Ah, but who in the Hell believes a word out of that pathologically lying psycho bitch's mouth anyway?

blackwater + silencers = assassins

silencers; so as not to disrupt another xmas party.

Not to defend Blackwater, and it really doesn't explain they felt the need to smuggle the silencers into Iraq, but silencers do have some advantages, including suppressing muzzle flash (especially useful at night when the flash can interfere with the shooter's vision), and reducing recoil, as well as reducing the need for hearing protection which can interfere with hearing other ambient sounds.

Again, I certainly am no fan of Blackwater, or any mercenaries, but that doesn't mean there are no legitimate uses for silencers, despite the unsavory image they've acquired in popular culture.

BlueInTexas,

True, I hadn't thought of that one, but somehow I doubt that Blackwater would consider that an advantage.

This is a case where legitimate anger at the ugliness of Bush and Blackwater leads to an erroneous conclusion and an overreach. As stated above, those with operational experience (Kiel has many wonderful qualities--but military expertise isn't one of them) know that silencers offer lots of field benefits that one might not glean from, say, watching THE PROFESSIONAL a couple of times.

Yes investigations under way

I still consume volumes of OSI and came across this: from "Justin Raimondo"

The serial numbers of arms captured from PKK fighters have been traced back to U.S. shipments to Iraqi military and police units. Responding to Turkish complaints, the Americans claim these arms were diverted by the Iraqis – presumably the Kurdish regional government – but the Turks aren't buying it: if the large quantity of U.S.-made arms (1,260 seized so far) turns out to have been directly provided to the PKK by the Americans, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul warned, U.S.-Turkish "relations would really break apart." U.S. diplomats immediately rebuffed this suggestion, and Washington dispatched the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes, to the scene, where he met with top Turkish military leaders. According to at least one report, "The meeting discussed an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Defense into reports that U.S. arms were being sold by U.S. troops in Iraq."

Another clue to what is really going on here is provided by the news that the FBI has volunteered to help the Turks find out where the PKK is getting its funding and weapons – and doesn't that strike you as odd? FBI director Robert Mueller said, "We are working with our counterparts elsewhere in Europe and in Turkey to address the PKK and work cooperatively, to find and cut off financing to terrorist groups, be it PKK, al-Qaeda," or whatever. Yet why would the FBI get involved at all, unless, of course, Americans were somehow involved? Foreign Minister Gul confirmed this to the Turkish media, stating:

"1,260 weapons captured from the PKK are American-made. We documented it to the U.S. These are of course not given directly to the PKK by the U.S. These are the ones that were given to the Iraqi army. Unfortunately some U.S. officers were corrupt. The Department of Defense informed us that a serious investigation is underway."

Is it that a few bad apples are "corrupt" – or something else?

Nearly one out of every 25 weapons provided to the Iraqis by the U.S. has disappeared. Furthermore, the system for tracing them never functioned. 370,000 light weapons have been sent to Iraq by the U.S. since 2003, yet just 3 percent had their serial numbers recorded by the U.S. Defense Department prior to being handed over. For some unfathomable reason, the general who was in charge of that particular task – by the name of Petraeus – has never been held accountable for what is one of the biggest scandals of the war.

Most of the noise a bullet makes is the crack from the sound barrier being broken, not the actual explosion. Above who said you needed special low load shells to optimize a silencer was correct.

You other folk who say they should have 'em....you're just apologists for a FUBAR Administration and their chosen oligarchs.

Let's see what you're saying after the '08 elections.

While the "silencer" discussion is important, let's not lose focus on the "smuggling" part. When would be the appropriate time for a government contractor to smuggle any form of arms into a country for a justified, viable act? I would think, if only for asset and cost management, tracking the location of restricted arms would be extremely important. Hmmm...

Oddly enough, silencers not only muffle the report of a firearm, they actually improve the accuracy of the firearm as well. So in addition to limiting the noise from one's own firearm, thereby not giving away one's position and allowing the individual to hear the report from the firearm of the attacker, modern silencers increase the effectiveness of the weapon itself. That being said, these guys are lawless mercenaries and murderers. Mob hit men use silencers too, because they attract less attention when one is trying to work.

They have no need for silencers in protecting diplomats...yet. But when the time comes for the unitary presidential directive to be put into operation the silencers will be needed to silence any opposition.
Tin Foil was right
Blackwater + silencers = assassins and assassinations for maybe whoever comes to Iraq from the senate or congress etc. Why else would they have them? They serve no other function.

I don't care if it was silencers or german sheperds. If they were smuggling... they need to be punished.

That's one of the big problems we have today... those in charge find no need for obeying the law. They have lost the accountability which goes along with a democracy, which we at one time lived under.

That's why discussing the necessity of silencers, or whether or not they are useful is unimportant.

The important question is still:

"Why is it okay for agents of our government to break the law without being punished?"

The answer of course is easy:

Because THEY are now in charge, not "We the People"

Silencers.... noise supressors.... ah what the hell, its only a tool, right? Like that Age-Old Truth, its the person, not the gun that does the killing... right? A silencer isn't a bad thing in and of itself?

Bullshit. Just like torture is well, most folks would say sort of OK as long as it WORKS, right? And if it doesn't WORK, then THATS the reason it isn't OK, right?

Bullshit.

Silencers are intended to allow drooling nutcases you wouldn't want living within a thousand miles of your house to kill without making a lot of racket. They oughta be banned from the battlefield if they aren't already. As if I care whether Blackwater thugs go home with their precious hearing impaired...

And as for torture, a silencer might even come in handy down there in that pit of hell, huh?

Isn't anybody ever gonna stand up and just say "It ain't RIGHT, goddammit" Torture just isn't right and I don't care if it works or not! Silenced weapons on a battlefield ain't right and I don't give a crap if it makes the soldiers job safer, better, more efficient or lets him listen to Metallica after work or not.

Jesus Christ, what a bunch of immoral, equivocating, hairsplitting nutcases living in the USA nowadays where "if it works" or "intended use" is the highest standard.

TDE

I agree, proabably #5, because they can. This is a diversion.
The smuggling on the other hand...

Wow, it took nearly 4 hours before someone saw the meat on this bone.

Bravo johnnydoughey, you're correct. The debate over the use of silencers is academic.

Did someone commit a criminal act in 'smuggling' them and if so, are they being brought to justice?

If all of us agreed on the function of silencers, would the legal question be answered?

Don't get distracted folks, the people breaking the law IN YOUR NAME are counting on that.

Greg-

We do give (supressors) to our soldiers. Take a look at http://www.smithenterprise.com/ to see a military contractor that supplies them, with photos of our enlisted soldiers using them to great effect. Not all soldiers are issued them, largely because of other limitations (weight, durability in a sustained firefight, etc). Supressors are very effective at doing exactly what I said. Interestingly, every comment on this post that supports the notion that there is something wrong with Blackwater's use of suppressors belies its ignorance of the issue with some Hollywood stereotype or another.

I'm NOT defending Blackwater against the accusation that they may have violated in bringing them to Iraq - ownership and export of these devices in the US is strictly regulated (though private ownership is legal in most US states). I'm just pointing out that anyone who believes that a "silencer" is a mobster tool for silently killing has seen too many movies. What you think you know about these devices is NOT REALITY. Get over it. Open your mind and learn something. If you want to go after Blackwater, be my guest, there are plenty of reasons to distrust them - it's just that the uproar over their use of firearm sound suppressors is a made up issue...

I'm just pointing out that anyone who believes that a "silencer" is a mobster tool for silently killing has seen too many movies. What you think you know about these devices is NOT REALITY.

Movies and TV don't lie.

Also, I learned everything I know about women from Zack Morris.

The real question is: If there is a legitimate reason for Blackwater's mercenaries to have and use so called "silencers" in Iraq, WHY is it necessary for them to be smuggling them into the country? If they have a legitimate use, why are they not bringing them in leagally? Why the subterfuge? Why risk the possibility of suspicion when some diplomat turns up dead? Why risk the possibility of suspicion when some Iraqi politician turns up dead? Why risk the possibility of suspicion when one of the anti American mullahs turns up dead? Why risk the possibility of suspicion when some journalist with an unpopular to the administration bias turns up dead? Is this just a manifestation of the sort of mentality which demands secrecy even where openness would be more reasonable and effective, or is there a more sinister reason for going around regulations? Given the evidence of the past it is not unreasonable to assume the worst, and since it is unlikely that any honest answers are forthcoming assuming the worst seems less like tin foil hat conspiracy theory and more like common sense. The question of legitimate use should not even enter the equation and those who deflect from the REAL issue (the smuggling) should themselves be looked on with suspicion, especially when they actively seek to change the subject.

Frank Drew wrote on November 2, 2007 11:00 AM:
5) My guess is that Blackwater wants silencers for the same reason that all my buddies at the gun club want them: they're cool.

I think tde offers the best explanation. Guys like stuff; guys who use guns like gun stuff.

Yes, guys who like guns, like gun stuff, and that certainly would explain why individual BW employees would want to have the silencers. That 'excuse', however, does not offer anything like a cogent 'reason' for why the company BW would be breaking the law and smuggling such items to satisfy the whims of its employees who want cool gun stuff. Why would BW risk its license to operate to serve a mere whim on the part of its employees?

Todd, are you suggesting that BW itself is unaware of the law as regards exporting restricted weapons to Iraq (nad other countries)? Or are you suggesting that BW would fail to inform its employees of the law in this regard? If the first is true what does this say about State's oversight in terms of the contractors it hires? If the second is true, what does this say about the company's oversight of its employees? In either case it appears that there is a lack of oversight which crosses the border into incompetence. Are we to believe that the employees, the comany and their overseers are just stupid, or are they criminal, and where is the border where stupidity crosses over into criminality?

Just as a matter of interest, your post appears to suggest that ignorance IS an excuse, and a defense. Is this really what you mean to say?

Todd I gave that some thought but the licensing of legal ownership of a silencer is a high bar, anyone whom would own one legally would understand the restrictions of carrying that item out of country, and the permit issues involved. Which raises the second question, if the individual were legally in possesion of the silencer in the USA what specific applicable law would be used to prosecute in the particular case of Iraq???

See my post, abeit few.. but there is a very limited scenario where in a public appearance of a protected individual and in crowd management where I could see plain-clothes security utilizing the item in the crowd itself as to minimize the possibility of crowd panic.

If I were making the speech, surrounded by both Iraqi forces, and US security, and if there were an opportunity to conclusively identify a bad guy, with advanced camera technology pre-positioned, and nuetralize that threat as quietly as possible, than that is a viable means to effectively deal with an asymetric threat.

It is preferable to a large report from a firearm inciting panic in police whom have difficulty communicating and coordinating a response and creating an unwelcomed response from a crowd.

Here's the ultimate analogy -

It is illegal to export night vision devices from the US, but I GUARANTEE you that most contractors bring their own night vision devices, too. Does anyone suggest that Blackwater (and other) contractors bring Night Vision Devices with them to Iraq so they can sneak around like Hollywood assassins in the night? Any police officer or soldier can tell you that night vision gives us a MUCH bigger advantage than so called "silencers." And it very clearly a violation of federal law to bring them to Iraq. http://nightvision.com/export.html

There is no outrage over the illegal exportation of night vision devices, because Hollywood hasn't altered your perception of what night vision is used for... And, let's be serious - being liberals, we are naturally distrustful of guns (I am, but I'm also grounded in reality on the issue, and prefer to educate myself on issues I don't understand than buy into the media and Hollywood's stereotypes)...

Is it illegal to export night vision?