The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

House’s Iraq Bill Applies U.S. Laws to Contractors
By DAVID M. HERSZENHORN

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 — With the armed security force Blackwater USA and other private contractors in Iraq facing tighter scrutiny, the House of Representatives on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill that would bring all United States government contractors in the Iraq war zone under the jurisdiction of American criminal law. The measure would require the F.B.I. to investigate any allegations of wrongdoing.

The bill was approved 389 to 30, despite strong opposition from the White House. It came as lawmakers and human rights groups are using a Sept. 16 shooting by Blackwater personnel in Baghdad to highlight the many contractors operating in Iraq who have apparently been unaccountable to American military or civilian laws and outside the reach of the Iraqi judicial system.

The State Department, which had been leading the investigation into the shooting, said Thursday that a team of F.B.I. agents sent to Baghdad in recent days had taken over the inquiry. No charges have been filed in the case, and Justice Department officials have said it is unclear whether American law applies.

Even if enacted, the House bill would have no retroactive authority over past conduct by Blackwater or other contractors.

rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/washi ... ng.html?hp

Keys issues:

- military contracters have taken work usually done by the US military: Blackwater guarded Bremer, a Department of Defense official, and Blackwater has recently been inside a mess -- several inncoent bystanders killed or wounded -- while guarding members of the US Embasy. By US custom (and law?) the US Marines guards embasssies, and normally Soldiers would have protected Bremer.

- Blackwater and the other "contractors" insist hat they are not governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, nor by US criminal law.

- I checked the Blackwayer website, ay http://www.blackwaterusa.com/, hoping to find their pay-rates. Nope. However, they describe their skills as if they were a small armed-force...an air contingent that, I believe, means helicopter gunships in addition to the all-too-famous Blackwater foot-soldiers. Add a navy, and we -- the US -- have funded the creation of a heavily armed forced based here in the US but answering to the owner of Blackwater.

- That is spooky in principle. The founders hated the idea of a standing army, and they (over-optimistically) hoped to depend on local militias to defend the country. Read the details of what Blackwater claims they can do.

- And we pay for it. According to news reports that followed the latest Blackwater foul-up, the NY Times reported that each Blackwater "soldier" is billed to the US at about $450,000 per year, or $1,2000 per day.

- I don't know the Blackwater pay scale, but they make enough from our government to pay well above the pay scale of real Soldiers, and Marines
That creates a conflict: we (excluding, of course, our more sensible neighbors in Canada) are paying to create a an armed force that makes more money -- probably far more -- than our own military. Our own troops are held a code of military justice; they have a clear chain of command reaching up to the President, and he is responsible to the people of the US as represented in the houses of Congress. Blackwater is responsible to a boss in North Carolina. This is like sub-contracting a part of the war to the mafia.

- Overall, I think it undermines the Constitution. Until this new law is passed and signed, he contrtators are subject to no law...as best I can see. (If I'm mistaken, let me now).

- People join the miliatry in large part because of devotion to this country. What happens when more elements of the military are farmed out to contractors?

- I've heard a defense of Blackwater that says the government needed an extra 100,000 troops in Iraq quickly. If so:

(a) The Chief of Staff asked for an expanded Army -- more troops -- in 2002. Rumsfeld, according to Bob Woodword's genrally favorable book about the invasion, argued that the generals were simply too nervous to command...and that it would be more "palatable" to claim that the US and UK could overthrow Saddam with 75,000 - 100,000 troops and be home by October. ("Welcomed with flowers", and all that.)

(b) We have now had five years to add two more regular army divisions. If we have done it, then why are there so many contractors being paid so much to work in Iraq? Have we begun to expand the Army?

(c) If the task was too big ("12 division task for for a 10 division army"), then that was a warning that almost everyone ignored. Perhaps the US should not try to cover the globe with a PAX Americana.

(d) Troops come home from Iraq with battle experience and skill. We should want them to stay in our army...not joining a private army based int the US but responsible to non one.[/i]

From what I can see, there are actually 2 distinct variations of jobs being done by these mercenaries... make no mistake, that is what they are.

1: Special State Department and visiting US dignitary security. This is a job that has been traditionally done by the US military, and I am baffled about why that is not still the case. Frankly, some of the "dignitaries" could probably do with a little less security.

2: International and Private convoy security. This is actually a job that should be the responsibility of the Iraqi Army. It would seem to me that in this area, these contractors should be subject to Iraqi law, not US law. Again, this makes no sense to me.

This has the feel of a living, breathing Tom Clancy novel...

Blackwater certainly makes for the name of a great villain org.

Countertrey wrote:From what I can see, there are actually 2 distinct variations of jobs being done by these mercenaries... make no mistake, that is what they are.

1: Special State Department and visiting US dignitary security. This is a job that has been traditionally done by the US military, and I am baffled about why that is not still the case. Frankly, some of the "dignitaries" could probably do with a little less security.

2: International and Private convoy security. This is actually a job that should be the responsibility of the Iraqi Army. It would seem to me that in this area, these contractors should be subject to Iraqi law, not US law. Again, this makes no sense to me.

This has the feel of a living, breathing Tom Clancy novel...

Blackwater certainly makes for the name of a great villain org.

They are indeed mercenaries and should not have been hired. They're the worst kind of macho freaks whom we're paying half a million a year to embarass us and endanger our real soldiers, who are much better trained and who are over their for something more valiant than money and sport. I agree absolutely that they should not be involved in the above activities. I blame the Bush administration, of course, as usual. There's a total lack of morality and wisdom coming from that quarter.

Unless I'm mistaken, the military genius Frederick the Great created the finest army in Europe in part by eliminating mercenaries from the ranks.
Tough guys when they talk, mercenaries in Frederick's day, as well as today, are businessmen and killers foremost and are known to be probable deserters when the going gets rough.l

While I agree with the conclusion that a private army should have no place on the battlefield with the US Military, you are misinformed about the qualifications and level of experience of the vast majority of those mercs...
They are, for the most part, extremely good. The problem is one of accountability, the ROE, and poor supervision, from what I can see. These are, essentially, US soldiers, who function without the imperatives provided by the UCMJ... and, that is a huge problem. There is No Controling Legal Authority (didn't we here that somewhere before???). [Sarcasm] Clearly, somebody thought this one all the way through... [/Sarcasm}

This is an entirely separate issue from that of why are they there in the first place (the political question). [/quote]

Can't say that I necessarily agree with everything they are hire for and everything they do, but I do believe that this whole thing is being blown out of proportion.

First, they are almost exclusively hire in a protection and/or defensive role (I'd say exclusively, but there is probably a case or two when they're not). If using them in that role makes them mercenaries, then ALL the civilians the government has hired here in the US to defend the posts and add to the force protection of the force at home are too "mercenaries" in this time of war. Not that what you call them really bothers me, just keep them in the defensive role and I'm OK with it whether in the states or overseas.

Second, a vast majority of the hired "help" in Iraq, is in fact, not directly hired by the US Government, but by contractors hired by the US or Iraqi government that, in turn, has hired Blackwater to protect their employees, assets, and interest. The contractors for the most part are necessary, and I, as a "real" Soldier am not really looking forward to a time when I need to protect the contractors directly. If you don't want Blackwater, then you can't have the other contractors unless US Forces protect them.
I can just hear the complants then, "why are our soldiers the protection force for "this Kuwaiti, Saudi,...." company!!!!"

Finally, my experience with Blackwater and similiar protective employees has been mostly positive. I hate to say that they've been as professional as most forces in threator. They are mostly ex-Soldiers who are undoubtedly doing the job for the money, but it's also a job that I would not want to do under the circumstances they have to do it in. Like any company, community or culture, they have criminals and murderers within their ranks. It doesn't make the whole business a bunch of out of control criminals.

They're the worst kind of macho freaks whom we're paying half a million a year to embarass us and endanger our real soldiers, who are much better trained and who are over their for something more valiant than money and sport.

Any proof of this??? Or is this an opinion based on experience?? I'll give you the money part, but the rest!!! WOW!!

Good points, DS, and I'm persuaded by some.

I understand that we probably don' t want real Soldiers acting as guards for private companies.

There are rumors (sure, just rumors), that Blackwater is recruiting right from the Army by offerring up to $100,000 per year for a combat rifleman. If Canada or New Zealand were doing that, I think we would have a problem, but here are some precedents, more or less. The Flying Tigers, for instand.

I worry that Blackwater was introduced to Iraq to protect Bremmer and the CPA. They were a total Rumsfeld/DoD operation, even to the point where the CPA trashed state department studies on what do do with post-conquest Iraq.

I think there is a constitutional problem if the Secretary of Defense decides to hire a mercenary army to protect Defense Department employees. Likewise, I think there is a consitutional problem if the State Department hires up a mercenary army to do State Department business...which US Army investigations of the September shooting suggests that Blackwater did in a bad way.

We have a military, with rules, leadership, training, equipment, and an allegiance to the USA.

Even worse is that both DoD and State mercenaries are billed at $450,000 per year, or about $1,200 per day. That's enough to make the rumored Blackwater pay not unreasonable.

As to private companies, as I said, that's their business.