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

Colinism

Atlanta, GA

July 2005

JAN 10, 2008 08:35 PM

freshprncebelair said:

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)

Even more convenient would have been to find a foreign exporter. They were already doing something illegal why leave such an obvious paper trail?

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 10, 2008 09:23 PM

freshprncebelair said:
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.

I don't really see the logic there. It's still taxpayer money, just being funnelled through a sleazy fundamentalist middleman with a Hitler haircut. And they're not Spec Forces, they're bodyguards.

And they're contracts are still rigid and punitive. There's not a lot more freedom. So I'm not seeing any real advantages.

freshprncebelair said:
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).

Yeah, that makes me queasy, too. If a real war happened, we could field a real army, like we did in the last real war. Using "surge capacity" to make these sordid little invasions easier doesn't seem like in the country's longterm interest. Nor is it moral.

freshprncebelair said:
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.

Well, that's a potentially worthy purpose for mercenaries, I'll grant you. One of my friends on the site is peacekeeping as a contractor over in the former Yugoslavia, in fact (though, for the record, he hates it). But Blackwater's mindset specifically doesn't seem to adapt itself easily to peacekeeping. They're too belligerent and confrontational as a matter of policy.

01_Conservative

San Diego, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 04:22 AM

I would just like to say that we have covered this issue extensively in other threads. But we would not need to field Blackwater if a lot of you that sit here crying about their actions would get up and find your way to an Army/Marine/Navy/Air Force recruiters office and get into the military yourselves.

It is really nice to sit back and criticize what other people do when your ass is not on the line and you have no idea what really happened except for what is reported on the tv news or print wire. It really is pathetic that you can sit here and put down their actions but not do anything about it.

If everyone who says that their actions are wrong would get in the military then Blackwater would not be needed. But then again you would not have anything to cry about then would you?

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

JAN 11, 2008 05:00 AM

Zarth said:
How is this news?

I think asking this question about your own article is a violation of an SG bylaw. My people are researching it as we speak. I'll get back to you the results as soon as the come in.

emotedcreations

Germany

July 2006

JAN 11, 2008 05:06 AM

You wanna know something funny? I actually tried to join the Marines, but because of my tattoos I couldn't get a commission. Sorry, I spent $140,000 on my college education. If a little tattoo will keep me from serving my country than you kiss my fucking ass. Moreover, Jesus, you're from Columbia, I can't even fucking believe I thought for a second I could actually survive three years of law school there. *shivers*

yurei

Iraq

June 2006

JAN 11, 2008 05:51 AM

01_Conservative said:
I would just like to say that we have covered this issue extensively in other threads. But we would not need to field Blackwater if a lot of you that sit here crying about their actions would get up and find your way to an Army/Marine/Navy/Air Force recruiters office and get into the military yourselves.

It is really nice to sit back and criticize what other people do when your ass is not on the line and you have no idea what really happened except for what is reported on the tv news or print wire. It really is pathetic that you can sit here and put down their actions but not do anything about it.

If everyone who says that their actions are wrong would get in the military then Blackwater would not be needed. But then again you would not have anything to cry about then would you?

Please, someone explain to me how this even comes close to being a legitimate argument.