Iraqis authorize government to sue Blackwater

[nobodyknows]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100118/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iraq_blackwater

BAGHDAD – Iraq's government has started collecting signatures for a class-action lawsuit from victims who were wounded or lost family in incidents involving the U.S. private security firm formerly known as Blackwater.

The head of the prime minister's legal consultation office said Monday the government will seek compensation for a string of incidents, including the 2007 killing of 17 civilians in Nisoor Square.

The official, Fadhil Mohammed Jawad, says there is no deadline to receive the authorizations. He refused to give a date for the lawsuit.

On Dec. 31, a U.S. federal judge threw out criminal charges against the company, now known as Xe Services, regarding the Nisoor Square killings, citing mistakes by prosecutors.

Well, maybe some justice will yet be served.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

This would be good. No one should be able to get away with some of the things Blackwater has done, but don't discount the possibility that the US will somehow block this.

 

[nobodyknows]

I did say "maybe". I sure hope the many victims of Blackwater get some justice.

I persoanlly think Blackwater was as big a mistake as Iraq. We have a military to do the job they were doing.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I did say "maybe". I sure hope the many victims of Blackwater get some justice.

I persoanlly think Blackwater was as big a mistake as Iraq. We have a military to do the job they were doing.

Do you understand why they use these contractors?

 

[nobodyknows]

Do you understand why they use these contractors?

Because the big shots in the state department didn't trust the army?

They didn't want to risk THEIR skins after all. It's not like this is a Hollywood movie you know.

Who can blame them for wanting to be just like their fearless leaders, Bush and Cheney?

Anyway that's the gemneral impression I get?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Because the big shots in the state department didn't trust the army?

They didn't want to risk THEIR skins after all. It's not like this is a Hollywood movie you know.

Who can blame them for wanting to be just like their fearless leaders, Bush and Cheney?

Anyway that's the gemneral impression I get?

There is a legitimate reason for services that Blackwater provides as it involves a good bit that doesn't involve combat. The problem isn't the theory, it's the practice and the effective immunity that Blackwater enjoyed.

Remember, the military has one major duty and that's to break things and kill people. It's not done in a haphazard way, but it isn't a social club.

If there had been responsible people doing this and being held accountable, we wouldn't have all the crap which happened.

 

[nobodyknows]

If there had been responsible people doing this and being held accountable, we wouldn't have all the crap which happened.

That's my point. The Army is responsible people. This should have been there mission and if a few state dept employees get killed, well as Rumy would say you go to war with the Army you have--not the army you might want. But I guess that Army wasn't good enough to protect them to and from Baghdad International? What do you want to bet they had the best armored vehicles also? Hypocrite bastards!

 

[Sclamoz]

That's my point. The Army is responsible people. This should have been there mission and if a few state dept employees get killed, well as Rumy would say you go to war with the Army you have--not the army you might want. But I guess that Army wasn't good enough to protect them to and from Baghdad International? What do you want to bet they had the best armored vehicles also? Hypocrite bastards!

Blackwater and other contractors generally use SUVs. The reason officials use contractors for protection is because they are trained for it. Like how the president has the secret service.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Because the big shots in the state department didn't trust the army?

They didn't want to risk THEIR skins after all. It's not like this is a Hollywood movie you know.

Who can blame them for wanting to be just like their fearless leaders, Bush and Cheney?

Anyway that's the gemneral impression I get?

Good theory. I think its because The military and its leaders ultimately answer to congress. A private corp doesn't answer to anybody. This means Less govt. bureaucracy and red tape, they don't have to respect or honor US or military rules or law... They can have blackwater do all the dirty work without delay or accountability. If they get caught doing shady shit its not on the military hands its on the corps. The corps. say they are sorry pay a fine then go about business as usual. Thats the general impression I get.

 

[nobodyknows]

Blackwater and other contractors generally use SUVs. The reason officials use contractors for protection is because they are trained for it. Like how the president has the secret service.

So who protected state dept officals during WW2, Korea, or Vietnam?

And for the ride to Baghdad International I highly doubt they used regular SUV's.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004969.php

As part of its proposed equipment costs, Blackwater included costs equating to [redacted] to purchase five armored vehicles plus operating expenses to be used to transport personnel to and from Baghdad Airport in Iraq. ... We discussed this with the contracting officer, who indicated that the contractor was not required to purchase these vehicles as they are not called for in the statement of work. Our review of the statement of work also did not disclose a requirement for these vehicles. ...
Blackwater also included costs equating to [redacted] operate these vehicles. Our review disclosed that these "drivers" are the protective security specialists deployed in Iraq. The cost for these personnel is already being recovered in the daily rates being proposed. As a result, inclusion of additional costs for drivers in dedicated overhead is, in effect, a duplication of labor costs.

I seem to remember reading that the cost of going from downtown Baghdad to the airport went as high as $80,000 one way but all I could google up was this link.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage/2361

Last November, a security consultant told David Corn that a six-mile cab ride from Central Baghdad to Baghdad International Airport cost $6,000. Now it's up to $35,000. Read what New York Times Iraq correspondent Dexter Filkins recently told NBC Meet the Press host Tim Russert:

I can't even guess what Blackwater was charging the State Dept.?

 

[nobodyknows]

Good theory. I think its because The military and its leaders ultimately answer to congress. A private corp doesn't answer to anybody. This means Less govt. bureaucracy and red tape, they don't have to respect or honor US or military rules or law... They can have blackwater do all the dirty work without delay or accountability. If they get caught doing shady shit its not on the military hands its on the corps. The corps. say they are sorry pay a fine then go about business as usual. Thats the general impression I get.

Then I hope they sue Blackwater and everybody associated with it out of house and home.

 

[Sclamoz]

So who protected state dept officals during WW2, Korea, or Vietnam?


And for the ride to Baghdad International I highly doubt they used regular SUV's.


http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/004969.php

I don't know, who did protect officials in Vietnam, Korea and ww2?

Yeah I'm sure they did use armored vehicles for that as it was incredibly dangerous at the time(they also have their own airforce). My point was the majority of contractors including Blackwater used SUVs for missions.

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2004/11/22/text05.shtml

These were the armored vehicles they used apparently, they are called bearcats.

I seem to remember reading that the cost of going from downtown Baghdad to the airport went as high as $80,000 one way but all I could google up was this link.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/outrage/2361

I can't even guess what Blackwater was charging the State Dept.?

Maybe you should compare the cost of the private contractors to what it would cost doing it with soldiers. Don't forget to factor in the costs of training soldiers, payouts to the families of the dead and lifetime health care for the wounded and the material costs for destroyed equipment. Also, the negative impacts dead soldiers have on the countries morale and the war effort as well as the reverse for the enemy and compare that to the costs of private contractors.

Good theory. I think its because The military and its leaders ultimately answer to congress. A private corp doesn't answer to anybody. This means Less govt. bureaucracy and red tape, they don't have to respect or honor US or military rules or law... They can have blackwater do all the dirty work without delay or accountability. If they get caught doing shady shit its not on the military hands its on the corps. The corps. say they are sorry pay a fine then go about business as usual. Thats the general impression I get.

Actually they are bound by the UCMJ just like soldiers.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Actually they are bound by the UCMJ just like soldiers.

Bound by who?

 

[Craig234]

I did say "maybe". I sure hope the many victims of Blackwater get some justice.

I persoanlly think Blackwater was as big a mistake as Iraq. We have a military to do the job they were doing.

The right has an ideology that's simply opposed to government workers, and prefers anythig privatized, which is why you saw the Bush administration systematically privatize all kinds of government offices.

Coincidentally, that was part of Bill Moyers' interview last week with Thomas Frank. THe following clip is an interesting chat about this massive ideological policy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/watch.html

 

[Ozoned]

The right has an ideology that's simply opposed to government workers, and prefers anythig privatized, which is why you saw the Bush administration systematically privatize all kinds of government offices.

Coincidentally, that was part of Bill Moyers' interview last week with Thomas Frank. THe following clip is an interesting chat about this massive ideological policy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/watch.html

The right is smart enough to realize that private companies can provide the services needed at much less cost than the government can, which in turn, allows money to be spent on your pet projects without raising taxes.

Coincidentally, that common sense was learned from math skills that most of us were taught in 1st grade.

 

[Craig234]

The right is smart enough to realize that private companies can provide the services needed at much less cost than the government can, which in turn, allows money to be spent on your pet projects without raising taxes.

Coincidentally, that common sense was learned from math skills that most of us were taught in 1st grade.

First, did you watch the clip? (No. Post after you do, then your comments will be more useful).

Second, funny thing happened on the way to your privatized paradise. Turns out it doesn't often work how you say.

The private sector has an essential role in the economy, but many services are better and more cheaply delivered by the government than the private sector.

I understnand you haven't done any checking on this since you piced your answerin the first grade, but if you were to, you would find you're wrong.

How estimates are that administrative costs of social security would skyrocket from their now-efficent levels if it were privatized. How our private healthcare industry has out of control costs compared to the rest of the advanced world. How the privatized military contracotrs are far more expensive than the US military. And dozens or hundreds of similar examples. If you check the facts they're filled with examples of attempted privitization that might have profitted a right-wing politcian and a private contraqctor but did terrily and screwed the taxpayer.

 

[Sclamoz]

The right has an ideology that's simply opposed to government workers, and prefers anythig privatized, which is why you saw the Bush administration systematically privatize all kinds of government offices.

Coincidentally, that was part of Bill Moyers' interview last week with Thomas Frank. THe following clip is an interesting chat about this massive ideological policy.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01152010/watch.html

The idea that because the right privatized part of the government they want to do that to the military is disingenuous. More so when you consider its typically the left that has been for a smaller military and military budget, and the reason why we depend on contractors is precisely because our military doesn't have enough personnel.

 

[Craig234]

The idea that because the right privatized part of the government they want to do that to the military is disingenuous. More so when you consider its typically the left that has been for a smaller military and military budge, and the reason why we depend on contractors is precisely because our military doesn't have enough personnel.

Another poster who didn't watch the clip before commenting.

You very much miusunderstand the 'privitization' issue.

The left has never bloated the private military to fight a war because it didn't want to spend much on the military. It, um, skyrocketed the military budget when needed. WWII? Korea? Vietnam?

Tjhe right-wing agenda was followed by Rumsfeld, ignoring the generals' request for a half million troops for Iraq and trying a 'lean' approach supplemented by the private companies, hence more private than army.

 

[Sclamoz]

Another poster who didn't watch the clip before commenting.

You very much miusunderstand the 'privitization' issue.

The left has never bloated the private military to fight a war because it didn't want to spend much on the military. It, um, skyrocketed the military budget when needed. WWII? Korea? Vietnam?

Tjhe right-wing agenda was followed by Rumsfeld, ignoring the generals' request for a half million troops for Iraq and trying a 'lean' approach supplemented by the private companies, hence more private than army.

We've used civilian contractors in all of the wars you mentioned and the ones before as well.

Read page 6

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...U95NFp&sig=AHIEtbQ8I_i8onmEUiene4mFbA8o_2Nwsg

 

[nobodyknows]

I don't know, who did protect officials in Vietnam, Korea and ww2?

I'm willing to bet we didn't hire mercenaries to do it.

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/newsbulletin/2004/11/22/text05.shtml

These were the armored vehicles they used apparently, they are called bearcats.

Of course they were armored... to the hilt and then some.

Maybe you should compare the cost of the private contractors to what it would cost doing it with soldiers. Don't forget to factor in the costs of training soldiers, payouts to the families of the dead and lifetime health care for the wounded and the material costs for destroyed equipment. Also, the negative impacts dead soldiers have on the countries morale and the war effort as well as the reverse for the enemy and compare that to the costs of private contractors.

Maybe you should get those figures together and while your at it let us know how much we were paying Blackwater.

Do you really think cost was a concern to the State Dept.? Do you think they compared costs to see how many of our soilders had to go without armour so the Stae Dept. employees and the blackwater mercs could be safe?

I'll anxiously await your reserch results.

 

[Nebor]

Do you really think cost was a concern to the State Dept.? Do you think they compared costs to see how many of our soilders had to go without armour so the Stae Dept. employees and the blackwater mercs could be safe?

I'll anxiously await your reserch results.

It's more like the Army said, "we're not doing it."

I think you don't realize the cost involved in using soldiers. You're paying for their home, their food, their salary, their health care, their family's health care... entitlements for a soldier are enormous.

 

[CitizenKain]

The right is smart enough to realize that private companies can provide the services needed at much less cost than the government can, which in turn, allows money to be spent on your pet projects without raising taxes.

Coincidentally, that common sense was learned from math skills that most of us were taught in 1st grade.

No, the right is smart enough to funnel money to their donors at great expense to the taxpayer. Why pay a soldier 30k a year to shuttle some KBR execs around, when you can pay 180k to move those same execs around and then get a kickback from your KBR investments?

Sorry you didn't learn in school past the 1st grade.

 

[Nebor]

No, the right is smart enough to funnel money to their donors at great expense to the taxpayer. Why pay a soldier 30k a year to shuttle some KBR execs around, when you can pay 180k to move those same execs around and then get a kickback from your KBR investments?

Sorry you didn't learn in school past the 1st grade.

As I said, the cost of entitlements (health care, allowances, schools, retirement, education benefits) mean that a soldier with a base pay of $30k a year is receiving more than $100k in entitlements.

 

[nobodyknows]

It's more like the Army said, "we're not doing it."

I think you don't realize the cost involved in using soldiers. You're paying for their home, their food, their salary, their health care, their family's health care... entitlements for a soldier are enormous.

Without any real facts and figures we will never know for sure, however I disagree and also don't like the idea fo the State Dept. hiring mercs to protect their chickenhawk asses.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hmanity could save a lot of money if it didn't go to war, kind a like what you'd do iffen ya hated yourself.