Blackwater is a national security risk for America. No amount of $Money in NO BID contracts is worth the stain(damage) they have done to America's reputation of building up Iraq.
The Justice department should have detained the idiot, gather the evidence and witnesses and put his ass through a proper trial.
You cant blame a private company who has no jurisdiction or power to confine and prosecute an American citizen for their lack of effort to do so, because they CANT. It would be illegal for them to do it.
It would be like blaming the general public for not apprehending and prosecuting a robber, a task that the police and court system are responsible for.
Elijah and the other dumbass republican is trying to pin the incompetence of the Iraqi media, the US justice department and the drunkass murderer on Blackwater.
Retardation much?
I dont like the idea of PMC either but these people are asking all the wrong questions.
If they want to blame Blackwater for the actions of individual employees, they might as well blame the US military too because they have hundreds of cases whereby US soldiers killed Iraqi civilians without provocations.
Elijah Cumbag oughta be more concerned about keeping Baltimore City's crime from spreading into the counties than trying to ridicule Prince for someone elses misjudgements about who the drunk idiot was. If Cummings had any intelligence he should question the common sense of the Iraqi governement officials. All those officials yet a faliure of correct identification? Cummings tried to hold ALL responsibility to Prince and BW and failed.
Good god, does it really take a rocket scientist to distinguish contractors from the military? I dont think contractors are allowed to wear camouflage.
It should also be noted that the services of BW would be in considerably less demand if not for Congress refusing to continuously fund and authorize military expenses. In the long run BW may cost more but it fills a void left wide open by the inaction and theatrics of Congress.
geez, this republican admin is bankrupting America with unconstitutional off budget war spending and you want them to flush more of our treasure down the toilet?! btw, I wish they refused just once this crazy drunken sailor in the WH, we would probably be much better off economically.
If Congress would approve military budgets in the first place we would not need to fill in the gaps with private contractors. In the long run it might save money. And who's bankrupt?
Maddude: You think we are finacially burdend now? This "drunkin sailor" has put into motion, systems like Homeland Security. which when I served was privied to secret level inteligence and w/o giving specifics, DHS twarted an attack to LAX. Ca. is the #7 economy in the world! Had the attack been a success, what would happen to the export of Ca. goods to the rest of the US? Not to mention emmotional strain. That's money better spent than on global warming. IMO
If they were sent to engage in combat I might agree, hoever - they are not. they are assigned to protect people, places and things. and a lot f the people hired to do that are Iraqis. The only time they are in "combat" is when they are attacked and defend themselves or their assigned people, places and things.
Thats a lot different than strapping on a bomb and blowing people up. Or marching into battle.
Ok, so let's say some "bad apple" at BW pops a few civilians out of fun, and its proven that he did that. you agree that that's murder, right?! which code should be used to charge & convict him: US criminal law, Iraqi criminal law or UCMJ? Fact is that today he would get off with min reprimand because none apply, only company rules do according to Mr Prince and he could not be punished beyond getting his ass fired. i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.
re "i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this."
Which is exactly my point. You are misunderstanding the "immunity" - which is not entirely your fault, it is perpetuated by the media & the do nothing Democrat majority.
I'll do my best to explain this to you...
Immunity from Iraqi legal process applies only to "...official acts that they perform in contracts in support of the Iraq reconstruction effort,"
That is no different than legal language used in many other contracts.
This means that when a person is off duty and commits a crime Iraqi law would apply. There are also cases where the US Dept. of Justice can intervene and should.
Additionally, this is all a moot point considering the new security agreement does not have a provision for immunity from Iraqi law. I'm sure it will, however, provide for oversight from the contractors own country in case of criminal proceedings.
Re: "only company rules do according to Mr Prince and he could not be punished beyond getting his ass fired".
*sigh* Once again, to you and the dense congresspersons who con't to ask this same question. BW is NOT a Law Enforcing entity. They are a private company. Who yes, carries guns,but are still PRIVATE. So when a matter like this occurs BW does what it is able to do. Fire and Fine. As well as reprot the known evidence to the actual athorities of the matter. continued...V
Pt 2 Mr Prince has also provided a list to congress of the legal authorities that he answers to. And yet BW keeps getting ridiculed for not doing more than a private company is allowed. So this thread of questioning should be focused to the acting authorities! NOT BLACKWATER! BW did nothing more than find a legal way to gamble Like the state Lotto. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the state that RECRUITED it's services. Remember BW was "asked" to fill this void.
Rep Cummings is the only (D) who really made a good point. Yes negative actions from civilian Americans reflect poorly on military Americans. Or even Americans in general. However, it is the actions of a rogue few, not the conspired intent of a company. As many of you conspiracy nuts would hope to believe. The whole hearing is nothing more that the Democratic party attacking a company, who's CEO has republican affiliation. It has nothing to do with lives or money. Just politics!
You missed the main point: BW is acting in a legal vacuum. they are not under UCMJ, not under Iraqi law and not under US law. Mr. Prince might be a great upstanding guy, it's just that he is operating in a lawless state outside of any chain of command. So let's suppose 4 a min that an extra judicial killing does happen which I believe in fact it did: the worst that can happen 2 the offender under the current legal limbo is getting himself fired. that reflects bad on us as a nation of laws.
There is no such vacuum. The contractual immunity from Iraqi law does not negate U.S. law and there have been a few people charged in other circumstances. All this is clearly stated in the documents.
The idea is to protect employees and the companies from absurd charges in a foreign land.
you are wrong! Iraq is not US soil, US civil & criminal law doesn't apply, employees or not. that's why private persons are not allowed to shoot in a warzone: only UCMJ is valid and that's derived from international laws of engagement. People not in uniform are not considered legal combatants, remember?! that's why we call them "terrorists" and render them to Gittmo, ow. we would have to give them POW status under the Geneva Conv! Now you see how damaging this is 4 us: BW=illegal combatants
There is no "Vacuum". The Democrats have shown up on this day to vilify BW for something that the justice department is allegedly guilty of. Prince is losing his voice trying to reiterate that to every deaf congressperson who asks it again and again. If you have a problem with the alleged vacuum call a hearing for the Justice dept, to see where the problem therin lies. He has gone above and beyond the morale road to bring these employees to justice, and at no point defends them.
you keep repeating this but the fact is that there were alleged murders of Iraqi citizens and the BW employee got off free of any criminal charges because no criminal code applies. You still have to explain what CRIMINAL code applied if a BW employee turned out to be a serial killer. there is none! that's the reason 4 these hearings.
I have explained that Iraqi criminal code would apply because the murder of a civilian is not an official duty, therefore, immunity does not apply.
The reason he was not charged has to do with discussions between the US State Dept., US Dept. of Justice and the Iraqi Gov. If they collectively decide to pursue the matter in a particular way that has nothing to do with BW or the "immunity" which
The immunity ONLY applies to legitimate actions performed during legitimate duties not murder off duty.
LOL,you sure have no problem making stuff up on the fly! Better tell Mr Prince u think that Iraqi code would apply when they are off duty because he told Betty McCollum during these hearings that it doesn't. In fact Directive 17 immunized all contractors from criminal law, as Mr Prince said he doesn't trust Iraqi law. Also tell this to user "malagent" who wrote in a comment "The immunity is a damn good idea, I would not want any of our people, PMC or military tried in Iraqi courts"
I fail to see how the actions of one person on their off time are "systemic". Hold the person accountable and hold the company/agency accountable if there was an actually act or omission on their [co] part that led to the crime
What does sovereignty have to do with hiring people to protect others? Nothing. It's also irrelevant to whether this persons actions reflect on his employer.
If we listen to the democratic rationale in this case, we would also be holding the company at fault for the Law Enforcement not reacting to a crime the company reported to the 911. The Democrats are making BW sound like bad guys for not acting like vigilantes to their recently fired employees. Do these ignorant democrats really expect Prince to line up his former employees in front of a firing line? You'd hope that these well educated individuales could do some research prior to the hearing.
again, sovereign nations don't outsource shooting jobs in time of war overseas. the reason is the integrity of the chain of command, ie. there is no command responsibility. that reflects badly on our country. last time mercenary armies were used overseas by a major power was the 1700 against the founders of this country by the British East India CO. it is immoral and against international laws to wage war for profit.
That's all true. And I couldn't agree more with the danger of privatizing our military. However that is not BW nor any other contractors role. They are "former" (key word) soldiers, who are now employed to private security detail. They do not go on the offence nor do they "wage war" or conduct "shooting jobs". They are in the Red Zone, so yes, they carry guns. You all act like they are hired assassins outsourced to North Korea?
Sovereign nations all over the world hire and use private security. When that security s hired to work in a war zone it can be expected that there will be the occasional battle or shootout - but that's not what they are there for.
What if some guy that works for youtube shoots someone on his day off, are we to have hearings about that and try to hold YT responsible for that persons actions?
Youtube is not engaged in combat in a sovereign nation. No other nation has ever deployed contractors in a shooting duty in a warzone in another country except Britain in the 18th century. rules of engagement are not transparent, chain of command is fuzzy, the whole thing creates more enemies than it's worth it. If the US military is not able to defend dignitaries, which under the rules of war and the Nuremberg Principles it's obligated to do as occupier, it shouldn't be there to begin with.
See now you are missing the point. Of course YT does not have people in combat because they are a website not a PSC. But when it comes to holding them responsible for what their employees do there is no difference.
There is the potential of liability for employees actions but it usually has to be an action or inaction on the companies part to impose said liability.
There are many private companies providing armed security all over the world all the way from Securitas who provides facility security & patrol to Blackwater.
By your logic if a security officer in any contry, lets sayt he US is protecting a person or place and someone attacks him then he should not fight back - correct? He should not defend himself, the favility or the other people?
Again, under intern laws of war no private company should be in charge of order but the occupying military chain of command under the control of the sovereign gov of the occupying nation. the fact that this law is broken doesnt justify the practice: that's the whole reason for these hearings. You can't have 4 x your private sec guards w weapons go through airports into a sovereign country. even the Sec Serv during offic state visits is restricted by local laws as far as rules of engagement.
Blackwater is a national security risk for America. No amount of $Money in NO BID contracts is worth the stain(damage) they have done to America's reputation of building up Iraq.
TheDolfingurl 9 months ago
The Justice department should have detained the idiot, gather the evidence and witnesses and put his ass through a proper trial.
You cant blame a private company who has no jurisdiction or power to confine and prosecute an American citizen for their lack of effort to do so, because they CANT. It would be illegal for them to do it.
It would be like blaming the general public for not apprehending and prosecuting a robber, a task that the police and court system are responsible for.
TheLamelyNamed 2 years ago
Elijah and the other dumbass republican is trying to pin the incompetence of the Iraqi media, the US justice department and the drunkass murderer on Blackwater.
Retardation much?
I dont like the idea of PMC either but these people are asking all the wrong questions.
If they want to blame Blackwater for the actions of individual employees, they might as well blame the US military too because they have hundreds of cases whereby US soldiers killed Iraqi civilians without provocations.
TheLamelyNamed 2 years ago
Elijah Cumbag oughta be more concerned about keeping Baltimore City's crime from spreading into the counties than trying to ridicule Prince for someone elses misjudgements about who the drunk idiot was. If Cummings had any intelligence he should question the common sense of the Iraqi governement officials. All those officials yet a faliure of correct identification? Cummings tried to hold ALL responsibility to Prince and BW and failed.
XxMG42gunnerxX 3 years ago
Good god, does it really take a rocket scientist to distinguish contractors from the military? I dont think contractors are allowed to wear camouflage.
XxMG42gunnerxX 3 years ago
It should also be noted that the services of BW would be in considerably less demand if not for Congress refusing to continuously fund and authorize military expenses. In the long run BW may cost more but it fills a void left wide open by the inaction and theatrics of Congress.
malagent 3 years ago
geez, this republican admin is bankrupting America with unconstitutional off budget war spending and you want them to flush more of our treasure down the toilet?! btw, I wish they refused just once this crazy drunken sailor in the WH, we would probably be much better off economically.
madashelldude 3 years ago
If Congress would approve military budgets in the first place we would not need to fill in the gaps with private contractors. In the long run it might save money. And who's bankrupt?
malagent 3 years ago
Maddude: You think we are finacially burdend now? This "drunkin sailor" has put into motion, systems like Homeland Security. which when I served was privied to secret level inteligence and w/o giving specifics, DHS twarted an attack to LAX. Ca. is the #7 economy in the world! Had the attack been a success, what would happen to the export of Ca. goods to the rest of the US? Not to mention emmotional strain. That's money better spent than on global warming. IMO
mspencer1085 3 years ago
re "BW=illegal combatants"
If they were sent to engage in combat I might agree, hoever - they are not. they are assigned to protect people, places and things. and a lot f the people hired to do that are Iraqis. The only time they are in "combat" is when they are attacked and defend themselves or their assigned people, places and things.
Thats a lot different than strapping on a bomb and blowing people up. Or marching into battle.
malagent 3 years ago
Ok, so let's say some "bad apple" at BW pops a few civilians out of fun, and its proven that he did that. you agree that that's murder, right?! which code should be used to charge & convict him: US criminal law, Iraqi criminal law or UCMJ? Fact is that today he would get off with min reprimand because none apply, only company rules do according to Mr Prince and he could not be punished beyond getting his ass fired. i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this.
madashelldude 3 years ago
re "i'm not sure what's so hard to understand about this."
Which is exactly my point. You are misunderstanding the "immunity" - which is not entirely your fault, it is perpetuated by the media & the do nothing Democrat majority.
I'll do my best to explain this to you...
Immunity from Iraqi legal process applies only to "...official acts that they perform in contracts in support of the Iraq reconstruction effort,"
continued...
malagent 3 years ago
part 2:
That is no different than legal language used in many other contracts.
This means that when a person is off duty and commits a crime Iraqi law would apply. There are also cases where the US Dept. of Justice can intervene and should.
Additionally, this is all a moot point considering the new security agreement does not have a provision for immunity from Iraqi law. I'm sure it will, however, provide for oversight from the contractors own country in case of criminal proceedings.
malagent 3 years ago
Re: "only company rules do according to Mr Prince and he could not be punished beyond getting his ass fired".
*sigh* Once again, to you and the dense congresspersons who con't to ask this same question. BW is NOT a Law Enforcing entity. They are a private company. Who yes, carries guns,but are still PRIVATE. So when a matter like this occurs BW does what it is able to do. Fire and Fine. As well as reprot the known evidence to the actual athorities of the matter. continued...V
mspencer1085 3 years ago
Pt 2 Mr Prince has also provided a list to congress of the legal authorities that he answers to. And yet BW keeps getting ridiculed for not doing more than a private company is allowed. So this thread of questioning should be focused to the acting authorities! NOT BLACKWATER! BW did nothing more than find a legal way to gamble Like the state Lotto. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the state that RECRUITED it's services. Remember BW was "asked" to fill this void.
mspencer1085 3 years ago
Rep Cummings is the only (D) who really made a good point. Yes negative actions from civilian Americans reflect poorly on military Americans. Or even Americans in general. However, it is the actions of a rogue few, not the conspired intent of a company. As many of you conspiracy nuts would hope to believe. The whole hearing is nothing more that the Democratic party attacking a company, who's CEO has republican affiliation. It has nothing to do with lives or money. Just politics!
mspencer1085 3 years ago
You missed the main point: BW is acting in a legal vacuum. they are not under UCMJ, not under Iraqi law and not under US law. Mr. Prince might be a great upstanding guy, it's just that he is operating in a lawless state outside of any chain of command. So let's suppose 4 a min that an extra judicial killing does happen which I believe in fact it did: the worst that can happen 2 the offender under the current legal limbo is getting himself fired. that reflects bad on us as a nation of laws.
szatmar666 3 years ago
There is no such vacuum. The contractual immunity from Iraqi law does not negate U.S. law and there have been a few people charged in other circumstances. All this is clearly stated in the documents.
The idea is to protect employees and the companies from absurd charges in a foreign land.
malagent 3 years ago
you are wrong! Iraq is not US soil, US civil & criminal law doesn't apply, employees or not. that's why private persons are not allowed to shoot in a warzone: only UCMJ is valid and that's derived from international laws of engagement. People not in uniform are not considered legal combatants, remember?! that's why we call them "terrorists" and render them to Gittmo, ow. we would have to give them POW status under the Geneva Conv! Now you see how damaging this is 4 us: BW=illegal combatants
madashelldude 3 years ago
There is no "Vacuum". The Democrats have shown up on this day to vilify BW for something that the justice department is allegedly guilty of. Prince is losing his voice trying to reiterate that to every deaf congressperson who asks it again and again. If you have a problem with the alleged vacuum call a hearing for the Justice dept, to see where the problem therin lies. He has gone above and beyond the morale road to bring these employees to justice, and at no point defends them.
mspencer1085 3 years ago
you keep repeating this but the fact is that there were alleged murders of Iraqi citizens and the BW employee got off free of any criminal charges because no criminal code applies. You still have to explain what CRIMINAL code applied if a BW employee turned out to be a serial killer. there is none! that's the reason 4 these hearings.
madashelldude 3 years ago
I have explained that Iraqi criminal code would apply because the murder of a civilian is not an official duty, therefore, immunity does not apply.
The reason he was not charged has to do with discussions between the US State Dept., US Dept. of Justice and the Iraqi Gov. If they collectively decide to pursue the matter in a particular way that has nothing to do with BW or the "immunity" which
The immunity ONLY applies to legitimate actions performed during legitimate duties not murder off duty.
malagent 3 years ago
LOL,you sure have no problem making stuff up on the fly! Better tell Mr Prince u think that Iraqi code would apply when they are off duty because he told Betty McCollum during these hearings that it doesn't. In fact Directive 17 immunized all contractors from criminal law, as Mr Prince said he doesn't trust Iraqi law. Also tell this to user "malagent" who wrote in a comment "The immunity is a damn good idea, I would not want any of our people, PMC or military tried in Iraqi courts"
17g1PaKPU2A
madashelldude 3 years ago
Read the thing before you insist you know what it says.
malagent 3 years ago
Consider an employee of any company in the U.S. gets drunk & murders someone
Why would anyone in their right mind try & hold that co. accountable for that persons actions?
Say it was an off duty cop, you don't go blaming the dept.
malagent 4 years ago
Yes you do if its systemic, ie happens all the time. Also: sovereign nations don't outsource shooting jobs in wars.
madashelldude 4 years ago
I fail to see how the actions of one person on their off time are "systemic". Hold the person accountable and hold the company/agency accountable if there was an actually act or omission on their [co] part that led to the crime
What does sovereignty have to do with hiring people to protect others? Nothing. It's also irrelevant to whether this persons actions reflect on his employer.
malagent 4 years ago
Exactly! Do we shut down the NFL because OJ Simpson went on a Rampage?
mspencer1085 3 years ago
If we listen to the democratic rationale in this case, we would also be holding the company at fault for the Law Enforcement not reacting to a crime the company reported to the 911. The Democrats are making BW sound like bad guys for not acting like vigilantes to their recently fired employees. Do these ignorant democrats really expect Prince to line up his former employees in front of a firing line? You'd hope that these well educated individuales could do some research prior to the hearing.
mspencer1085 3 years ago
again, sovereign nations don't outsource shooting jobs in time of war overseas. the reason is the integrity of the chain of command, ie. there is no command responsibility. that reflects badly on our country. last time mercenary armies were used overseas by a major power was the 1700 against the founders of this country by the British East India CO. it is immoral and against international laws to wage war for profit.
madashelldude 3 years ago
That's all true. And I couldn't agree more with the danger of privatizing our military. However that is not BW nor any other contractors role. They are "former" (key word) soldiers, who are now employed to private security detail. They do not go on the offence nor do they "wage war" or conduct "shooting jobs". They are in the Red Zone, so yes, they carry guns. You all act like they are hired assassins outsourced to North Korea?
mspencer1085 3 years ago
Sovereign nations all over the world hire and use private security. When that security s hired to work in a war zone it can be expected that there will be the occasional battle or shootout - but that's not what they are there for.
What if some guy that works for youtube shoots someone on his day off, are we to have hearings about that and try to hold YT responsible for that persons actions?
malagent 3 years ago
Youtube is not engaged in combat in a sovereign nation. No other nation has ever deployed contractors in a shooting duty in a warzone in another country except Britain in the 18th century. rules of engagement are not transparent, chain of command is fuzzy, the whole thing creates more enemies than it's worth it. If the US military is not able to defend dignitaries, which under the rules of war and the Nuremberg Principles it's obligated to do as occupier, it shouldn't be there to begin with.
madashelldude 3 years ago
See now you are missing the point. Of course YT does not have people in combat because they are a website not a PSC. But when it comes to holding them responsible for what their employees do there is no difference.
There is the potential of liability for employees actions but it usually has to be an action or inaction on the companies part to impose said liability.
malagent 3 years ago
Again, youtube is under US civil law. the whole point is that BW is NOT!
madashelldude 3 years ago
Yes they are. Read the law, understand tit and stop believing everything the drive by media and Harry Reid tell you.
malagent 3 years ago
There are many private companies providing armed security all over the world all the way from Securitas who provides facility security & patrol to Blackwater.
By your logic if a security officer in any contry, lets sayt he US is protecting a person or place and someone attacks him then he should not fight back - correct? He should not defend himself, the favility or the other people?
Because that would be combat.
malagent 3 years ago
Again, under intern laws of war no private company should be in charge of order but the occupying military chain of command under the control of the sovereign gov of the occupying nation. the fact that this law is broken doesnt justify the practice: that's the whole reason for these hearings. You can't have 4 x your private sec guards w weapons go through airports into a sovereign country. even the Sec Serv during offic state visits is restricted by local laws as far as rules of engagement.
madashelldude 3 years ago