Who is Blackwater USA?

[Lightdemon]

What happens when the US govt uses mercenaries in the federal army? Mercenaries that are not represented by the federal govt, but by a corporation. Do they have the same legal rights? Do they abide by the laws laid down for foreign affairs? Do they follow the same federal protocols? Are there any oversights by the federal govt? Are they allowed to oversee them?

But what I think is most important here is whether or not the corporation is out there to make profit, rather than achieve dimplomatic goals. The distinction between company and govt.

Blackwater USA is a company that supplies the US govt a significant source of troops. Almost every diplomat and ambassador is guarded by Blackwater USA troops, not federal troops. In fact Blackwater USA has a $300 million contract to provide diplomatic security. Many of our officials in Iraq are gaurded by Blackwater USA.

I dont know the exact number of troops the US has in Iraq, but from multiple sources it ranges from 100,000-140,000 US troops, not counting coalition forces. Blackwater USA has 48,000 mercenaries in Iraq. So roughly, Blackwater USA makes up 30-50% of the troops, give or take. Even 30% from the lower side of the bracket is a very large part of the military.

But what I want to know is how much money is Blackwater USA paying thier workers. Note: I said workers, not soldiers. And are they considered civilians? or non-civilians? Does that have any effect on how much an insurance company have to pay if their client dies at 'work'?

There is trend here, and many call it the privatization of the federal army. Halliburton is another company that the govt uses to supply it's military through equipment and energy. These private companies, that represent the US through it's organization, are they accountable to the people of the US? Can the US voter have a say in the policies of a private company? If the govt decides to check these private companies, do they restrict the "free market" ideology that is so important to a capitalist society?

Our mercenaries in Iraq - Los Angeles Times
Democracy Now! | Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge

 

[Simon W. Moon]

While I think that some of the outfits in Iraq are mercenaries I'm not sure if that applies to BW.


But, yes there were/are South African war criminals working for guns-for-hire outfits representing the US in Iraq.

 

[cherokee]

So what if they are "mercenaries" Big deal!
They’re hired to provide security thus not tying up American military personal allowing them to conduct far more important missions and such.

Can anyone of you show where they have conducted combat raids/missions?

I'm sure while working for the US they MUST abide by our laws and rules of engagement. (ROE)

 

[bub]

Can anyone of you show where they have conducted combat raids/missions?

YouTube - Blackwater Mercenary Sniper

YouTube - 'Iraq for Sale' bonus scene: Blackwater

=> from the last movie

Is this the glorious army the Iraqi should have welcomed with flowers? I believed what made you different from the others was your respect of Occidental values.
Blackwater seems to be just a group of mercenaries who don't respect anything and I won't cry if the guy on the picture is shot down and treated by the rebels with as much respect as he shows there.

 

[Caine]

YouTube - Blackwater Mercenary Sniper

YouTube - 'Iraq for Sale' bonus scene: Blackwater

=> from the last movie

Is this the glorious army the Iraqi should have welcomed with flowers? I believed what made you different from the others was your respect of Occidental values.
Blackwater seems to be just a group of mercenaries who don't respect anything and I won't cry if the guy on the picture is shot down and treated by the rebels with as much respect as he shows there.

So.... you've never talked trash or flipped the bird huh?

Thats what I thought, so STFU.

 

[bub]

When you are sent in a country to bring peace and show the example, you don't behave like that.

 

[Caine]

When you are sent in a country to bring peace and show the example, you don't behave like that.

Translation:

When you are sent in a country to bring peace and show the example, you act like a robot.


Look, the majority of our military is a bunch of young 18-25 year olds, they are going to act the same way as those who frequent this nation's college Campus's, and sometimes even worse.

Who do you think makes up Blackwater?? Ex-Military folks who wanted to get paid big bucks, Over 100k per year tax free, to go BACK to Iraq and work as a security force. Therefore, you have what.... thats right, young 21-28 year olds working for Blackwater, and of course, your occasional 30-50 year olds (althought most wouldn't quit the military after 12 years of service to do this... there are some who would retire and then do this).


So, let me ask again, have you ever raise your middle finger only as a communication gesture???

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Cherokee:
So what if they are "mercenaries" Big deal!
They’re hired to provide security thus not tying up American military personal allowing them to conduct far more important missions and such.

Can anyone of you show where they have conducted combat raids/missions?

I'm sure while working for the US they MUST abide by our laws and rules of engagement. (ROE)

Cherokee,

Do you realize BW is probably the biggest contributor to anti-American sentiment in that country and have been involved in many of the atrocities the military is blamed for and that their actions are giving the US military a bad name.

I would not have thought of someone so pro-military would be so pro-Blackwater. Especially, when you consider the difference in training. I'll wager BW guys aren't nearly as trained as our guys in uniform.

 

[Lightdemon]

So what if they are "mercenaries" Big deal!
They’re hired to provide security thus not tying up American military personal allowing them to conduct far more important missions and such.

Can anyone of you show where they have conducted combat raids/missions?

I'm sure while working for the US they MUST abide by our laws and rules of engagement. (ROE)

The big problem is that the mercenaries do NOT work for the US. They work for their corporation, who is Blackwater USA. And if thier corporation operates overseas, then federal govt have no ties on them. Just the same as Nike using child labor in China to make thier shoes. US child labor laws doesn't reach over Chinese laws. Federal laws are only supreme within federal bounds.

So if Blackwater operates overseas, just like Nike, does the federal govt really have control of what they do over there? Who is accountable? That is the question. Is our govt accountable to the actions of Blackwater? If not, who is? The CEO? Then we're going into corporate responsibility, and not foreign policy anymore. It becomes a business issue, and not a govt issue.

 

[bub]

So, let me ask again, have you ever raise your middle finger only as a communication gesture???

Mmmmh...I've never shot at anybody and hope it won't happen, but I understand that when you're in the heart of the action, with the adrenaline and the stress to be shot, you're very exited. A kind of "Call of Duty" but in live...

...but on the other hand, war is not a game

First, the guy in the copter did not give them any chance to surrender (of course, the car bombers don't neither, but I hoped US soldiers would be more loyal and knightly than those they fight...I see they are not better on this ground). I would not be proud to kill somebody like that, even if he had done the same before.

Then, the most important thing I remember from my Greek course is that you MUST spare the weaks and respect the deads. Even 3000 years ago they knew it was bad not to show respect to a dead (>< "may saddam rot in hell for ever", this picture...).
That's a part of our Judeo-Christian heritage and I believed you wanted to spread it in the middle-east.

Of course, I'm in front of my PC screen, thousands of miles far from Iraq, so it's easy to me to say this. But if you're a kid like me or this guy, you should not be sent in a foreign country with the mission to execute people you don't know.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Apparently it still has not been determined who was the main contractor that the Blackwater guys who got torched were working for.


So the layers of bureaucracy etc are quite substantial.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

reposted from 05-12-2004:

Iraqi National Congress's Legally Lawless Armed Forces
The second largest contingent of armed forces in Iraq are not the Brits, but instead PMCs, PMFs, PSCs, and PSFs- PMC Private Military Company, PMF Private Military Firm, PSF Private Security Firm, and PSC Private Security Contractor ( or Private Security Company ). These terms are all terms for "international security firms." These are distinguished from ordinary security agencies in that they use and/or provide training in military methods, leadership, and/or equipment. An estimate is that there're in the neighborhood of 15 thousand to twenty thousand people employed by PMFs currently in Iraq [50,000 in 2007]. The coalition's Program Management Office in Baghdad says, security provisions have risen to 10 per cent of the $18.4bn the US has earmarked for investment in Iraq [20% in 2007].

While an individual employee, (or an individual "subcontractor", depending), is a "soldier for hire," for various reasons many of them're prob'ly not legally mercenaries. Both the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, and the Additional Protocol 1 added to the Geneva Conventions on June 8, 1977 exclude many of these people on the grounds that they're either a national of a party to the conflict or a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict.

Nationals from coalition countries, (and Iraq), while not prohibited from being mercenaries, are oddly incapable of being mercenaries, in Iraq.
Nationals from any of the coalition countries, (or Iraq), though "not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict," nor "sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces," and yet "specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict," and who are essentially motivated to do so by the desire for significant private gain, and, in fact, are promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that party, can:

• be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
• carry arms openly;
• have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
• conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war;

(fulfilling the barest requirements of "Armed Forces"),
and, "in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities" without falling under the category of mercenary, in Iraq.

In addition, recalling that under international law occupying powers, including their forces, personnel, property and equipment, funds and assets, are not subject to the laws or jurisdiction of the occupied territory, non-Iraqi business entities or individuals not normally resident in Iraq supplying goods and/or services to or on behalf of the Coalition Forces or the CPA under contractual arrangements or to or on behalf of Coalition contractors and in respect of Coalition or CPA activities under contractual arrangements, as well as their employees not normally resident in Iraq, are immune from Iraqi Legal Process with respect to acts performed by them within their official activities pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract between a contractor and Coalition Forces or the CPA and any sub-contract thereto, during the period of authority of the CPA.
Thus none of the personel of these armed forces in Iraq contracted to Coalition Forces, the CPA, or Coalition contractors are bound by Iraqi law during the period of authority of the CPA.
Interestingly, while "non-Iraqi business entities" are immune, any of their employees "normally resident" in Iraq are not. [Where do Ahmed Chalabi and the INC's other prodigal Iraqis "normally reside," btw?]
Further, as to acts or omissions of Coalition contractors etc., which are not performed by them in the course of their official activities, no Iraqi or CPA Legal Process shall be commenced without the written permission of the Administrator of the CPA. Presidential Envoy, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, himself, has to okay the commencement of all Iraqi or CPA legal processes for anything that Coalition contractors and subcontractors do in their off time.
Of course, this immunity "may be waived by the Parent State."

Everything in these cases depends on the parent state.
In some cases, (but not all), American contractors and employees may become legally liable for their actions under the purview of The Military and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. If such a case were to occur, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld himself'd have to designate and authorize someone in a law enforcement position in the DoD, to make the arrest.

But for the most part there're few established legal mechanisms for dealing with potential, serious misconduct by these sorts of contractors. (Fortunately, we must have a really good batch of them over there. Despite having thousands of contractors in Iraq for so long, there're yet to be any legal processes commenced regarding their illegal activites.

)

This is the story of one PSC in particular, Erinys HQed in either London or Johannesburg, South Africa, (with offices in Dubai and Baghdad as well).
Erinys Iraq is a prime contractor to the Gulf Regional Division of the United States Army Corp of Engineers, tasked with providing nationwide personal security details and protective services. And is contracted to the Iraqi Ministry of Oil to recruit, train, equip and manage 14,000 Iraqi security guards to protect the national oil infrastructure of Iraq. Erinys also provides site security for Fluor, a US contractor working to restore Iraq's power infrastructure. Erinys has been awarded subcontracts to protect American construction contractors, including Halliburton's subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and Root.


Faisal Daghistani is a founder and director of Erinys Iraq. Faisal Daghistani is the son of Tamara Daghistani, one-time INC humanitarian co-ordinator, key player in the creation of the INC, close friend of and allegeded getaway driver for Ahmed Chalabi.

Erinys Iraq was financed by Nour USA Ltd. Nour USA Ltd was founded by Abul Huda Farouki, "a businessman with close ties to Chalabi" Within days of the award to become the "oil police" last August, Nour became a joint venture partner with Erinys and the contract was amended to include Nour. Jordanian court records show that by May 1989, bankrupt Farouki companies owed Petra International more than $12 million. Petra was the second-largest commercial bank in Jordan. It experienced dire problems under Chalabi, (hence the court records).
This relationship between Mr. Farouki and Mr. Chalabi, (and, of course, Mr. Chalabi's relationships with key members of Pentagon staff), and the potentials for conflict of interests have been the subject of much international speculation recently. Specifically regarding the $327 million contract, (temporarily), awarded to Mr. Farouki's Nour USA to supply four battalions of the new Iraqi army with rifles, uniforms and other equipment, despite Nour USA's lack of a past performance record of similar contracts as required by bid guidelines. Some contend that that the equipment alone would cost more than $500 million.

According to Erinys founder and director, Mr. Daghistani, Erinys employees include members of the US-trained Iraqi Free Forces, who entered Iraq with Mr Chalabi. U.S. Marine Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said these forces would "become basically the core of the new Iraqi army once Iraq is free."

Erinys Iraq, is without a doubt heavily beholden to members of the INC, and "associates" of Chalabi, so it's not surprising that some have accused the Iraqi National Congress, of undermining central authority by backing the creation of a private military company to secure the oil sector and asked if this is Chalabi's private army.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Erinys Iraq, (and its subcontractors), as a non-Iraqi business entity, and its employees "not normally resident in Iraq", (arguably a number of the ex-exiles), are immune from Iraqi Legal Process with respect to acts performed by them within their official activities. And in regards to their acts or omissions which are not part of their official activities it takes an act of Presidential Envoy, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, himself to even begin a CPA or Iraqi legal process. Further, US code has no jurisdiction over them either, (unless the personel're American citizens).
Employees of Erinys, (and its subcontractors), who're neither normally resident in Iraq, nor American citizens, are not subject to any legal liability for "acts performed by them within their official activities." While this could include many of Erinys's recruits from the Iraqi Free Forces, it definitely includes those working for Erinys such as Francois Strydom, former member of the counter-insurgency group Koevoet, (an outlaw group that paid bounty for the bodies of blacks), and Deon Gouws, who worked with the notorious Vlakplaas death squad. Estimates are that there're up to 1500 South Africans working for PSCs despite SA laws prohibiting doing so.

US taxpayers' dollars have gone to establish and train a "legally lawless" militia for Iraqi National Congress trained by the likes of Mr. Strydom and Mr. Gouw.

 

[Caine]

Especially, when you consider the difference in training. I'll wager BW guys aren't nearly as trained as our guys in uniform.

LOL.....

The "BW Guys" are ex-"guys in uniform"

So I would say that have military training already..

A couple of guys I used to work with joined blackwater when they got out of the service.

 

[cherokee]

Ok I'll ask again and yes I saw the video's I didn’t see anything that proved the guys on the building top were doing anything illegal. It looked and sounded like they were repelling an attack.

Do you have any proof these people are conduction operations and not provide security?

The words “Possibility”, “Could be” and “If” don’t mean jackshit.

 

[Lightdemon]

Ok I'll ask again and yes I saw the video's I didn’t see anything that proved the guys on the building top were doing anything illegal. It looked and sounded like they were repelling an attack.

Do you have any proof these people are conduction operations and not provide security?

The words “Possibility”, “Could be” and “If” don’t mean jackshit.

I dont understand what you're trying to get at here. What difference does it make, whether they are following orders from the federal govt or thier corporate representatives?

I wasn't suggesting that BW was doing anything illegal, though there are many who speculate that they have. The point I'm trying to stress though, is who is accountable for thier actions and is who is making money out of all this.

Tax dollars are not only spent on federal troops, a govt institution, but is being spent on a private institution. When govt decides to spend money for particular kinds of private companies, it basically means the govt has it's own interest group, which we can further deduce that it has it's own agenda. It's agenda of course have to be parallel to the agenda of it's interest group.

So in deciding policies, it must agree with it's interests groups policies, in this case Blackwater USA. In Bush's State of the Union Adress, he's asked congress to appropriate money "to design and establish a volunteer civilian reserve corps."

When the govt is making decisions based on it's interest group, then what happens to the voters? What happens to democracy? Are we still a "rule by the people" govt? Or a "rule by the corporation" govt?

And furthermore, you have to ask yourself, is it wise for the govt to allow somebody to have a private army. The CEO of Blackwater USA owns his corporation and his workers. He is employing soldiers. What happens when this institution gets too powerful? Will the federal army be able to shut it down? That is the risk the govt is taking. Of course we don't have to worry about this until there is a conflict of interest between the govt and Blackwater USA.

But when the war is over....when there is no longer a need to spend on the military, either that or that we can no longer afford to spend on the military, what will happen if the workers at Blackwater revolt? Or do you believe that when people lose thier jobs they will easily find another job and move on?

Again, I'm not suggesting any illegal practices Blackwater USA may or may not have conducted, but the importance of relying on such an institution by our govt.

 

[Caine]

I wasn't suggesting that BW was doing anything illegal, though there are many who speculate that they have.

I think we already agreed the speculation is irrelevant.

Tax dollars are not only spent on federal troops, a govt institution, but is being spent on a private institution. When govt decides to spend money for particular kinds of private companies, it basically means the govt has it's own interest group, which we can further deduce that it has it's own agenda. It's agenda of course have to be parallel to the agenda of it's interest group.

So in deciding policies, it must agree with it's interests groups policies, in this case Blackwater USA. In Bush's State of the Union Adress, he's asked congress to appropriate money "to design and establish a volunteer civilian reserve corps."

When the govt is making decisions based on it's interest group, then what happens to the voters? What happens to democracy? Are we still a "rule by the people" govt? Or a "rule by the corporation" govt?

Who is to say that such Private Security firms are convincing the government to change policy? What if, and stay with me here.... The government told Blackwater and other firms like it, how to go about their business in Iraq, and what if, the government was the ones who set the policy and made the decisions on what is necessary funding for these groups, and when their usefulness was over. I know.. shocking thought huh? :roll:

And furthermore, you have to ask yourself, is it wise for the govt to allow somebody to have a private army. The CEO of Blackwater USA owns his corporation and his workers. He is employing soldiers. What happens when this institution gets too powerful? Will the federal army be able to shut it down? That is the risk the govt is taking. Of course we don't have to worry about this until there is a conflict of interest between the govt and Blackwater USA.

And what kind of conflict are you suggesting? That temporary workers for Blackwater (most all of their security forces in Iraq are hired on a temporary 1 year basis) are going to revolt against the government?

But when the war is over....when there is no longer a need to spend on the military, either that or that we can no longer afford to spend on the military, what will happen if the workers at Blackwater revolt? Or do you believe that when people lose thier jobs they will easily find another job and move on?

Yes, because these jobs are done on a temporary basis anyways. Just like with those contractors that go over to Iraq to work for Kellogg Brown and Root, etc. They agree to work for a year over there and then return home to their families with a fat tax free over 100k salary for the year. So yes, they will find another job and move on because that is what they are doing anyways. Although some folks do go over more than once, they all understand that this money train for them isn't going to last forever.

Again, I'm not suggesting any illegal practices Blackwater USA may or may not have conducted, but the importance of relying on such an institution by our govt.

They aren't "relying" per se. They could try to use soldiers as bodyguards for important officials in the Iraqi government and our own officials over there, but our soldiers have other **** to do.

 

[RightinNYC]

Tax dollars are not only spent on federal troops, a govt institution, but is being spent on a private institution. When govt decides to spend money for particular kinds of private companies, it basically means the govt has it's own interest group, which we can further deduce that it has it's own agenda. It's agenda of course have to be parallel to the agenda of it's interest group.

When the govt is making decisions based on it's interest group, then what happens to the voters? What happens to democracy? Are we still a "rule by the people" govt? Or a "rule by the corporation" govt?

If you're seriously asking this question, an intro politics course would be advantageous.