BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

Uncool Blackwater Gases U.S. Soldiers

THURSDAY JANUARY 10 2008 9:30 AM

Submitted by Zarth. Edited By Uncognitive.

TAGS: blackwater, iraq, political scandals

The incident in question occurred nearly a year-and-a-half ago, but is just now coming to light.

The helicopter was hovering over a Baghdad checkpoint into the Green Zone, one typically crowded with cars, Iraqi civilians and United States military personnel.

Suddenly, on that May day in 2005, the copter dropped CS gas, a riot-control substance the American military in Iraq can use only under the strictest conditions and with the approval of top military commanders. An armored vehicle on the ground also released the gas, temporarily blinding drivers, passers-by and at least 10 American soldiers operating the checkpoint.

�This was decidedly uncool and very, very dangerous,� Capt. Kincy Clark of the Army, the senior officer at the scene, wrote later that day. �It�s not a good thing to cause soldiers who are standing guard against car bombs, snipers and suicide bombers to cover their faces, choke, cough and otherwise degrade our awareness.�

The vehicles were part of a Blackwater convoy that apparently felt that riot gas was an appropriate way to deal with a traffic jam.

Officers and noncommissioned officers from the Third Infantry Division who were involved in the episode said there were no signs of violence at the checkpoint. Instead, they said, the Blackwater convoy appeared to be stuck in traffic and may have been trying to use the riot-control agent as a way to clear a path.

While a Blackwater spokesperson has characterized the release of the riot gas as a mere gaffe, in which CS gas canisters were mistaken for smoke canisters (which, admittedly, Blackwater uses routinely to clear traffic - a policy the US military frowns upon), it is not clear how such "mistake" might have been coordinated between both the helicopter and the armored car.

Blackwater also claims that the incident was reported to US Embassy in Baghdad, which conducted a "full investigation."

The troops exposed to the gas also said they reported it to their superiors. But military officials in Washington and Baghdad said they could not confirm that an investigation had been conducted. Officials at the State Department, which contracted with Blackwater to provide diplomatic security, also could not confirm that an investigation had taken place.

No American soldiers were hospitalized as a result of the incident, but its impact on civilians that day is unknown. CS gas is nonlethal, but neither is it particularly healthy. Moreover,

The military . . . tightly controls use of riot control agents in war zones. They are banned by an international convention on chemical weapons endorsed by the United States, although a 1975 presidential order allows their use by the United States military in war zones under limited defensive circumstances and only with the approval of the president or a senior officer designated by the president.
. . .
In 2003, President Bush approved the use of riot control agents by the military in Iraq under the 1975 order, but only for such purposes as controlling rioting prisoners.
. . .
A United States military spokesman in Baghdad refused to describe the current rules of engagement governing the use of riot control agents, but former Army lawyers say their use requires the approval of the military�s most senior commanders.

(Emphasis added)

The State Department's contract with Blackwater did not specifically mention riot gas at the time of incident, an omission which Blackwater evidently took as an "authorization" to deploy the gas at will.

The company initially got a contract to provide security for American officials in Iraq with the Coalition Provisional Authority, an agreement which did not address the use of CS gas. After the authority went out of business, the State Department extended the contract for another year until rebidding it. Blackwater and two other companies � DynCorp and Triple Canopy � that now provide security are not permitted to use CS gas under their current contracts, the State Department said.

The State Department said that its lawyers did not believe the Blackwater incident violated any treaty agreements.

But Michael Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, disagrees.

�I have never seen anything that would make it permissible to use tear gas to get traffic out of the way,� Mr. Schmitt said. �In my view, it�s an improper use of a riot control agent.�

86 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

scylis

Seattle, WA

November 2004

JAN 10, 2008 12:05 PM

Colinism said:
The truth of the matter is that if all you unpatriotic liberal assholes would just accept that islamofacists want us dead and that they are subhuman and want to kill us, then quit whining that our government is taking away our "Rights" and just join the fucking army and do something useful for a change we would not have to rely on Blackwater so much to do the things that the US army can't because it "morally wrong". I mean what good are rights when your dead due to terrorism?

goddamnit, you're late! now the dips gone bad and the cocktail shrimp are all warm and soggy. :angerous:

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 12:07 PM

Tony_T said:
. . . The whole crowd went apeshit, cheering for them. I was booing, and did I ever get the evil eye from some in the crowd.

Fuck, that's terrifying.

Jackie_Treehorn

Seattle, WA

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 12:48 PM

Tony_T said:
...I don't think most people would differentiate the Blackwater jerks from our military. That is a big problem.

That's good to know, and it's a huge problem. At least someone who has sworn service to our country has SOME kind of commitment to the country, whether they honor that or not. But for Americans to actively support mercenaries is scary.

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

JAN 10, 2008 01:44 PM

Zarth said:

Chainlink said:
Nice article.
Whats been happening between our government and contractors, particularly Blackwater has a frighteningly ominous air.

Thanks.

Fortunately, we're not at a point of no return. There's no compelling reason (beyond the chummy funnelling of taxpayer largesse into the pockets of the president's golfing buddies) for the world's premier military power to be employing mercenary companies instead of regular troops. The standard objection, that we can't retain good soldiers because they can make more money in the private sector, is simply made ludicrous by the obvious fact it's still ultimately the U.S. government that's actually paying them.

It'd be different if they had somehow become indispensable to the conduct of postindustrial warfare. That'd be bad. Like, imminent Fall of the Republic bad.

I agree wholeheartedly. It is a sickening joke that these men can be better trained, equipped and paid than our soldiers by essentially just passing the buck through a middle man. Though I'm sure I'm making a vast oversimplification there, that seems the gist of it.

The idea that they have been contracted to work on our own soil is what I find most disturbing.
Their action in New Orleans doesn't sound much better than their reported behavior abroad. Though it might also be said that they were not alone.

Within two weeks of the hurricane, the number of private security companies registered in Louisiana jumped from 185 to 235.

And most of them seem to operate at about the same level of respect, responsibility and accountability. That is, without any.

SockPuppet

I'm lost

July 2006

JAN 10, 2008 03:59 PM

Sounds as if someone in either the ground unit or the helicopter (whichever was second) said something about "gas", and someone else pulled the trigger on the CS.

The US Navy seems to do this better, given their lack of reaction to provocation a couple of days ago. If that had been Blackwater... hooo.

Benzino

Winnipeg, MB

November 2006

JAN 10, 2008 04:21 PM

Blackwater should get thier asses kicked out of Iraq.

Jackie_Treehorn

Seattle, WA

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 04:28 PM

SockPuppet said:
Sounds as if someone in either the ground unit or the helicopter (whichever was second) said something about "gas", and someone else pulled the trigger on the CS.

The US Navy seems to do this better, given their lack of reaction to provocation a couple of days ago. If that had been Blackwater... hooo.

That's an idea!!! Send Blackwater into Iran!!

"This was not a maneuver by the United States Military. We can take no responsibility for Blackwater's actions, or the way they got Iran so pissed at them. That will teach them."

MrCrisp

Charleston, SC

August 2004

JAN 10, 2008 06:09 PM

SockPuppet said:
The US Navy seems to do this better...

well, duh.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 07:08 PM

Benzino said:
Blackwater should get thier asses kicked out of Iraq.

Technically, they have been. Like my cat's fleas, though, they're tenacious.

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 07:24 PM

Maybe we should let them beat their wives, like nature calls them to do?

jtemperance

Chicago, IL

January 2004

JAN 10, 2008 07:49 PM

^^^
That was a stupid Inkonnu joke to make. I'm sorry I said it.

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 08:04 PM

magpieboy said:

There is actually a plan for that. Blackwater has a UAE registered subsidiary for conducting operations seperate from US control.

But anyways, the only real reason why Blackwater exists is partly that we need special forces badly, and they have been leaving in droves due to the rigid military lifestyles pulling families apart, and putting major stress, along with low pay. You either don't have them, or you pay out all the benefits and logistics money to blackwater, and they hire them for lots of money.

Also, the other reason Blackwater is a good idea is that they maintain surge capability that is very expensive to maintain (given the lengthy minimum contracts required to recruit soldiers).

And at least theoretically, Blackwater provides an excellent non-government affiliated peacekeeping force that could be paid cash outright by the UN to help with minor engagements like Sudan/Darfur (no waiting for other countries to stop shuffling their feet and looking around). They are buying a small aircraft carrier, and are offering brigade sized engagements.

As an aside, I recently figured out how Blackwater gets around US laws against civilian ownership of automatic weapons made after 1986 (they could buy M16's, but the scarcity has made them really expensive). Pretty interesting how they arranged it. Basically, the US government allows weapons companies to export weapons directly Iraq to be collected by Blackwater, which makes it unsurprising that it has been abused (plenty of news articles about it)

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 08:07 PM

Also, this:

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 08:22 PM

freshprncebelair said:

magpieboy said:

Technically I would think that even tho they are a civilian company being a military contracting company they could also get around the import limitations and get the permits. The police are technically a civilian law enforcement and they can get automatic weapons. I just started reading up on whats going on so if my reply is completely wrong I am claiming ignorance of the issue right now because well I only read one article so far.

Anyhow it seems to me that they could have gotten the proper permits for all their gear but they most likely wanted to save time, money, and oversight.....

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JAN 10, 2008 08:32 PM

Anyhow it seems to me that they could have gotten the proper permits for all their gear but they most likely wanted to save time, money, and oversight.....

The laws generally would prohibit them from getting them except under limited circumstances. Blackwater is not considered law enforcement or military by the government. I think they do have class 3 weapons in the US by virtue of their police training functions.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

PAGE:

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6