« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Waxman to Blackwater Head: Let's Have a Chat
In the wake of the ongoing Blackwater scandal, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wants to have a frank discussion with Erik Prince, the company's founder. His House oversight committee will hold a hearing on Blackwater on October 2. And it just won't be a party if Prince doesn't attend.
Waxman sent Prince a letter today requesting his appearance at the hearing. The little-seen Blackwater official probably won't take kindly to Waxman's intent to question "whether the specific conduct of your company has advanced or impeded U.S. efforts."
The Blackwater hearing offers Waxman the opportunity to link the issue with a different investigation his committee is undertaking. Waxman is also looking into whether the State Department's inspector general, Howard "Cookie" Krongard, obstructed an inquiry into allegations that Blackwater, on a State Department contract, was illegally smuggling weapons into Iraq. Krongard has been invited to an October 20 hearing before the committee.
Text of the letter below the fold.
Dear Mr. Prince:The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform hereby requests your testimony at a hearing on Tuesday, October 2, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building.
The hearing will focus on the mission and performance of Blackwater USA and its affiliated companies in Iraq and Afghanistan. One question that will be examined is whether the government’s heavy reliance on private security contractors is serving U.S. interests in Iraq. Another question will be whether the specific conduct of your company has advanced or impeded U.S. efforts.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee in the House of Representatives and has broad oversight jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X. Information for witnesses appearing before the Committee is contained in the enclosed Witness Information Sheet.
If you have any questions, please contact Theodore Chuang or Christopher Davis of the Committee staff at (202) 225-5420.
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Comments (27)
larryo wrote on September 20, 2007 5:11 PM:Blackwater is like James Bond 007 with a license to kill that can never be revoked.
Samsara wrote on September 20, 2007 5:44 PM:Blackwater is not the problem... its just a symptom.
Anonymous wrote on September 20, 2007 6:21 PM:Executive privilege.
BMAC wrote on September 20, 2007 6:39 PM:How can someone owned by AIPAC, like Waxman, pretend to be interested in giving justice to Arabs.
BMAC wrote on September 20, 2007 6:41 PM:How can someone owned by AIPAC, like Waxman, pretend to be interested in giving justice to Arabs.
Anon wrote on September 20, 2007 7:01 PM:Expect to see U.S. officials treading lightly on the issue of Blackwater and affiliates. Quasi-governmental forces play a key role in the struggle against murderous extremists, worldwide. Al Queda would surely benefit by the dis-banding or canceling of contracts with these elite, professionals.
joe wrote on September 20, 2007 7:11 PM:Anon- (7:01) Go fuck yourself.
gaucho_surfer wrote on September 20, 2007 7:15 PM:A hypothetical question: If BW employees are captured during battle with a foreign govt, what is there status? They are clearly not US mil. and not subject to US law. It is an interesting irony, but it seems their best designation would be: "unlawful combatants". Would that foreign govt. be able to hold them indefinitely?
LDotR wrote on September 20, 2007 8:25 PM:Quasi-governmental forces play a key role in dismantling democracy and enforcing fascism.
SeeDee wrote on September 20, 2007 9:23 PM:More legacy in advancing fascism from the Ronnie Raygun era thru' this present cabal of crooks who surround George W. Bush...
Corporate 'warlords' with their own private 'armies' are but the next logical step in the demise of the Great Republic of The United States of America.
I thought the Constitution was pretty explicit in who could raise and equip "militia" and for what purposes...and it did NOT include some mis-fit gung-ho idiot (Prince, i.e.) who happens to have been able to infect Congressmen and national leaders with the promise of yet another 'contract' bribery possibility.
As stated by another commenter (above) I have VERY little confidence in the fervor which Waxman brings to this area....he is good at letter=writing but short on actions.
Anon 701 wrote on September 20, 2007 9:42 PM:Joe's response, seems to echo the miss-placed anger and fear of the weak-minded. Sad, but understandable.
To LDotR: There may be some truth in your assertion, but the dismantling of democracy and enforcement of fascism, has mainly been the doing of tyrannical dictators, backed by conventional armies under their control, or voluntary revolutionists.
SeeDee wrote on September 20, 2007 10:07 PM:Puhleeze! Anon 701...there is no nice way to say it, BUT...you ignorance of historical facts is showing.
Your claim that the "dismantling of democracy and 'enforcement' of fascism" was the work of tyrannical dictators and 'conventional armies' is contrary to the well-known part(s) played in post-WW I Europe by 'Blackshirts' (Italy), BrownShirts Germany), and various other para-military political 'armies' in bringing Mussolini and Hitler to power.
Similar movements in France, Belgium and even the UK were defeated...remember Sir Oswald Mosely and his followers?
Anon 701 wrote on September 20, 2007 11:19 PM:To Dee: I am fully aware of the 'black and brown shirts' of Europe's fascist regimes, but they were 'not' akin to organizations like Blackwater.
SeeDee wrote on September 21, 2007 12:09 AM:Blackwater is a security firm, open to recruits across a large spectrum of the political, religious and national devide. They 'are' guns for hire, they are not an entity established for the sole purpose of eliminating a particular people, as were the 'shirts' of Europe.
The 'shirts', those who did not advance into the established armies, served as an enforcement arm for an autocratic ruler. For their service, they were granted special status and favors by the party, with little financial gain.
Blackwater pays its qualified members well for their service, regardless of their political affiliation. One does not have to swear allegence to the Republicans, Democrats, Socialists, Green Party or any other political organization in order to be a Blackwater operative.
Even if you fail to acknowledge the similarities in 'contract' security forces and politically backed armed goons of the 1920's & 1930's in Europe, Anon 701, there are very definite likenesses..namely, that the personnel of Blackwater, for instance, have been accorded POLITICAL IMMUNITY from their actions, legitimate or otherwise.
Why do you think the Iraqis are so incensed at their (B/W, et al.) modus operandi?
As for "paying their personnel well"...what a monumental joke! The 'pay'. Anon 701, comes directly from the (reputedly) $800-Millions B/W has bilked the U.S. taxpayers (including, presumably, YOU) out of via the State Department and the DOD since 2002.
None of the arguments you have presented change my mind RE the necessity (even, actually, the legitimacy) of 'private contract security firms';...repeating, such 'privatization' is really just another level of contractural b/s in government that affords additional opportunities for graft and bribery.
Teaeopy wrote on September 21, 2007 12:19 AM:Domestic deployment of Blackwater is an issue that should not be ignored; perhaps that issue will be on the back burner for a while as the events in Iraq are sorted out.
Blackwater, according to several news reports, patrolled New Orleans after Katrina struck. There will certainly be other catastrophes and crises in the USA. Will there be any transparency and any accountability if Blackwater or similar private security forces are deployed?
KingDave wrote on September 21, 2007 12:48 AM:gaucho_surfer asks:
If BW employees are captured during battle with a foreign govt, what is there status?
Civilians who are captured fighting in wartime are not covered by the Geneva Conventions. They have no more legal protection than any other spy or saboteur. The foreign govt could execute them, if it wished. During WWII, both sides often did.
Lord Zoltar wrote on September 21, 2007 3:43 AM:No doubt Cheney, along with his many hard right-wing followers, dreams of unleashing his private militias into the streets to enforce martial law/suspend elections/dissolve Congress or some other sort of evilness. But like so many of his other plans he'll certainly fuck it all up.
I agree that these private armies are a bad thing, but as far as bringing down the Republic... that'll go about as well all of their other plans.
They just don't scare me anymore.
LimaBN wrote on September 21, 2007 6:05 AM:Will they bring Blackwater ops people home in time to secure the streets of Minneapolis and St. Paul during the Republican National Convention?
We saw them locking down New Orleans after Katrina. That worked out real well...
Tom Lowe wrote on September 21, 2007 7:38 AM:Henry Waxman writes a lot of letters--all of which end up doing absolutely nothing other than getting his name into headlines. Like Arlen Specter, Waxman plays at being a good guy in US Congress while actually being 100% a traitor loyal to Israel.
Anyone with dual US-Israeli citizenship is a traitor, by default. There can be no equivocation on this matter of divided loyalties, which matter will finally come to a head within a few years.
For his support of the patently unconstitutional and highly illegal Patriot Act, Henry Waxman is a traitor, and one who should be hung until dead for treason along with every other person in Congress who voted in favor of that blatant, dastardly act of treason.
Tom Lowe wrote on September 21, 2007 7:43 AM:Anon 701 is just someone who likes criminals like Blackwater and who has absolutely no understanding whatsoever of how the world works.
Anon 701 is the type of Amercan who was depicted in Deliverance as an obese, buggering redneck fool.
American wrote on September 21, 2007 8:35 AM:Anon: GO FUCK YOURSELF
Aerows wrote on September 21, 2007 9:16 AM:The main issue with those like Blackwater is that they are allowed to respond to "imminent threats" with force. What defines an "imminent threat"? Is it an "imminent threat" when there is a crowd of people, such as the incident in Iraq, and that crowd includes children? Is it an "imminent threat" if one person objects to the viewpoint of those these private armies protect?
Is it an "imminent threat" when funding for such groups is cut off?
This crosses a terrible line. *Anytime* - *ANY* *Army* - opens fire on a crowd with children, just because they feel "threatened" by the presence of a group of unarmed people, something is seriously wrong. If they are opening fire on the unarmed and children, they are the threat.
We are spiraling towards becoming everything our country was supposed to stand against, and it is enough to make true Americans weep.
SeeDee wrote on September 21, 2007 2:08 PM:Sez Aerows:..."it is enough to make true Americans weep."...
'Weep'?? Weep, hell... Well, perhaps, but it is actually enough to make true Americans mad as hell; it is enough to make TRUE Americans get in the streets, engage in passive activities that dis-rupt the current government's infringement of traditional rights, and scream to high heaven to those dilly-dallying Democrats who enable the continued dictatorship to flourish.
And, it is time for TRUE Americans, including those with 'dual-citizenship' or ethnic, religious and/or national affinities, to be TRUE Americans.
If such actions by the True Americans do not have a speedy effect, then it is time to take the next step and follow the example of the AMERICANS of the 1776 era.
Ray wrote on September 22, 2007 2:50 AM:What this war needs is soldiers with more courage. As long as one side has overwhelming firepower, it doesn't have to be brave, and the other side is pushed into cowardly tactics. If this were eliminated, these boys could get a real war going.
As it is, in the last century it's the civilians who have to be really brave, just to keep on with their lives.
Civilian death tolls:
Anon 701 wrote on September 25, 2007 11:14 PM:WWI...........10%
WWII..........50%
Vietnam.......75%
Maybe someday civilians will get tired of this.
All you intellectually, deficient morons, who retort with mere insults, should check with your doctor...your medication may need to be adjusted.
SeeDee: If you read comprehensively, you will realize that my comments are not in defense of 'any' particular "private army"...I merely dis-agree with your brown and black shirt comparison.
jvill wrote on September 26, 2007 10:27 AM:The 'paid well' remark, was just another indication of the difference between the groups you equated to BW. BW has offered services to quell the genocide in Darfur...the 'shirts' propogated genocide in Europe. Quite a difference.
Joe: Ha! That's exactly what I was thinking.
And why does the dude keep putting in apostrophes where they don't belong?
Dis-agree?
Miss-placed?
The lad-y do-th pro-test to-o much, me-thinks.
Comedy gold, I tell ya.
Anon701 wrote on September 26, 2007 10:43 PM:To jvill:
I must have been tired...but, I 'like' a-post-ro-phes.