Cramer has an observation.
The U.S. Constitution grants Congress authority to grant letters of marque and reprisal--which is way more open-ended and Wild West than what is being alleged in this New York Times article. Please, explain to me what the problem is, besides the ever-present conspiracy theory by which Blackwater really pulls all the strings, starts wars, etc. to get rich.
That's about this:
Private security guards from Blackwater Worldwide participated in some of the C.I.A.’s most sensitive activities — clandestine raids with agency officers against people suspected of being insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan and the transporting of detainees, according to former company employees and intelligence officials. --NYT
Horrors! Mon Dieu!! Sacre Bleu!!!!! US citizens acting in the national interest!!
Looks good to me.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"Please, explain to me what the problem is, besides the ever-present conspiracy theory by which Blackwater really pulls all the strings, starts wars, etc. to get rich."
OK!
bobrowen.com/nymas/blackwater%20kimball.html
Key Passage--This approach would also raise troubling questions about the professional military ethos of the Armed Forces – if contractors are performing exactly the same tasks as US forces, and are equally subject to the strictures of the UCMJ, then what, exactly, is the difference between them? In addition to raising questions about the traditional identity of servicemembers, this erasing of distinctions would also raise the practical question of why military members get benefits such as free medical care, education, and housing benefits, while contractors get simple (albeit much higher) salaries.
Dad29, for a man who claims that Democrats waste taxpayer's money, one would think you wouldn't be taken in by the financial schemes of Blackwater, excuse me, now Xe!
Are you kidding me? The employment of CIVILIANS in
clandestine military operations normally reserved for SPECIAL FORCES and the CIA? Where is the accountability when these mercenaries make "mistakes"?Military tribunal? Criminal trial? Congressional oversight?
While I have reservations when private firms are employed in security operations in "hotspots", I understand they do provide services (e.g. protecting diplomats, guarding shipments) which free our men and women in uniform to address pressing issues. And, of course, there are a number of hardworking private security employees who do yeoman's work in Iraq/Afghanistan.
However, there are major concerns abound good ol' Blackwater and their cronies:
1) No bid contracts from the federal government under Bush/Cheney and (gasp) Clinton.
2) Billions of dollars which are unaccounted for, i.e. major fraud involved.
3) The Iraqi government (last time I checked it's their country!) denounced their presence and made
numerous attempts to remove that company for ignoring Iraqi law, shooting/killing civilians, etc., which culminated in the revokation of the license this past January.
4) Hinderance and/or refusal to assist in military and/or Congressional investigations by Blackwater of crimes committed by their employees while in Iraq/Afghanistan.
“Civilian companies will protect America. Trust us," says the military. Even if our Constitution is circumvented, international law is ignored, and the Ten Commandments are violated?
if contractors are performing exactly the same tasks as US forces
Are you claiming that BW people did "exactly the same....as [military]"?
Even if you are, the "benefits" question is irrelevant. BW employees may quit at any time. They could even form a Union...
As to "no bid," the question is this: Was any OTHER firm prepared AND able to render the services required?
I don't discount the possibility of fraud, and welcome investigation (and if appropriate, trial, convictions, and prison.)
As to the Iraqis' objections: I don't care. The US does what it deems necessary for its own interests, NOT those of Iraq.
I think Iraq still owes the US several billion, by the way...
"Are you claiming that BW people did "exactly the same....as [military]"?
No, not claiming. It's happening! Wake up! There is an "end-around" to the Constitution (denoted below by **), which endangers our military personnel and jeopardizes its ability to conduct an effective war against terrorism militarily, politically, and financially.
www.thenation.com/doc/20091207/scahill
Key Passage--One of the concerns raised by the military intelligence source is that some Blackwater personnel are being given rolling security clearances above their approved clearances. Using Alternative Compartmentalized Control Measures (ACCMs), he said, the Blackwater personnel are granted clearance to a Special Access Program, the bureaucratic term used to describe highly classified "black" operations. "With an ACCM, the security manager can grant access to you to be exposed to and operate within compartmentalized programs far above 'secret'--even though you have no business doing so," said the source.
(**)It allows Blackwater personnel that "do not have the requisite security clearance or do not hold a security clearance whatsoever to participate in classified operations by virtue of trust," he added. "Think of it as an ultra-exclusive level above top secret. That's exactly what it is: a circle of love." Blackwater, therefore, has access to "all source" reports that are culled in part from JSOC units in the field. "That's how a lot of things over the years have been conducted with contractors," said the source. "We have contractors that regularly see things that top policy-makers don't unless they ask."(**)
"As to "no bid," the question is this: Was any OTHER firm prepared AND able to render the services required?"
That information, from what I gather, is classified.
Regardless, in this specific case, the free market works best if competition is involved to provide services at a lower cost to the taxpayers whenever possible. Blackwater, Haliburton, etc. receiving billions of dollars of funds with little or no oversight through nepotism, and you "welcome" investigation. We'll see if you "flip-flop".
"As to the Iraqis' objections: I don't care. The US does what it deems necessary for its own interests, NOT those of Iraq."
Spoken like a true imperialist! If more Americans embrace that self-righteous attitude, good luck maintaining the support of the people in Iraq and Afghanistan, who are CRITICAL to ensuring the safety of our troops. "To save the village, we had to kill it" surely worked well in Vietnam.
1) 'The MI source' uses rhetoric which tends to diminish absolute credibility. Comes across like a turf-war kinda thing.
2) There IS a Commander-in-Chief who DID authorize this (directly or not.) Currently, that CIC is Obama, advised by his generals.
3) I won't "flip" on investigations of BW and/or Halli. Meantime, when fighting a hot war, the Administration(s) did what they had to do. You would prefer....what, exactly? Having the Army hang around and wait for bid-assembly?
4) If you actually peruse this blog, you'll find that I am NOT a raving fan of the Iraq invasion of GWB. But it's a fait accompli. Given that, we must act in OUR interests.
Having said that, it is imperative that "our interests" align as closely as possible with the interests of the Iraqis, to prevent long-term animosity.
That doesn't mean that nobody ever makes mistakes in judgment of what is "alignment."
But neither you nor I are on the ground in Iraq. There are at least 3 competing parties over there--Sunni, Shi'a, and Saddamites.
Do you KNOW with moral certainty which of them wears the White Hats?
I didn't think so.
1) 'The MI source' uses rhetoric which tends to diminish absolute credibility. Comes across like a turf-war kinda thing.
Don't try to use diversionary tactics. The source is an expert in that field and brings to the forefront relevant questions and convincing points worthy of discussion. One could argue that the sites you provide "uses rhetoric which tends to diminish absolute credibility". Look at the merits of his points!
2) There IS a Commander-in-Chief who DID authorize this (directly or not.) Currently, that CIC is Obama, advised by his generals.
Bush was responsible for that plan. Is Obama in the loop or on board? I have no clue, the jury is still out. Secret missions ought to be the responsibility of AUTHORIZED personnel involved DIRECTLY in the military.
3) But neither you nor I are on the ground in Iraq. There are at least 3 competing parties over there--Sunni, Shi'a, and Saddamites.
Irrelevant! Stay on the topic.
4) Do you KNOW with moral certainty which of them wears the White Hats?
Do YOU know with constitutional and moral certainty using civilians to participate in clandestine military operations serves the best interests of the United States? I didn't think so.
Not so much, Anony. The US has at times used mercenaries to conduct covert ops for at least as long as the CIA has been around. Same for the security clearance issue; they get access to relevant info on a mission-by-mission basis, not a carte blanche to see anything they want. Also, they are not doing the same things the regular US military does. Yes, sometimes the CIA uses US SOF to conduct these kinds of missions, and the CIA also has its own spec ops teams (technically civilians, by the way -- just because one is a civilian doesn't mean one doesn't have the training and skills of SOF) and, again, sometimes they use mercenaries.
In case no one has noticed, SOF are in high demand. We haven't had enough of them for about 8 years now just to carry out normal military operations, so the CIA hiring similarly trained and qualified mercenaries is a good alternative. Quite a few BW employees are ex-SOF, so they fit the bill.
There are rightfully some questions about this. However, the partisan nature of this questioning, particularly the number of people trying to nail GWB or Cheney with this when it's been something the US has done at least since Vietnam, should make one wonder why those questions are being asked. Is it really out of genuine concern (and if so, why now and not under Clinton or GHWB or Reagan or Carter or Ford or Nixon or ...), or is it out of partisan rancor? Most of what I've seen seems pretty partisan. And of course Obama is now in the loop. He has to authorize this stuff.
Finally, I don't see any constitutional issues here. If you do, please point out the specific clause you think this is problematic for.
The US has at times used mercenaries to conduct covert ops for at least as long as the CIA has been around.
Correct, sir, but that practice circumvents Congressional oversight into the use of civilians domestically or internationally, regardless of the president, especially Obama.
Plausible deniability = CIA uses civilians for spying. Civilians get caught. CIA denies their existence. What a racket!
Finally, I don't see any constitutional issues here.
Specifically, refer to the War Powers Act. Furthermore, security contractors may upset delicate diplomatic and military relationships by blurring the line between soldier and civilian contractor. A can of worms!
Post a Comment