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

Chainlink

Dickeyville, WI

August 2005

JAN 11, 2008 09:11 AM

Zarth said:

Chainlink said:
Cyber-feudalist dytopia.

Thrilling.

Aw, c'mon. You can watch Z-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate! Attack ships on fire off the Shoulder of Orion!

I'm warming up to the idea.

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 03:54 PM

emotedcreations said:

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*

That's a little arrogant that you had to be an officer don't you think, and by the way what would be wrong with receiving an Army commission. The Army is a lot more forgiving when it comes to tattoos. As long as there is no gang affiliation involved in the tattoos and they are not visible when in uniform, no problem.

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 03:57 PM

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 03:59 PM

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN

OLD SKOOL

JAN 11, 2008 04:00 PM

DhD_No_Pants said:

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?

Maybe the people who joined Blackwater could have joined/remained in the military, and had a more legitimate role in the war instead of becoming mercenaries.

But that would involve idealism as something more than a talking point. We just can't have that.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 04:02 PM

BlastProcessing said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

Maybe the people who joined Blackwater could have joined/remained in the military, and had a more legitimate role in the war instead of becoming mercenaries.

But that would involve idealism as something more than a talking point. We just can't have that.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask how much money they're offering.

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 04:22 PM

Zarth said:
BlastProcessing said:
DhD_No_Pants said:
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%

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN

OLD SKOOL

JAN 11, 2008 04:34 PM

Zarth said:

BlastProcessing said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

Maybe the people who joined Blackwater could have joined/remained in the military, and had a more legitimate role in the war instead of becoming mercenaries.

But that would involve idealism as something more than a talking point. We just can't have that.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask how much money they're offering.

Seriously, though. How dare he make that argument FOR Blackwater instead of TO them?

BlastProcessing

Knoxville, TN

OLD SKOOL

JAN 11, 2008 04:34 PM

01_Conservative said:
Zarth said:
BlastProcessing said:
DhD_No_Pants said:
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%

I really would prefer a response that addressed some of the points at hand, please.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 04:41 PM

We heard you the first time, 01_Conservative. And you evidently have nothing of any substance to contribute.

Instead you assume, erroneously, that anyone who opposes the privatization of warfare has no military record. You also assume, equally erroneously, that anyone who does not have a military record is not allowed to oppose the privatization of warfare. You also assume, erroneously, that the privatization of warfare is "needed," presumably so that unjustifiable invasions can be supported and enabled by an amoral support network, rather than implemented democratically by citizen-soldiers.

In the face of all these fundamental errors in your assumptions, what you actually have to say ultimately bears no relation to reality whatsoever. Your arguments are not worth answering. So, why don't you do yourself and the rest of us a favor and crawl back under whatever rock you slid out from.

I'm sure they like you there. Here, you're out of your league.

wereduck

I'm lost

July 2007

JAN 11, 2008 05:53 PM

Zarth said:
We heard you the first time, 01_Conservative. And you evidently have nothing of any substance to contribute.

Instead you assume, erroneously, that anyone who opposes the privatization of warfare has no military record. You also assume, equally erroneously, that anyone who does not have a military record is not allowed to oppose the privatization of warfare. You also assume, erroneously, that the privatization of warfare is "needed," presumably so that unjustifiable invasions can be supported and enabled by an amoral support network, rather than implemented democratically by citizen-soldiers.

In the face of all these fundamental errors in your assumptions, what you actually have to say ultimately bears no relation to reality whatsoever. Your arguments are not worth answering. So, why don't you do yourself and the rest of us a favor and crawl back under whatever rock you slid out from.

I'm sure they like you there. Here, you're out of your league.

Don't forget that he's assuming that the people who are criticizing Blackwater even want our regular troops over in Iraq, can be proven erroneous rather easily.

There's also the implication that we, as citizens of a "free society", should just shut our pie holes and let these actions happen, just because "[our] ass is not on the front line." Unfortunately, that argument is trumped by the fact that there are these things called "Rules of Engagement," which are supposed to govern how combatants are supposed to behave. Yeah, war causes stress, which can lead to some people snapping and doing something horrifying. But, when there's such a consistent pattern as the one with Blackwater, that's something that should be scrutinized and, possibly, put out to pasture.

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 05:55 PM

You guys are a fuckin riot. If my internet would not have gone down there would have been something there.

As far as nothing worth contributing, I am still waiting for you to write an article that actually is truthful and not just spin. But let me make your argument for you since you tell me this all the time. "I don't have to be fair or write without spin because this is not the news, this is an opinion piece."

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 05:58 PM

Aw, shucks. You hear that? He says we're a riot. Damn, and here I thought we was all about the cryin'.

01_Conservative

El Cajon, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:02 PM

smithers_jones said:

Most of what Blackwater does is provide bodyguard services to diplomats and State Department officials. Which is actually a function of the State Department's own security service. The US could, in fact, expand the State Department's security team, but that would be an expansion of public sector employees, who the Bush regime hates.

To a lesser extent, Blackwater guards the US military--transport convoys and such, but the notion that this is a result not having enough people in the military is wrong. For instance, those who follow current events might recall a longstanding controversy over the fact the US decided to deploy a smaller number of troops to Iraq than some members of the military thought prudent. That choice was not driven by a lack of servicemen and women.

Actually a lot of the bodygaurding of our state department officials around the world is offset by Delta Force. The state dept security staff really just does not have the training or the time to keep up the level of training required to do the job, especially in highly volitile countries.