities, I can't really see how a Contracting Officer trumps Congress.

Has anyone else noticed the whiff of desperation in Executive Branch correspondence in the last couple of months? Desperate people give off a unique scent, and it's smelling pretty bad over in Administration offices.

Here's a simple solution: cut off funding for Blackwater until State or the company comes up with the documents.

Is Moneypenny another Lawyer from Pat Robertson's faux law school of Christian home-schoolers?

A congress with some balls would not let this bull stop them. We'll see.

Moneypenny??? Moneypenny? You gotta be kidding me right. It's like an awful movie... Oh wait. No. It is for real.

The cited reference says that Blackwater employees can't talk to any person about things "that are not public." Well the nine deaths are public knowledge. There is video of the attack.

More Contempt of Congress

Kiazan Moneypenny, James Bond's love child, agent 999, license to obstruct justice.

With over 100,000 non-military contractors in Iraq, many doing quasi-military activities, it seems we leave ourselves open to the charge of employing our own militias. Our militias don't sound a whole lot different than insurgent militias.

Why not subpoena the records from both Blackwater and the State Dept.? One or both of those organizations is legally entitled to control the documents (depending on how one reads the contract), so this way all bases would be covered. The worse that could happen is another assertion of executive privilege, which at this point only makes POTUS look like a criminal...

If the State Department doesn't reverse course on this pronto, this could be HUGE. It's obstruction of justice at its most basic. I can't see that the State Department would have a leg to stand on.

Maybe Spencer, et. al. could answer this broader question: When a president leaves office and takes "his" papers with him, does he have to leave copies available to the subsequent administration? If not, how broadly can Bush claim what are "his" papers? Remember that Cheney claimed the Secret Service logs were presidential papers protected under executive privelege. Bush could take the whole ball of wax with him and never face accountability depending on how these questions are answered.

It seems that the joint US-Iraqi investigation in Blackwater's activities is meant to obstruct justice not to clear up anything.

The Bush regime is a bunch of criminals who need to be brought to justice.

While the outrage is good, this clause is actually pretty standard fare. All of the contracts I work on have this built in as boilerplate. It's for the protection of the client as well as the contractor, in order to protect privacy, propriety, and maintain government ownership of all intellectual property and developed product (read as contractor can't market something owned by the government).

It rarely gets the attention of this activity and almost never for the reasons described. Immediately upon delivery, all product and services become sole property of the government, so asking Blackwater about a provided service is actually inappropriate. It is like it no longer exists under their control. They are not privy to delivery rights. That lies with the very Contracts Officer telling them to keep quiet. The company actually has the perfect denial, since the material belongs to the requestor's own government.
However... someone may want to request the contracted Statement of Work from the CO, which should be FOIA material. Also, any sole source justification leading to vendor selection is also open to FOIA. Both should be very enlightening based on the subject matter, and spell out explicitly the terms and conditions of contracted behavior under a services-based contract.

Yeah, GovContractor, but:

1) Congress is part of the Government, and should be covered under the contract, and

2) The Secretary of State can still commit obstruction of justice by ordering the Contractor to remain silent in accordance with its contract.

Miss Moneypenny! Is Bond at risk?

Allsburg has it right, Po does not. It's fully within the purview of the government where the documents reside and are provided. It's out of Blackwater's hands once acceptance has been given. Under the terms of most services contracts, that usually means paying the invoice. So as not to bifurcate ownership or responsility, State owns the contract, State "owns" the product purchased, including services. Going to the SECSTATE for answers is exactly who is the ultimate owner, though the CO is the logical owner of activity by warrant. Again, FOIA the Dept. of State's Statement of Work and Sole Source Justifications.

Specifically, Blackwater is not in breach for not providing data outside CO approval. It's just the opposite. Blackwater would be in breach to provide, or even comment on, a contract without expressed permission of the government contracts officer. It's up to the CO to provide the data requested. If the CO deems it, they can even request further data that Blackwater still owns, but that opens negotiation points that most don't want to wade into.

"State" is not looking for a remedy. Just the opposite. Congress wants it and needs to go to State to get it, not Blackwater.

There's lots of reasons to go after Blackwater, this just isn't one of them.

That's good news, though limited.

The letter also cites that all documents shall be reviewed by the Contract Officer's office prior to release; State still has final say on what goes out and where it goes.

Not a change at all, really, just a clarification for the public eye.

The letter, obviously, is either an attempt to keep the serial leakers from discolosing sensitive information regarding the protection methods employed by Blackwater, or it is an attempt to keep this uber-partisan committee from politicizing the incident to further embarrass the Bush Administration. There is no other reason for Waxman's Committee to investigate this. Personally, I would rather have ANY Blackwater BG protecting me, than depend on any Democrat-controlled house or senate panel to do the same. I will always question ANY partisan intent!

This is becoming beyond sublime, the vote in November is going to be historic, by this time they will be drumming for war with Iran, but after the nominations this could go south.

then I am predicting some kind of resistence to change of government. Remember the GOP tried to overturn the Filibuster when it served them, they will try to forestall the change in government.

What will be needed is a full four year investigation of the last eight. Take no prisoners, treason will even be brought forward.

It would appear that the United States is being occupied by a strange if not foreign power.

edit: sorry, No reasonable person could look at the ROE, specifically the one about staying 500 feet from the vehicle or they'll shoot, and possibly say that by design it doesn't antagonize.

This has the feel of a shot over the bow. Ms. Moneypenny's superiors will say the letter doesn't mention Congress, it just re-iterates a security clause.
What? Us intimidate? We're pussycats.

sorry, govcontractor, but you're assuming the information sought by Congress was a deliverable. My bet is that nothing, but providing security, is a deliverable and perhaps some really, really vague daily / weekly / monthly / quarterly / yearly reports. I mean, with this scope of services, who really wants pesky records that need to be retained coming to the Department of State.

Also, while the CO apparently has the ability to tell Blackwater employees to say no to any request for questioning, I am correct that the government's potential remedies for a breach of this provision are extremly limited and appear to be: (i) terminate the contract for breach (unlikely); (ii) find them in default and request a cure (if allowed under the K and equally unlikely); (iii) suspend or debar Blackwater (highly unlikely) or (iv) sue them for breach (again highly unlikely).

this is not really acontractual dispute. it is a dispute, once again, between he executive and legislative braches, over access to documents and oversight. Once again, the executive seeks to prevent an investigation into what happened so that there might be (although in this climate and with this Democratic leadership I doubt it) some "accountability" that so many people seem to want but none of us seem to get.

Check this out! Bush pardons self:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE

Pass the word! They are doing it this week.

Kiazan Moneypenny? ...sounds like an alias assigned by some ditzy flunk-out from psy-ops for this "grocery clerk" delivery.
You have to wonder about a nation whose diplomats (I use that term figuratively) can't trust regular soldiers to guard them. You also have to wonder about the money motive as a patriotic call to arms. When a soldier is thinking about all that money he'll be getting for the "job", might it not change the amount of risk he'd be willing to take to do it? Thinking about all the fun he's going to have with all that money... pennies and pennies of it!