How Many Conspiracy Theorists Are Following Blackwater's Trouble?

[GreNME]

AP: State Dept. May Phase Out Blackwater USA (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4OiK8Bkks3epqQ-eXeiSGX6cu7gD8S6KVE80)
WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department may phase out or limit the use of private security guards in Iraq, which could mean canceling Blackwater USA's contract or awarding it to another company in line with an Iraqi government demand, The Associated Press has learned.

Now, I recall that Blackwater was one of the circumstantial evidences that the evil government forces are preparing a private army for use first in wars abroad, and then, well, who knows what? I recall several conversations with people concerning their conspiracy theories and how the government is letting the company run roughshod over the Iraqi population and the US government refuses to do anything about it (some even suggest they encourage it). After the recent cockstrong killings by Blackwater employees of some Iraqis, it looks like the Iraqi government has had it with them and the US government is deciding whether to drop them like a bad habit.

What happened to our government forces hiding or ignoring the bad behavior of Blackwater? Wasn't the MSM in on all the cover-up and lies?

Now, I'm sure the loudest of the bloviators will claim this is a victory for their crusade, but is this really a victory they can claim? After all, the same people are still in power, and it doesn't look like anyone is being held "accountable" except for maybe the 8-million-a-piece fine the company may have to pay to the families of the victims.

If this signifies anything, it is that the change of demographics nearly a year ago in Washington is starting to show effects. If nothing else, it's showing how "checks and balances" are supposed to work in our system. It shows how having more than one party at the helm of our government is better for the country than a single party control. Still, I have a feeling that certain individuals (AJ) are going to pretend they had something to do with it.

That's okay by me, though. They can have it. I found the referendum calling for the president to call the mass killings of Armenians in Turkey a century ago what it has been all along-- genocide-- to be of a more significant and meaningful thing to happen today. :)

[T.A.M.]

your reasoning is sound, and I often use it in the form of...

"If the Neocons are this super evil, power hungry, power crazed cabal, then why....

...is Rumsfeld gone?
...is Gonzalez gone?
...is Tenent gone?
...Were there no WMDs planted in Iraq?
...Were the hijackers from Saudi Arabia, and not Iraq or Afghanistan.

TAM:)

[GreNME]

Those are fine questions. Since I know we have some people who are well-versed in conspiracy apologetics and a few people who still support such theories, I figure it would be a good time to bring this up. After all, we're seeing something take place now, so can all these people who are apparently capable of putting together seemingly incongruous facts into a theory explain this?

[gumboot]

The Blackwater scandal is all a farce, intended to lull Bush-lovers into a false sense of security that "the system" is fair and right.

See, it's easy when you go Truther... ;)

-Gumboot

[Gravy]

Those are fine questions. Since I know we have some people who are well-versed in conspiracy apologetics and a few people who still support such theories, I figure it would be a good time to bring this up. After all, we're seeing something take place now, so can all these people who are apparently capable of putting together seemingly incongruous facts into a theory explain this?Allow me to try: the evil NWO conspirators are laying low and allowing some losses because of the heat put on them by the Truth Movement.

[MolBasser]

Blackwater may be in a TAD bit of trouble, but the Bush gubmint is still covering up for them in a major way.

I doubt that this will have any effect on their opinion of blackwater.

That company should be abolished by the way, and if I was Iraq, I'd kick them out too....

MolBasser

[The Doc]

That company should be abolished by the way, and if I was Iraq, I'd kick them out too....


For one isolated incident? Despite the amazing job they've done at protecting both foreign and Iraqi dignitaries and VIPs?

[GreNME]

Allow me to try: the evil NWO conspirators are laying low and allowing some losses because of the heat put on them by the Truth Movement.

Yeah, but you don't actually believe that. I'm curious as to who is talking about it in the CT circles. I haven't heard much, though my CT-filter may be set too high since I don't pay nearly as much attention as others here do to what "people" are saying.

For one isolated incident? Despite the amazing job they've done at protecting both foreign and Iraqi dignitaries and VIPs?

Are you joking? Blackwater USA has been embroiled in lawsuits and allegations of misconduct for quite some time now (despite CT groups claiming no one is doing anything). This was more the straw that broke the camel's back than an isolated incident.

[Boone 870]

[CTmode] The whole event was staged. If Blackwater is not in Iraq, they will be in America to implement the New World Order takeover. [CTmode]

[The Doc]

Are you joking? Blackwater USA has been embroiled in lawsuits and allegations of misconduct for quite some time now (despite CT groups claiming no one is doing anything). This was more the straw that broke the camel's back than an isolated incident.

It was the first incident of a degree high enough for people to call on their removal from the country. In terms of the 'gravity' of the incident, this is an isolated incident.

I don't think removing Blackwater from Iraq is a rational option. Aside from this major incident and a few other minor incidents (considering the environment they are in, they are minor), they have an exemplary record of mission success, and are doing a job that lowers the burden on the troops in Iraq.

Laws need to be changed, more regulations and rules need to be put in place, but kicking the whole organization out of Iraq after the good job they are doing isn't really the best option. Quite frankly I think it's a bit of an extreme over correction to be honest.

Anyways this is a bit of a derail...

[GreNME]

It was the first incident of a degree high enough for people to call on their removal from the country. In terms of the 'gravity' of the incident, this is an isolated incident.

I don't think removing Blackwater from Iraq is a rational option. Aside from this major incident and a few other minor incidents (considering the environment they are in, they are minor), they have an exemplary record of mission success, and are doing a job that lowers the burden on the troops in Iraq.

Laws need to be changed, more regulations and rules need to be put in place, but kicking the whole organization out of Iraq after the good job they are doing isn't really the best option. Quite frankly I think it's a bit of an extreme over correction to be honest.

Anyways this is a bit of a derail...

I think it's germane to what I was talking about. This isn't the first incident of this gravity, either. It's just the first one where consideration to the idea of removing Blackwater has occurred. The other incidents happened during the single-party majority, which is why I mentioned what I did in the first post regarding this. The way Congress as a whole mostly did nothing but a few hems and haws is exactly what had been getting the CT-ists all worked up into a frenzy and tagging Blackwater as the military arm of the NWO. This is why I'm curious as to what conspiracy theorists are saying, because the situation is obviously different now and Ron "Second Coming of Christ" Paul hasn't even "won" the election yet. So which legislators are CT-ists thinking have become sympathetic to their cause after years of being the "other side?"

I do agree that the "should they go" part isn't necessary in this conversation, though I will say I disagree completely.

[gumboot]

The debate is really over whose law Blackwater are required to follow.

It's actually laid out very clearly in the Laws of War. If Iraq is under US Occupation, the USA has a legal duty to enforce its laws and maintain order in accordance with its laws. Thus Blackwater would have to comply with US Law.

If Iraq has a recognised government, and is not being occupied, the laws of the Iraqi government are the law of the land, and Blackwater must comply with them.

Of course, it's all very straight forward and clear cut, but the USA has a track record of failing to comply with international law, in particular the laws of warfare.

-Gumboot

[GreNME]

You must not be 'Merican. ;)

[Gravy]

Yeah, but you don't actually believe that. I'm curious as to who is talking about it in the CT circles. I haven't heard much, though my CT-filter may be set too high since I don't pay nearly as much attention as others here do to what "people" are saying.I don't think we'll be hearing much about this from their side. Those pathological cherry-pickers avoid anything that's inconvenient to their theories. If they were able to think things through, there would be no truth movement, at least not one that makes such extreme claims.

[gumboot]

You must not be 'Merican. ;)


What gave it away? :p

-Gumboot

[ktesibios]

The debate is really over whose law Blackwater are required to follow.

It's actually laid out very clearly in the Laws of War. If Iraq is under US Occupation, the USA has a legal duty to enforce its laws and maintain order in accordance with its laws. Thus Blackwater would have to comply with US Law.

If Iraq has a recognised government, and is not being occupied, the laws of the Iraqi government are the law of the land, and Blackwater must comply with them.

Of course, it's all very straight forward and clear cut, but the USA has a track record of failing to comply with international law, in particular the laws of warfare.

-Gumboot

The Coalition Provisional Authority, the interrim occupation government put in place by the USA, issued a decree which exempted foreign contractors from Iraqi law. Because they are civilians, they are not subject to the military justice system, although Blackwater has claimed to be immune from civil suits because they are "an arm of the military".

In short, up until now, contractors in Iraq have essentially been subject to no law at all.

Apparently our Glorious Leaders haven't read what one of the fundamental works on statecraft had to say about mercenaries:

I say, therefore, that the arms with which a prince defends his state are either his own, or they are mercenaries, auxiliaries, or mixed. Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous; and if one holds his state based on these arms, he will stand neither firm nor safe; for they are disunited, ambitious and without discipline, unfaithful, valiant before friends, cowardly before enemies; they have neither the fear of God nor fidelity to men, and destruction is deferred only so long as the attack is; for in peace one is robbed by them, and in war by the enemy...

I wish to demonstrate further the infelicity of these arms. The mercenary captains are either capable men or they are not; if they are, you cannot trust them, because they always aspire to their own greatness, either by oppressing you, who are their master, or others contrary to your intentions; but if the captain is not skilful, you are ruined in the usual way.

We've aready seen the "isolated incident" attempt at minimization trotted out. I predict that the "a few bad apples" talking point should be turning up shortly. After all, as in cases of persistent police abuse a' la Philadelphia under Rizzo, it's so much more comforting for authoritarian followers to cling to that rather than consider that there's a structural problem that needs addressing.

As for CTs, I haven't seen any new ones on this subject, which suits me fine. I'd rather argue about it without the kiddies interfering.

[gumboot]

The Coalition Provisional Authority, the interrim occupation government put in place by the USA, issued a decree which exempted foreign contractors from Iraqi law.

The CPA no longer exists. Iraq has an internationally recognised government, and their law is the law to which anyone in Iraq must comply. The decrees of the CPA are as meaningless as the decrees of Saddam's government.



Because they are civilians, they are not subject to the military justice system, although Blackwater has claimed to be immune from civil suits because they are "an arm of the military".

Under the laws of international armed conflict anyone in the occupied territory is subject to the laws of the occupying power. This includes combatants (state military forces, irregulars, and any other type of combatant), civilians, and refugees.

Blackwater employees are civilian security contractors. If they wish to classify themselves as mercenaries they are in a spot of bother because mercenaries are illegal, thus making every single one of them a war criminal, subject to military discipline.

If they claim to be a "branch of the military" they are subject to the same laws and regulations as any other member of the United States Armed Forces.

In short, there's no loophole and no way around it. The only reason they have been subject to no law at all until now is because no one was willing to fully carry out their obligations under international law (which, in itself, is a war crime).

-Gumboot

[GreNME]

The CPA no longer exists. Iraq has an internationally recognised government, and their law is the law to which anyone in Iraq must comply. The decrees of the CPA are as meaningless as the decrees of Saddam's government.

That's not true, especially in the case of the private security groups. You see, the private security groups were mostly protecting ministers and diplomats. This includes Iraqi ones. Their immunity was grandfathered in, i believe, with the assumption that the US would take on jurisdiction soon after. Obviously, that never happened.


Under the laws of international armed conflict anyone in the occupied territory is subject to the laws of the occupying power. This includes combatants (state military forces, irregulars, and any other type of combatant), civilians, and refugees.

So what? U-S-A! U-S-A! ;)


Blackwater employees are civilian security contractors. If they wish to classify themselves as mercenaries they are in a spot of bother because mercenaries are illegal, thus making every single one of them a war criminal, subject to military discipline.

Yes, and that's one of the ongoing debates about their activities, because they have on numerous occassions responded offensively instead of defensively, and that is a big no-no


If they claim to be a "branch of the military" they are subject to the same laws and regulations as any other member of the United States Armed Forces.

Well, that's an oversimplification. They are operating under a contract by the military, and because of their close connections with the military has had them walking a fine legal line. Depending on how this turns out, it will likely influence the outcome of the ongoing lawsuits.


In short, there's no loophole and no way around it. The only reason they have been subject to no law at all until now is because no one was willing to fully carry out their obligations under international law (which, in itself, is a war crime).

I'll have you know it is a long-standing tradition in US law for criminal lawyers to haggle over legal loopholes. Plenty of people have the finest lawyers covering this matter, thankyewveddymuch.

:covereyes

[R.Mackey]

Under the laws of international armed conflict anyone in the occupied territory is subject to the laws of the occupying power. This includes combatants (state military forces, irregulars, and any other type of combatant), civilians, and refugees.

Blackwater employees are civilian security contractors. If they wish to classify themselves as mercenaries they are in a spot of bother because mercenaries are illegal, thus making every single one of them a war criminal, subject to military discipline.

In short, there's no loophole and no way around it. The only reason they have been subject to no law at all until now is because no one was willing to fully carry out their obligations under international law (which, in itself, is a war crime).

I agree with you; however, what will no doubt happen (in fact has already happened in many respects) is that the US Government will lean on the Iraqi Government to get a special exception made. It's not a war crime, just politics.

I don't support this, but it doesn't surprise me in the least.

Followups to Politics forum...

[gumboot]

That's not true, especially in the case of the private security groups. You see, the private security groups were mostly protecting ministers and diplomats. This includes Iraqi ones. Their immunity was grandfathered in, i believe, with the assumption that the US would take on jurisdiction soon after. Obviously, that never happened.


The problem is, unless the new Iraqi laws continued that immunity, it no longer has any value with the new Iraqi government. And of course, at any stage the new Iraqi government can choose to overturn any immunity they might have granted. Which is what they've done.



So what? U-S-A! U-S-A! ;)

Indeed.




Yes, and that's one of the ongoing debates about their activities, because they have on numerous occassions responded offensively instead of defensively, and that is a big no-no


Well security personnel are allowed to act preemptively to protect their charges. They're just not allowed to go around randomly killing people. Because it's illegal.



Well, that's an oversimplification. They are operating under a contract by the military, and because of their close connections with the military has had them walking a fine legal line. Depending on how this turns out, it will likely influence the outcome of the ongoing lawsuits.


It's not really an oversimplification. Contractors to the military in a combat zone are subject to military command, and military discipline. The US military just needs to put a tighter reign on its contractors.




I'll have you know it is a long-standing tradition in US law for criminal lawyers to haggle over legal loopholes. Plenty of people have the finest lawyers covering this matter, thankyewveddymuch.

:covereyes


I'm sure they do... ;)

Anyway... R.Mackey is right, this is more of a politics discussion. :)

-Gumboot

[geggy]

"I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world." -Gary Jackson, president of Blackwater, 2003

http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/human_rights/docs/atban_complaint_11_10_07.pdf

[GreNME]

"I would like to have the largest, most professional private army in the world." -Gary Jackson, president of Blackwater, 2003

http://ccr-ny.org/v2/legal/human_rights/docs/atban_complaint_11_10_07.pdf

Right, I know about that. So isn't this recent news good news?

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

The Iraqi government should throw out Blackwater, and all foreign "insurgents".

After all, these foreign "insurgents" have killed tenfold more civilians than Blackwater could imagine.

The Iraqi government should also step up to the plate and do a better job getting their act together so we can leave.

My gripe with Blackwater is that our troops are paid pennies compared to the private security.

I'd rather money be spent on our own troop's salaries.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

Right, I know about that. So isn't this recent news good news?

Depends on your definition of "Most Professional"

[GreNME]

Depends on your definition of "Most Professional"

No, it depends on geggy's definition, which is part of what I'm planning on asking. One-liners are easy. Expanding that into a cogent idea is another.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

One-liners are easy. Expanding that into a cogent idea is another.

Fine. I'll stop responding to any of your posts.

[MolBasser]

For one isolated incident? Despite the amazing job they've done at protecting both foreign and Iraqi dignitaries and VIPs?

Your joking right?

MolBasser

[Slayhamlet]

The Iraqi government should throw out Blackwater, and all foreign "insurgents".

After all, these foreign "insurgents" have killed tenfold more civilians than Blackwater could imagine.

The Iraqi government should also step up to the plate and do a better job getting their act together so we can leave.

My gripe with Blackwater is that our troops are paid pennies compared to the private security.

I'd rather money be spent on our own troop's salaries.

It's a bit more difficult to throw out foreign insurgents, don't you think? How would the Iraqi government go about doing that?

[dudalb]

BlackWater is a good example of why police work is one thing that should NOT be "privitized".
But I do find in interesting that those denouncing Blackwater (probably rightly) are curiosly quiet about the Iraqi Insurgents who ,as someone else pointed out,killed a lot more Iraqi civilians than Blackwater could in a million years.
AH,what wonderful things are ideological blinders.

[dudalb]

It's a bit more difficult to throw out foreign insurgents, don't you think? How would the Iraqi government go about doing that?

ANd that is the crux of the problem. The Iraqi government is just plain inept.
Not that excuses the violence of the Insurgents ,who seem more interested in killing Iraqi Civilians than Iraqi or US Forces.

[leftysergeant]

For one isolated incident? Despite the amazing job they've done at protecting both foreign and Iraqi dignitaries and VIPs?

According to THEM, they are doing an amazing job. But by what methods? The Waffen SS did an amazing job of maintaining control, for a while.

Blackwater is loyal only to Blackwater and do not give a rat's what the rest of the world thinks of them. They are only in it for the money or loyalty to their own aggenda. Erik Prince is a mercenary and a Dominionist. Democracy is not one of his major concerns.

I do not want to see the use of lawless armed formations expanded. God forbid we should have another natural disaster in an area where the National Guard is deployed elsewhere. Some fool might think that these thugs are a good answer to the problem of maintaining control over looters and such.

The battle of Fallujah was entirely Blackwater's fault. They got themselves into a bind and our actual soldiers had to pick up the pieces.

Making the soldier's jobs easier? I think not. They give validity to the claims that the insurgeents make against us.

If they are not going to be subject to the law, they have no business being a part of enforcing it. I do not shed a single tear for any dead Blackwater merc.

Recent reports even suggest that they are actively recruiting in the banana republics for death squad veterans. Some of them were Pinochet loyalists. That alone, in my mind, makes them worthy of a bullet.

Blackwater is effective, but so, as I pointed out, was the Waffen SS. But they are not about spreading what America is supposed to be about.

Liquidate the company and its eqiupment. We paid for it, so we should be able to tell them come home (or go home, as the case may be) and leave that equipment for the Iraqis to form their own security forces.

And bar any of the Pinochet veterans from obtaining immigrant visas. Nobody in the world needs that sort of vermin entering their country.

[ktesibios]

BlackWater is a good example of why police work is one thing that should NOT be "privitized".
But I do find in interesting that those denouncing Blackwater (probably rightly) are curiosly quiet about the Iraqi Insurgents who ,as someone else pointed out,killed a lot more Iraqi civilians than Blackwater could in a million years.
AH,what wonderful things are ideological blinders.

Perhaps what is done with, at the very least, the connivance of my government and paid for with my taxes has a bit more moral urgency iun my eyes than the doings of a foreign government and its enemies.

Anyway, the "why don't you denounce {insert ideologically-selected bogeyman here} as I expect you to" schtik has been in the nursing home for quite some time and is getting ready for the funeral home.

I tend to agree with Gumboot's theoretical analysis of the legal situation, however, when the empirical evidence and the theoretical prediction disagree, I hold that the empirical evidence trumps the theory.

[gumboot]

I tend to agree with Gumboot's theoretical analysis of the legal situation, however, when the empirical evidence and the theoretical prediction disagree, I hold that the empirical evidence trumps the theory.


There was nothing "theoretical" about my summary of the law. The law is what it is. The problem is not that the law is only "theoretical". The problem is that no one is enforcing it.

If no one arrests you for committing murder, that doesn't change the fact that you committed murder.

The legal scenario I presented is how the situation is supposed to be. The question is whether the Iraqi and US governments spontaneously grow a pair of moral testicles and step up to the plate, or whether they just continue playing the same lawless game they have enjoyed until now.

I personally suspect the Iraqi government might be starting to grow a pair, but I can't see it happening in Washington DC. The question is have the Iraqi government got big enough gonads to say no to the Americans?

-Gumboot

[leftysergeant]

The Iraqi government is entirely our creature and they know it. Perhaps ordering Blackwater out was an attempt to legitimize themselves. I hope they take further such steps. Maybe next they will tell Bush what to do with his energy laws.

Maybe it is their way of telling the world that this is no longer a war but a resisted occupation.

This is begining to look more like the Ukraine in 1942.

[gumboot]

The Iraqi government is entirely our creature and they know it. Perhaps ordering Blackwater out was an attempt to legitimize themselves. I hope they take further such steps. Maybe next they will tell Bush what to do with his energy laws.

Maybe it is their way of telling the world that this is no longer a war but a resisted occupation.

This is begining to look more like the Ukraine in 1942.



If the Iraqi government is so opposed to coalition forces in Iraq they probably shouldn't have asked (repeatedly) the UN to mandate their operations in the country.

The US Invasion of Iraq was not UN approved, but their current presence in Iraq certainly is.

-Gumboot

[leftysergeant]

Perhaps they thought that a UN mandate would also bring with it rational rules of engagement and some sort of meaningful sovereignty for Iraq.

[gumboot]

Perhaps they thought that a UN mandate would also bring with it rational rules of engagement and some sort of meaningful sovereignty for Iraq.


And when it didn't they thought it'd be a good idea to ask to have said mandate extended, repeatedly?

Previous posters are right. The Iraqi government are inept.

-Gumboot

[MolBasser]

According to THEM, they are doing an amazing job. But by what methods? The Waffen SS did an amazing job of maintaining control, for a while.

Blackwater is loyal only to Blackwater and do not give a rat's what the rest of the world thinks of them. They are only in it for the money or loyalty to their own aggenda. Erik Prince is a mercenary and a Dominionist. Democracy is not one of his major concerns.

I do not want to see the use of lawless armed formations expanded. God forbid we should have another natural disaster in an area where the National Guard is deployed elsewhere. Some fool might think that these thugs are a good answer to the problem of maintaining control over looters and such.

The battle of Fallujah was entirely Blackwater's fault. They got themselves into a bind and our actual soldiers had to pick up the pieces.

Making the soldier's jobs easier? I think not. They give validity to the claims that the insurgeents make against us.

If they are not going to be subject to the law, they have no business being a part of enforcing it. I do not shed a single tear for any dead Blackwater merc.

Recent reports even suggest that they are actively recruiting in the banana republics for death squad veterans. Some of them were Pinochet loyalists. That alone, in my mind, makes them worthy of a bullet.

Blackwater is effective, but so, as I pointed out, was the Waffen SS. But they are not about spreading what America is supposed to be about.

Liquidate the company and its eqiupment. We paid for it, so we should be able to tell them come home (or go home, as the case may be) and leave that equipment for the Iraqis to form their own security forces.

And bar any of the Pinochet veterans from obtaining immigrant visas. Nobody in the world needs that sort of vermin entering their country.

Word.

I could not have said it better.

MolBasser