He called you a great ape?

from the NY Times

From the article, a couple things seem apparent to me...

Blackwater is under contract with the State Department.

As such, they exist in a legal gray area.

Both the DOJ & the Administration feel that their actions while under contract are questionable.

another great article clearly showing the difference between a writer and a journalist....

Who knows how his insecurities work?

Oh, and I almost forgot - how dare you address an American citizen with that face, you upside-down criminal swine?

Well, as the example of vaporeyes attests, it's an analogy that's easy to misuse. I'm willing to cop to having done so. After all, you didn't link to any white supremacist websites as sources.

It's true, also, that the material (and intellectual) culture of the Germanic and Celtic (and later Slavic and Turkic) peoples of Europe wasn't significantly lower than that of the Romans, either, as would be implied today by the word "barbarian."

But yes, the way a cosmopolitan empire treats the peoples along its fringes hasn't changed all that much in two thousand years.

Romans were definitely masters of that, yes. As are we.

That was always pretty much my understanding, as well. Though obviously some people can't grasp that.

Um, I was quoting from public law, United States code, and not an article. I don't really care what some journalist says (refering to you article). As stated previously, there is no grey area. The contractors are subject to the Military Extraterritorial Judiction Act. As such, the would be processed for murder, rape, blah-dah blah-dah blah, if it was determined by the DoD, DoS, or FBI that these infractions had occured. There is much legislation in front of both the house and Senate right now to clarify these legal proceedings. So mayhaps, instead of posting inane ramblings from any old author (I could have written that for all we know), perhaps you should read UCS Title 18 Chapter 212, any of it's references, or write to your senator congressman/ senator about the status of the other peices of legislation that may accompany the MEJA some day. You should be interested to know that one of them was even written by Obama,

If you're not going to accept "what some journalist" i.e., the New York Times - "says" about the facts of the matter pertaining to investigations and prosecutions, then there's really no basis for discussion.

You may as well be plugging your ears and shouting "LALALALA! NOT LISTENING!"

That there have been serious difficulties in pursuing both investigations and prosecutions against Blackwater personnel accused of violations is a matter of public record.

You're not really obligated to recognize that, of course - unless you expect to be taken seriously. Your privileging of anecdotal evidence over the public record is problematic if that's your goal. If you just want to argue viciously with people in a vacuum of mutually-acceptable factual evidence, though, you're doing fine.

Also, PsylentNemo, if we are to take personal opinions of Blackwater (or other firms, Blackwater is just high profile) into account, can we take the opinions of people other than you? People like this:

Source

These aren't journalists writing whatever they feel like, they are people within the military.

I'm not saying that all Blackwater personnel act like this, I'm sure the majority of them are just doing a job that needs to be done. But the fact is, and record has proven, that prosecuting them comes to a dead end wherever people try to do it.

This is more than just a little bit disturbing.

So who watches the watchmen? I find it less than persuasive when you say "Blackwater is beholden to the Department of State" but at the same time it is quickly verifiable that they are contracted through the Department of State. If you cannot see how this might (at best) carry the air of a conflict of interest, then I'm not sure how we (generally, people with a low opinion of Blackwater based on reported facts) can engage in any kind of rational discussion of the issue with you. I would hasten to add, however, that nobody here (with the exception of the pom-pommed hair freak who always feels the need to come out of the woodwork and make painfully bad posts) thinks your anecdotal rhetoric is untrue.

You are correct to point out that at the heart of the issue are actual human beings. I believe that if there is any failing in your understanding of this issue, it comes from your extrapolation of two things:

1) That your personal experience (extending to the personal experience of your friends) extends to a general sense of how the set "Blackwater employees in Iraq" behave. This is logically and scientifically unsound.

2) That extant legislation or operation rules will necessarily be enforced by their actors simply because they exist. All sorts of laws and rules exist that are not always pursued when they are violated.

Again, in less verbose form, I do not think that the fact that the State Department says Blackwater can't do certain things means that the State Department is really going to care if Blackwater does those things.

Finally, I have a question with regards to a statement you made: how on earth would the FBI ever end up investigating something a Blackwater op did out of country, let alone in a theater of combat?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfWBM6wS1U&feature=related

I grow tired of this, and rather quickly, as it seems that I am pointing out the flaws in arguments of others only to be returned with yet another argument.

To Zarth:
I have never argued that there are not difficulties in investigation and prosecution of alleged individuals, I merely stated that the groundwork and foundation for the process in which these allegations SHOULD be conducted is laid out. Whether or not these are being carried out, that is not the point I was trying to make. This is why I aso pointed out that there are legislations before both the Senate and House that would impose further reveiw of these allegations. But please keep in mind, these ARE allegations. Since there are only two contractors that I could find that have been prosecuted for offenses committed abroad in Iraq (the CIA contractor accused and found guilty of assault, and another unspecified contractor who plead guilty of possessing child pornography), I find it easy to draw a correlation between the number of accusations and the number of actual violations. Critical thinking, ya know. I would never out-right attack anyone of not doing so, I merely tried to add facts to the arguement to support my position that not all of these accusations hold water. Especially in the case of capital offenses. I have faith in our justice system, and would hope that if anyone were guilty of offenses up to and including murder, murder for hire, assault, and excessive use of force, that they WOULD be processed, for two reasons:

1) On of the main points of my arguement is that these contractors are good people, with a set of ethics and morals not too different from our own. If all of the "bad apples" were charged, tried, and served their debt to society, then for sure all we would have left are the upright, outstanding individuals left to carry out these contracts. Since there have been no such procedings, I find it very hard to believe that you maintain that these accusations are true, and there are crazed maniacs with guns, in a foreign country, under contract and conscent of our department of State, killing innocent human beings.

2) The other reason that I would like to see said allegations prosecuted, would be to placate the droves of people that have a pre-concieved notion that anyone that is an American that posesses a gun in Iraq is a warmonger. If people could see that the number of inherrently "bad" people doesn't even compare to the ration of number of people we actually have operating in Iraq, that it would give less base for personal and generalized attacks on the people that are opperating in theater. Of course in any situation, there are going to be people that are less than desirable in positions of power, that maybe shouldn't be. If these people were removed from the equation, than overall support for the contractors (like-wise the boots on the ground and the senior commanders, as well as DoS officials conducting business in the region) would naturally increase.

To DhD_No_Pants:
You are absolutely correct. There is dissenting (sp?) opinions across the board that the contractors are "cowboys" and "do not follow the same rules and regulations as U.S. Armed Forces" over there. I would also like to point out that their opinions matter just about as much as mine, in the grand scheme of things. By that, I mean, they don't matter what-so-ever to their seniors. If the Officer in Charge deems them neccessary to be there (as part of a DoD contract), then the subordinates opinion doesn't have much value. The basic fundamental of a chain of command ensures that, while taking into account the sugestions of subordinates, the decision relies soley on the OIC. Thus, we know that the OIC has weighed the opinions of the subordinates, along with the capabilities, resources, prior service records, and precedents set by their seniors, and have concluded them to be neccessary, regardless of how everyone below him (and her) feels about them.

While I can only speak from personal experience, I certainly feel that the thoughts and feelings of them being "cowboys", "renegades", and "operating outside the law" is felt amongst the ranks as well. But one also has to take into account that, for the most part, these are people who at one time were subordinates of certain commands operating in theater as well. The know for sure what is permissable, what is against the codes of conduct, and what the ethics and morals of their prior service has instilled in them. I personally do not see them as "operating outside of the laws that bind" others over there.

But like I said earlier, it doesn't matter what I think of their conduct. It really only matters what the DoD and DoS officials that hire them think.

To Toku666:
I agree that there is some conflict of interest. I do not think that a conflict of interest would stop prosecution of allegations of murder. Mainly, if there were accusations that were valid, it's not just Blackwater that loses face value over there. If the DoS does not act on these allegations, they stand to lose a whole lot more than public image. Mainly the trust and confidence of the interim government. Same goes for the DoD.

Now, I will actually argue part of this point for you.

If such allegations were made by Shia Muslims, there is a possibility that the prodominantly Sunni interim government would not take these allegations mush further than a complaint form. Mostly because they really don't like eachother, and could care less if either one dies. But that is why the burden of investigation lies on the shoulders of DoJ and FBI officials. They are the closest to impartial as we are going to get in this situation. I might add that no one, in any of the branches of the government mentioned above, will be truelly impartial in such procedings. This must be taken with a grain of salt, because their is really no other facet in which these procedings can take place.

As to your question of why the F.B.I. would have jurisdiction over the investigations of accusations...

It is provided for in the MEJA that all such proceedings, "shall be conducted by a Federal magistrate judge" [see § 3265.(a)(1)(A)]. At the end of the CRS report for Congress, it mentions a bill (see H.R. 2740 (Price) - MEJA Expansiona and Enforcement Act of 2007) that would provide specific instructions for the "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (to) establish a "Theater Investigative Unit" for each contingency operation in which covered contract personnel are working to investigate suspected misconduct." The House passed the legislation in Oct, and is awaitingSenate Approval.

This is as far as I could track the F.B.I.'s involvement. As of this moment, the MEJA provides that the burden of investigation falls on the DoS.

To ALL:
Please keep in mind that I personally do not treat accounts of events as rendered by the press as facts. I do distrust them, I merely hold all their reports as opinion, since anyone can see that most reports are incomplete, bias, and of an opinionative nature. I rely solely on factual reports. I respect every individuals account of events, as to them, that is the truth of what actually occurred. But truth is very losely defined, and often is based on beliefs (conjectures that can neither be proven or disproven). I have the up-most respect for the media, specically those within our SG community, but I do not take what they state as fact. An intelligent individual, in my opinion, would seek out the facts in any situation, and rely on them to make their own opinions.

But in the long run, that's what makes intellectual conversation interesting. Atleast to me. Find the facts, use them in support of your arguement, and see what fact can be found to debunk or counter your arguement.

Well enough, I suppose, but it's a point that needs to be made anyway, since pretty much the definition of "corruption" is when the people in power aren't following the rules they ought to.

If you accept that investigations and prosecutions have not been conducted properly in accordance with the law as it stands (or should be read as standing), then your argument here unravels.

There could be thousands of uninvestigated and unprosecuted accusations of improprieties and crimes out there.

I'm not saying that all Blackwater mercenaries (and that's what they are, deal with it) are evil people, and I'm not saying that all the accusations are necessarily true. But investigations into those accusations have invariably been shoddy and biased when they've happened at all, and so I'd hesitate to assume an established innocence - especially when so many of Blackwater's harshest critics are our own serving military personnel.

I'm not sure I follow you here. Hope and fact are different things, you know. The justice system is not infallible. Not even in the United States itself, a prosperous nation at peace. In Iraq, in a much more confused situation, to assume that all "bad apples" are always caught and punished is simply ludicrous.

Since you seem prone to some severe oversensitivities regarding institutional criticisms, let me stress that I'm not saying that all mercenaries are bad people. I know several mercenaries personally that I think rather highly of, in fact.

There are two things seriously wrong with this. first, you're assuming that no prosecutions means that there have been no crimes. That's a profound logical fallacy.

Second, you're making the strawman argument that I believe in an unestablished guilt. Don't make assumptions about my beliefs. If you can show where I've said anything of the kind . . . well, you can't show that I've said anything of the kind, because I haven't.

Talk about flawed arguments. You're again making an awful lot of assumptions that aren't necessarily supported by any evidence. Who has said such things? Me? Where?

There are plenty of reasons to be disturbed by the rise of for-profit warmaking corporations like Blackwater that have nothing to do with "personal and generalized attacks on the people that are operating in the theater."

Moreover, it has been well established that there are severe problems with the accountability of the personnel of these corporations in cases of alleged wrongdoing.

You're taking these systemic criticisms very personally, for some reason, and it's inappropriate.

Alright, Zarth, you're right. Let's break this down.

All Blackwater employees are mercs. There have been atrocites commited by these individuals. The individuals have not been brought to justice and they are going to continue to abide by the lack of rules that exists for them.

Is this your argument?

Not really, no.

First, let me make it clear that I don't attach a value judgment to the term "mercenary," but I do object to the term "contractor" as a euphemism. So understand I don't use the word "merc" as an insult. As far as I'm concerned, it's simply an accurate description, nothing more.

As to my argument, there are two parts. First, that I'd rather have a military, answerable to the public interest, performing all military functions, rather than having a for-profit company doing so out of self-interest.

Secondly, and more cogently where you're concerned, it's essentially that there has been a consistent pattern of allegations from numerous sources against individuals employed by Blackwater and against Blackwater's corporate policies. The pattern is consistent enough to make me suspicious, but I would not going to go so far as to presume guilt.

Significantly, however, these allegations have not been adequately investigated due, first, to resistance on the part of both government officials and company personnel, reflecting conflicts of interest, and second, to unresolved ambiguities about the mechanisms to ensure accountability.