« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Today's Must Read
Some farces, it turns out, can be avoided. The FBI team traveling to Iraq at the behest of the State Department to assist in the investigation of Blackwater's September 16 shooting at Nisour Square was supposed to be guarded by... Blackwater. (Shades of Darrell Issa's threat hover over that one.) However, the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security realized yesterday that the ensuing conflict of interest would be just too egregious.
Under Blackwater's State Department contract, the company provides security for all official travel outside the U.S.-protected Green Zone. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said that security for the team would be handled by the department's Diplomatic Security Service.
Of course, the DSS needed a bit of prompting, which is perhaps to be expected after chief Richard Griffin's vigorous defense of Blackwater on Tuesday. In a letter, Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) urged (pdf) Condoleezza Rice to step back from the precipice of absurdity.
But other absurdities linger.
Today the House is expected to vote on a bill pushed by Rep. David Price (D-NC) that would, among other things, bring State Department security contractors -- Blackwater, Triple Canopy and DynCorp -- under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, thereby clarifying that they would be subject to U.S. criminal penalties for wrongdoing (according to U.S. law) committed overseas. The bill has the support of the private-security industry and is less strict than rival legislation supported by Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL). (Price represents Blackwater's home state of North Carolina.)
But that's not stopping the White House from opposing Price's bill.
In a statement this morning, the Bush administration said it has "grave concerns" about the bill but supports accountability and would be willing to work with Congress to change the legislation.Among its concerns, the White House calls the bill "vague" about who would be subject to U.S. law, resulting in "extreme litigation."
It says the bill's outcome could threaten ongoing national security activities abroad.
It also says forcing the FBI to operate overseas infringes on the powers of the executive branch. And it says the bill would burden the Department of Defense, forcing that agency to help the FBI even as it conducts a war.
You would think that the private-security lobby would be the ones most concerned about "extreme litigation," but apparently the White House knows better.
Comments (25)
modmom wrote on October 4, 2007 9:36 AM:Why is the private security lobby supporting Price's bill? Is it that they would be subject to US criminal law for wrong doings overseas AS OPPOSED to facing criminal action in the country where the criminal act takes place? Are they worried about possible war crimes charges?
If anyone has information on this it would be appreciated.
alex wrote on October 4, 2007 9:41 AM:so the white house complains that the law is "vague"? How long has this war been going on? Get on it then.
billjpa wrote on October 4, 2007 9:52 AM:Dyncorp.Check them out. Please. They are probably a worse example of the insanity of private armies. They appear to be everywhere.
Gaines wrote on October 4, 2007 10:00 AM:Let's not get ourselves overly excited looking for nefarious motives. I am fairly liberal and have opposed the war from the start and I don't think we should be relying on private firms for what are often clearly combat roles. I want Blackwater employees who commit crimes to be brought to justice. That said, the accused deserve a fair trial. I have zero faith in the ability of the Iraq court "system" to give them that. It is just as chatotic as the rest of the place. Let's not go worrying about war crimes (since none have really been alleged as of yet) when there are so many garden variety crimes (like murder) that we can go after. Regular crimes are so much easier to prove than war crimes anyway. It is downright foolish to start huffing and puffing about war crimes when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be gathered first.
Gaines wrote on October 4, 2007 10:03 AM:Let's not get ourselves overly excited looking for nefarious motives. I am fairly liberal and have opposed the war from the start and I don't think we should be relying on private firms for what are often clearly combat roles. I want Blackwater employees who commit crimes to be brought to justice. That said, the accused deserve a fair trial. I have zero faith in the ability of the Iraq court "system" to give them that. It is just as chatotic as the rest of the place. Let's not go worrying about war crimes (since none have really been alleged as of yet) when there are so many garden variety crimes (like murder) that we can go after. Regular crimes are so much easier to prove than war crimes anyway. It is downright foolish to start huffing and puffing about war crimes when there is so much low-hanging fruit to be gathered first.
TheraP wrote on October 4, 2007 10:10 AM:Why would the bush cabal block oversight of mercenaries?
Two words: *martial law*
Steve wrote on October 4, 2007 10:25 AM:Gaines, under your rationale shouldn't all companies working overseas only be subject to U.S. law or do we pick the countries whose laws we like or dislike and decide whether or not to have US law apply. Blackwater and other contractors decided to seek lucrative contracts in Iraq. They and their employess should be subject to Iraq law or we should have the administration stop trying to argue Iraq's a sovereign nation. I didn't see a lot of people object to the Sadam trial or its aftermath and trying to argue there is a distinction when Sadam was in US custody isn't really legally justifiable only expedient.
dkm wrote on October 4, 2007 10:33 AM:Awhile back there was an article in the Nation about the mercenary industry, by Jeremy Scahill if I'm not mistaken, in which he analyzed the failings of Price's bill. The following issue there was a letter from one of the mercenary company presidents (I forget whom, but probably from Prince) and also from Price objecting to Scahill's criticisms. I thought that Mr. Scahill then gave a fairly good explanation of why the mercenary industry loved Price's bill and why it was counterproductive for its purpose although definitely well intended.
Patrick wrote on October 4, 2007 10:38 AM:Wait until all the private contractors are patroling our US streets in the name of our "Lord".
Anonymous wrote on October 4, 2007 10:39 AM:Bush and Republican enablers care more about protecting their expensive laborers/mercenaries in Iraq than their cheap laborers/American soldiers there. In contrast, the vast majority of Americans care more about those whose labors are a personal sacrifice for our coutnry instead of a personal finincial gain. But not Bush. Not the most incompetent, dishonest and immoral conglomeration of defective genetic material to ever get elected president. His despicable values, irresponsible priorities and incorrigible distain and malice for the American principles our consitutional freedoms are based on require his Impeachment. Americans must reject him in order to reject what he has done. Not Impeaching Bush is a tacit validation of his illegal, incompetent, destructive and wholey immoral motives, tactics and perversions of our goverenmental and justice systems. IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY TO SAVE THE SOUL OF AMERICA!
Mary wrote on October 4, 2007 10:54 AM:Murder of civilians is a war crime.
?
The "war crimes" issue depends on whether or not you are treating them like military and applying the laws of war (UCMJ, Geneva Conventions [please don't laugh, some people spent a lot of time on them and vested them with a lot of history before the Bush administration spit all over them], etc.)
If you don't treat them as being under military law, then you are talking about civil law crime. But keep in mind that Sen Graham, who was so clever at endorsing torture and torture amnesty under the rubric of an "anti-torture act" already pushed through legislation in January to put these guys under UCMJ. That legislation has questionable legal underpinnings, but they aren't going to be able to have it both ways. And I'm guessing that Bush - who has compliant Generals like Mattis who will hand out commuted sentences like candy - - and who has now pushed the military to a point where a military jury will find that there was conspiracy to murder a civilian and murder of a civilian, but then not include any jail time in the sentences bc they are ok these days with killing civilians --- Bush is going to prefer a UCMJ approach bc it gives him more power, less recourse against his pals employees, more coverage in countries were we do have real SOFAs to claim they are like military and smuggle them out of country when they commit crimes, etc.
mkolb wrote on October 4, 2007 11:00 AM:Here is the link for the Scahill article mentioned above:
DonQ wrote on October 4, 2007 11:16 AM:http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070402/scahill
If the new law makes private contractors liable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, it will have the unfortunate side effect of making it harder to argue that the contractors were subject to any legal authority for acts they've already committed. Just a thought.
theswan wrote on October 4, 2007 11:50 AM:So, the objection on who governs law. Maybe the administration could craft a secret intrepretation so as not to object to this legislation. Or a signing statement.
Nick Howard wrote on October 4, 2007 1:23 PM:Or might they just consider taking Blackwater's contract down, send them home and bring in the Marines. We know they are competant.
Uh, I have the answer to why the security companies are supporting the legislation. They are only supporting it in public; in private they know the fix is in and Bush will veto.
Ted Leavengood wrote on October 4, 2007 1:28 PM:The Washington Post's extensive coverage of the incident at the heart of this controversy provides no evidence that there was any provocation for the attack on civilians. War crimes is a legal term about which I know little, but clearly there were crimes of negligence and stupidity committed that cost innocent civilians their lives. However, it borders on racism--or its equivalent here--to say that the Iraquis are unable to try our civilian cowboys in their courts for the murder of their civilians.
Anonymous wrote on October 4, 2007 1:31 PM:Blackwater is more willing to compromise and submit to oversight than the Bush administration. Hilarious!
jim wrote on October 4, 2007 4:01 PM:Back in the '70's several of my friends worked in Saudi Arabia putting up pre-fab houseing. They couldn't drink alcahlo due to Saudi law. I guess that same rule applies here.
jim wrote on October 4, 2007 4:01 PM:Back in the '70's several of my friends worked in Saudi Arabia putting up pre-fab houseing. They couldn't drink alcahlo due to Saudi law. I guess that same rule applies here.
jim wrote on October 4, 2007 4:02 PM:Back in the '70's several of my friends worked in Saudi Arabia putting up pre-fab houseing. They couldn't drink alcahlo due to Saudi law. I guess that same rule applies here.
JEP wrote on October 4, 2007 4:18 PM:Maybe we can hire some Blackwater volunteers to "get" some of that missing info from the DOJ?
I mean, they are exempt from laws, aren't they. There would be nothing to constrain them.
Even Gonzo in his heydey couldn't touch them!
We are forgetting too many names these days, from Rove to Gonzales to Libby, seems as if the safest way out of the Bush administration is through it's back door.
Sean wrote on October 4, 2007 6:35 PM:It's odd that when our politico's venture to Iraqi streets the emphasis is always the
Sandy wrote on October 6, 2007 5:18 AM:progress and safety of whatever area they are in. Suddenly the emphasis is on the need for constant security out side the Green Zone. This type of contradiction is not new, but they figure we won't pick up on it anyway. Amazing that this can continue.
Re David Kurtz's statement that "The Israel Lobby" authors are not prejudiced: The Economist, not known as a supporter of AIPAC nor, for that matter, as a fervent supporter of Israel, in its review of "The Israel Lobby" last week, compared the book with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
Sandy wrote on October 6, 2007 5:28 AM:Re David Kurtz's statement that "The Israel Lobby" authors are not prejudiced: The Economist, not known as a supporter of AIPAC nor, for that matter, as a fervent supporter of Israel, in its review of "The Israel Lobby" last week, compared the book with "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".
StephenK wrote on October 6, 2007 10:01 PM:Blackwater Team is a real group of licensed to kill paid by American tax dollars even FBI would be backed off. They are the protectors and murderers, criminals and judges, law and lawless, and only listening to one man, Emperor bush. One among those master pieces outside of American law creates by bush administration. Americans enjoy.