« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Four years into the occupation, it's time to set some ground rules. Increased oversight of Pentagon contractors in Iraq is on the way, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told the Senate Appropriations Committee yesterday.
A fact-finding team Gates sent to Iraq over the weekend found that U.S. military commanders aren't clear about what their authority is over contractors suspected of wrongdoing, a Pentagon official told The Los Angeles Times. As a result, orders issued by Gates' deputy, Gordon England, specify that military officials can "disarm, apprehend and detain DoD contractors suspected of having committed a felony offense."
Several in the private-security industry nevertheless bridled at the prospect of being on the business end of a U.S.-issued M4 rifle. Reports Sharon Behn of The Washington Times:
Gary Myers, an Austin, Texas, lawyer who has defended both contractors and U.S. military personnel — including Sgt. Evan Vela, the soldier accused in a recent sniper-baiting case — disagreed. "Attempting to impose the military justice system on civilians is foolhardy, he said. "It raises more questions than it answers, and is probably constitutionally deficient with respect to civilians."Such prosecution would subject civilians to trial before a jury of uniformed personnel, not their peers, for actions not usually considered crimes, such as disobedience of an order.
"These men and women [would] now become recognized as a stealth army, and that is an admission that this nation does not need," he said.
Gates' moves don't apply to State Department contractors like Blackwater, which is under pressure after the September 16 Nisour Square incident that left 11 Iraqi civilians dead. And the contrast between State and Defense's approach to security contractors is increasingly on display. In a statement yesterday, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte defended both Blackwater and his agency's oversight of the company, which Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) has questioned:
He said the agency provided "close in-country supervision" of the firm."I personally was grateful for the presence of my Blackwater security detail, largely comprised of ex-Special Forces and other military, when I served as ambassador to Iraq," he said.
Comments (20)
mikeconwell wrote on September 27, 2007 9:41 AM:State Dept and Negroponte in charge of reviewing the security contractors?
C'mon! Who can give an objective opinion about the guys who are keeping your ass from getting shot off. And when you're down in the floorboards of an SUV, how are you going to know if there's a coordinated attack on your column, or just a bunch of tweaked cowboys shooting everything in site.
I see the need for types like Blackwater, just not the scale of their use and their being impervious to the rule of law.
TheraP wrote on September 27, 2007 9:50 AM:Isn't it amusing that Blackwater, which is so cocky and trigger-happy needs to be defended????
I rest my case!
apeman wrote on September 27, 2007 9:56 AM:Blackwater= christian crusaders
SocraticGadfly wrote on September 27, 2007 10:05 AM:... in the minds of the iraqis
Uhhh, doesn't DOD as well as State have contracts with Blackwater? It's just blather to say DOD can't do anything about Blackwater right now, as the Graham amendment last year put it under the UCMJ.
Chasfy wrote on September 27, 2007 10:06 AM:Under whose signature and on what date was the order issued that the US military was inadequate to protect our Department of State? Someone had to sign the papers and justify the cost of using mercenaries instead of Marines. Whose name is at the bottom of the page?
Skeptic wrote on September 27, 2007 10:32 AM:I'm sure the Bush administration can be trusted when they say they intend to begin to start thinking about studying the problems with the system of "contractors" which they put in place.
JEP wrote on September 27, 2007 11:06 AM:'Attempting to impose the military justice system on civilians is foolhardy'
...watch it Mr. Lawyer, you are setting your clients up for a date in the World Court if you pursue that line of reasoning.
if you take the "civilian" route, then they can quite legally be labeled mercenaries, but if they answer to military commanders, then they might not be labeled as such.
There's no either/or loophole in this one.
This attempt to manufacture a jurisdictional catch 22 reminds me of Cheney's mysterious 4th branch tweenworld.
But in this case, they are cornered by their own framing.
Anonymous wrote on September 27, 2007 11:11 AM:I see the need for types like Blackwater..
Don't we have a branch of our own military that could do the same work, but with Constitutional constraints?
State and local militias are one thing, but a broadly dispersed, rule-free gang in black just seems a bit SS-ish to me.
WITH THAT IN MIND, isn't it curious how easily you can make a swastika out of the letter W?
JEP wrote on September 27, 2007 11:11 AM:I see the need for types like Blackwater..
Don't we have a branch of our own military that could do the same work, but with Constitutional constraints?
State and local militias are one thing, but a broadly dispersed, rule-free gang in black just seems a bit SS-ish to me.
WITH THAT IN MIND, isn't it curious how easily you can make a swastika out of the letter W?
JEP wrote on September 27, 2007 11:15 AM:"justify the cost of using mercenaries"
hell, they were looking at future no-bid profits, the costs were inconsequential by that time.
And my vote for the name at the bottom of the deal is, whether by extension or influence, DEADEYE DICK CHENEY!
Cofer Black's bubba...
Dee Illuminati wrote on September 27, 2007 11:17 AM:Well Habeas corpus fans, I think that the Washington Times got the issue correct, during war there is an ability to commandeer resources, as an example, In WWII Silk supplies in America were commandeered by the War Production Board, even during the first Gulf War, manufacturers were 'asked' with the assurance and notification that they could be demanded, to expedite tooling needed.
As the US army no longer adheres to conscription, or commandeering US labor, commandering products, or personnel, then the civilian and military division remains intact.
Putting aside the issue that no war was declared, and that a resolution of force instead was granted by congress, then there is still murky areas of 'war powers.' Was there a formal declaration of war by congress on Iraq? No folks there was not!
But smart folks are probably wondering if the blackwater folks would be 'commandered' or 'conscripted' in the event that there was an escalation in the region say with Iran?
And if that did in fact happen, then and only then, under an act of congress, under war powers act, could blackwater be subject to military jurisdiction and not first Iraqi courts.
So the Washington Times got it right, but that leads to some interesting conclusions, that no state of war exists formally in Iraq and that in the absence of US military jurisdiction that the Itaqi govenment must exercise instead.
Hmmmmmmmm....
Fancy Pants wrote on September 27, 2007 11:25 AM:State Dept Inspector General Howard Krongard is in the Post today on an unrelated, but embarrassing family matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602285.html
anonymouse wrote on September 27, 2007 12:43 PM:"JEP wrote on September 27, 2007 11:11 AM:
I see the need for types like Blackwater..
Don't we have a branch of our own military that could do the same work, but with Constitutional constraints?"
I believe there has been a misrepresentation of the facts concerning these private contractors...
When this story broke, it was mentioned that there has always been civilians contractors who have protected the civilians working for the state department and others.
In fact... the marines have always protected these folk at embassies around the world. Remember the last days of Vietnam, when the Vietnamese stormed the embassy? Also, when dignataries (at least American dignitaries) visited during combat in Vietnam, the military transported them and protected them (at least this is what I observed).
The concept of having to use private guards is basically one more instance of the folks at the top making it easier to start (and continue) wars without backlash from the public and oversight from government agencies...
mnamna wrote on September 27, 2007 1:55 PM:"...elite military units have had greater difficulty than the general services in meeting their enlisted-personnel goals."
I would say that some part of this issue has to be that the standards for recruitment have been lowered significantly, but the requirements for actually making it into the elite forces cannot be lowered if you want them to remain 'elite.'
Comparing the two statistics (overall recruitment levels and overall elite force size) may be a good measuring stick to use to see the how much of a difference the lowering of standards has had on our ability to recruit overall.
If recruitment standards had not been lowered how far would we be falling behind at this point in terms of available forces?
Terrier wrote on September 27, 2007 2:07 PM:We need to put a stop to these private armies. They are not a well regulated militia. They are vehicle for the overthrow of the government and the imposition of military rule. Can we keep this republic?
714Day wrote on September 27, 2007 2:07 PM:"These men and women [would] now become recognized as a stealth army, and that is an admission that this nation does not need," he said.
Hell no, Mr. Myers. This nation ought to keep playing "let's pretend."
steve duncan wrote on September 27, 2007 2:14 PM:There are laws against robbing banks yet people do it every day. The thirst for money is more powerful than Gates. As with the tax code whatever DoD or Congress devises to impede profiteering will be skirted or circumvented. The very people entrusted with formulating the new rules can be depended upon to slip loopholes into their work. Hell, DoD or Congress might even outsource the legislation or regulations to lobbyists for Blackwater and Halliburton and KBR. Nothing will change save for some cosmetic niceties.
Cindrella Ferret wrote on September 27, 2007 2:17 PM:I got the information below from the Marine Corps Embassy Security Group website.
https://www.msgbn.usmc.mil/?pg=company/pub/about/abtMission.htm
The Marine Security Guards primary mission is to provide internal security services at designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular facilities to prevent the compromise of classified information and equipment vital to the national security of the United States of America. The secondary mission of Marine Security Guards is to provide protection for U.S. citizens and U.S. Government property located within designated U.S. Diplomatic and Consular premises during exigent circumstances, which require immediate aid or action.
(* Mission is the general term for embassy, consulate or legation; commonly referred to as a "post".*)
MSGs focus on the interior security of a diplomatic post's building(s). In only the most extreme emergency situations are they authorized duties exterior to the building(s) or to provide special protection to the senior diplomatic officer off of the diplomatic compound. MSGs carry a certain level of diplomatic immunity in the performance of their official duties.
A few questions that comes to mind:
Does Blackwater provide security for DOS personnel anywhere else in the world?
If so, where?
If not, then why in Iraq? (OK I know the answer, but I still raise the question.)
brantl wrote on September 27, 2007 2:42 PM:"State Dept Inspector General Howard Krongard is in the Post today on an unrelated, but embarrassing family matter.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/26/AR2007092602285.html"
I just read that; man, where do the Republicans find such creeps?
Bert wrote on September 28, 2007 2:40 AM:Yeah yeah yeah yeah, will anyone get fired for any of the things we've read about Iraq? Do prison time? Fined? Anything? Not likely, I think...