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

DhD_No_Pants

Katy, TX

May 2006

JAN 11, 2008 06:09 PM

01_Conservative said:
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."

You can still respond. It isn't a one time only deal.

I, personally, do not feel the need to be in the military. My husband does that. My job is to support him, and I prefer to do that by carefully observing and questioning what is going on, so that I may try to understand why he is going to have to leave again soon.

Zarth

Seattle, WA

December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:12 PM

01_Conservative said:
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.

Apparently Blackwater doesn't have the training, either, if they're using CS gas to clear traffic jams, drunkenly shooting vice-presidents, and opening fire on unarmed civilians, thereby getting themselves banned from operations by their host country within the theater of their contract.

01_Conservative said:

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

You are definately about the cryin, in fact I can hear your tears hittin' the floor now.

Yeah, you really hurt my feelings with the way you misspelled "definitely."

freshprncebelair

Ellicott City, MD

June 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:19 PM

Empirically, there appear to be endemic "cultural" problems that simply result inevitably from innate structures and imperatives within the very concept of mercenary service - i.e., the idea of violence for profit. It discourages virtue (as, for instance, my friend, who hates it) and tends to countenance if not actively encourage amoral venality and aggression.

I definitely do agree with you, but violence for profit isn't necessarily bad. Especially if you get highly qualified people and pay based on mission outcomes, rather than blank check high salaries.

All of this still fails to address any of my or smithers_jones's points. These companies are sucking off the public sugar tit. There's no reason beyond blind ideology to presume that government couldn't cut out the middleman and perform the actually necessary tasks of providing security more cheaply and efficiently.

The government can do some things better. Other things, Blackwater is indeed better at doing. such as things that rely on extreme freedom of movement of people (such as hiring a bunch of special forces people, or military advisors). But putting up a large occupying army is something Uncle Sam does infinitely better.

And the idea of an armed private sector equipped with its own intelligence services and unregulated by treaties or laws should give anyone who's not thrilled by the prospect of living in a cyber-feudalist dystopia the fucking willies.

Damn right

And the worst part is that almost nothing can be done about it. It's not like providing information is illegal, and our economy highly values information (google is at an ungodly valuation). And even most of the gathering isn't different from how the CIA works. They train their agents to be working against governments trying to stop them from working.

People who are against war just have to hope that a viable economic case can't be made to someone like Exxon Mobil or Petrochina that a financed invasion wouldn't be a profitable avenue. Or, maybe they already have private ex-CIA advisors working to destabilize unfriendly countries for their interests.

01_Conservative

San Diego, CA

March 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:20 PM

I am speechless, I don't know what to say, the best the mighty Zarth can come up with is to point out a misspelling.

Chainlink

Christmas Island

August 2005

JAN 11, 2008 06:24 PM

01_Conservative said:
I am speechless, I don't know what to say,

tell us something we don't already know.

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY

May 2003

JAN 11, 2008 06:25 PM

01_Conservative said:
I am speechless, I don't know what to say, the best the mighty Zarth can come up with is to point out a misspelling.

Well, the best you could come up with was, in a nutshell, "You pussies shouldn't complain unless you join the Army", so you really can't be asking others to bring their A game, now can you?