Iraqi: 'No country in world' would tolerate Blackwater

Obviously one would. The U.S.A. Shame on us.

Well, we've always been told that if the Iraq government wanted the US out, we'd be happy to leave. Now the Iraqi government wants Blackwater to be pulled out. Will we honor their request or will we hem and haw and say "Just wait until this investigation and that study and this here thing is done..."?

This is the administration's chance to show that we respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi government in regards to our military operations. Will Bush take it?

Absolutely.

The fact that Americans care so little what their paid killers do there tells us something not very nice about the state od ethics in America.

But then again, who would tolerate Guantanamo? The Cubans sure have no say in that squalid operation on their stolen property.

Bush/Cheney treated Iraq like a big nothing when it finally started to act like a real country. They should have had Blackwater out- right after the Iraqi gov't said they wanted the private "security" firm out for murdering Iraqi civilians. No wonder things continue to be messed up there--Double message for Iraq: "You are are a democracy/ No, we are your parent company".

Jeeez, whaddaywant Iraq, would you rather have that Saddam guy back? Ain't it better to have storm troopers blastin' away in the middle of the day than sneakin' in on you at night. We're the hired gun our great president decided you need in your long sought democratic society. If you'd only let us send more of our guys in there we'd finish up the job. Piece of cake. By the way, you can get those roses from storage that our great leaders said would be
be strewn at us 6 years ago. Maybe some of em are still fresh. Jeez, you Iraqi guys don't know a good thing when you see it.

Does Blackwater have anything to do with the US Military or are they a private security contrator firm?

...except America. When they all come home they will be integrated into our domestic civil law enforcement agencies.

As I understand it, getting
"rid" of Blackwater would entail a strategy which involved more bribe money from the US and Blackwater to Maliki plus changing the names on the Blackwater thugs' T-shirts to those of some other company.
Blackwater would disappear but not really. They'd be collecting the cash.

Alas, this is not an example of Iraqi independence from American rule. It's an example of Maliki holding up Clueless Condi and Bush again.

And we're paying...closing in on a trillion.

My apologies to the Doobie Brothers.

Blackwater

Well, I paid off a slew of crooked senators
All Republicans, most we know by name
No bids for contracts
No need to show the facts
Blackwater keeps taking the cash just the same

(Chorus)
Go Blackwater, keep on taking
Our for-hire goons keep on shooting those Iraqis
Go Blackwater, keep on taking
Our for-hire goons keep on shooting those Iraqis
Go Balckwater, keep on taking
Our for-hire goons keep on shooting those Iraqis
Yeah, keep on taking the cash
Gonna take everything, taxpayers' money
Gonna take everything all right
And I ain't got no worries
cause there's no oversight at all

Subponea me I don't care, don't make no difference to me
Just use this money to straighten this mess
Yeah, we really love this dusty desert land
Makes me rich, life's a bitch
Too many Iraqis, seem to be all around

(Chorus)

Id like grab more taxpayers' money
Pretty mama come and put more in my hand
In my hand, put it in my hand pretty mama
I can keep taking money all night long
I want to shoot shoot, shoot shoot, shoot shoot
Iraqis all night long

The fact that so many people want them out does tell is something... but the good people in Iraq and surroudning places also want everyone out.
I think that the Blackwater Actions should not be tolerated if they are bad, but they are the only people who can get the things done that the military cannot.

Dan M.

Terrific parody song!
Very very good!
Made my Swamp morning.

John from Toronto is another guilty one spouting lies as does the mainstream media. For your info John, the US joined forces with Cuban forces to drive the Spaniards from Guantanimo Bay in 1898, the Spanish American War. They then forged an agreement to provide the naval base to US for their help. There is no subsequent treaty or other changes that nullifies that agreement, thus the USA has not stolen it as you have suggested.
People that don't know what they are espousing should keep quiet as they know not what the consequences are for others.

Blackwater, as I understand it, has nothing to do with the US military. They are a private security firm. That is why they can get away with murder.

Hello,

I believe there is a need for Blackwater. American troops are fighting in a place where it is taught to children that dieing for their cause, a person's order really, is the best death.

American troops are fighting a disciplined war against people who shows no discipline. How can you win against people when you want to come back home and dont support the war, but love your country, and the enemy is willing to go to unbelievable extremes to kill you. But, you are fighting within the rules.

Blackwater, whether their methods are agreed with or not, are in an environment that calls for the extreme in order to maintain order. They do things that the average citizen could not even imagine doing nor could sleep if they witnessed such things.

If people have such a problem with Blackwater then take a trip over their and tell those people that they are wrong. Lets see how civilized your vacation will be.

These posts are typical Swamp babble that has nothing to do with the issue, which is oversight. Iraqi Courts have no jurisdiction over Blackwater. The military similarly has no jurisdiction, so Blackwater workers cannot be court marshaled. This is a loophole that must be closed, and Congress should stop passing meaningless declarations about 100 year old genocides and deal with this sensitive political issue ASAP.

The fallout over Blackwater is typical liberal hypocrisy. 30 American security contractors employed by Blackwater are murdered while protecting diplomats, and not a peep from the left. 17 Iraqis are allegedly killed by heavy handed Blackwater agents, allegations that are in dispute and under investigation, and the left loses their freaking mind about it. I don't know when it became politically correct to bash America or American companies at every opportunity, buy I'll be cold and in the ground before I jump on that bandwagon.

"17 Iraqis are allegedly killed by heavy handed Blackwater agents, allegations that are in dispute and under investigation, and the left loses their freaking mind about it."

Nice rant, but what does it have to do with this simple truth: The Iraqi government wants Blackwater to leave. Blackwater is hired by the State Department and the State Department can tell Blackwater to go home at will.

Either the administration will comply with the wishes of the sovereign Iraqi government or else they won't. If they won't, however, they can stop giving the "we respect the will of the government" song and dance.

Nothing to do with liberals or conservatives or who likes the war or hates it -- it's a simple question of respect for national sovereignty.

Some pretty uninformed stuff here.

Yes, a lot of Iraqis actually would take Saddam back, knowing full well he had a limited number of years left and that life for most of them was better.

Besides, and very important, the war was not about Saddam.

It was not about oil either. It was about the strategic position of Israel.

I don't think a lot of readers appreciate what horror the U.S. has inflicted on Iraq. Not just the best part of a million dead, countless thousands of cripples, no jobs in a flattened economy, a great international archeological treasure looted, depleted uranium dust everywhere, but to this day no clean water and steady electricity in many parts of this hot country.

It truly is the equivalent of having dropped a high-megaton atomic bomb on a country that has shown no aggression to the U.S.

A truly shameful act which undoubtedly will continue to create unpleasant side effects for many years.

hawqeye,

It's usually a good idea to know the words to the music before you stand up to sing.

First, the U.S. effort in Cuba more a century ago was itself nothing more than an imperial adventure.

There was a long history of U.S, interest in Cuba going back to the Revolutionary War.

The agreement under which the U.S. paid rent for the base in Cuba lapsed many years ago.

But the U.S. arbitrarily kept the base anyway.

And no matter what the details of its history, what has gone on there for more than half a decade is a disgrace, not worthy of any country claiming to love freedom and democratic values.

And, yes, Herbie, the issue at the heart is about Iraq's supposed jurisdiction over its affairs.

It clearly has none at all.

Paid killers are allowed to walk the streets, pretty much shooting any Iraqi who doesn't look acceptable to them. They do this with utter impunity.

God, America has a great deal to be ashamed of.

Posted by: C.Morris | October 18, 2007 11:53 AM

You're welcome.

Posted by: Herbie H. | October 18, 2007 12:20 PM

If it makes you feel better, I'll hire a professional crier for these mercenaries. Soldiers who fight for money know exactly what they are getting into. Regrettable, but I find my tear ducts unaffected. Comparing these hired guns to our men and women in the Armed Forces--well, you must have a political ax to grind.

Its look like all the concern is about Backwater,

The fact is there are more that 100 company hiring mercenaries in Iraq and all those mercenaries are hired to kill, there are UK companies and Australians and others.

In Iraq alone, there are some 20,000-25,000 mercenaries employed by DynCorp, CACI International, Titan and Global Risks.

BTW, the number of mercenaries up numbered of US troop in Iraq now as AP reported recently in one of there reports.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/10/5725_making_a_killin.html#more

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071015/scahill

Dan M 11:44, Thank you!

John 2:03, it looks like Blackwater is the company whose swaggering thugs blow away anyone they feel bigger than. It looks like Blackwater is the only comany who Iraq's governemt and people demand to have seen the last of. And it looks like Blackwater is going to get a pat on the head and a bunch more tax money. You're doing a great job, Blackie! The mercenaries problem is one for debate. The Blackwater murderers need to be removed from power. I can't believe Ellen Degeneres's DOG is pulling headlines while this scandal is getting swept under the rug.

(the pat on the head)
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g4OiK8Bkks3epqQ-eXeiSGX6cu7g

(mo' money mo' money mo' money)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119240518691958669.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

"34 YEAR OLD BLACKWATER PRESIDENT TO JOIN ARMED FORCES"

YEA RIGHT!

THEY SHOULD TAKE A POLL AND SEE WHICH ONE WILL EITHER GO BACK INTO THE MILITARY VS THE BLACKWATER EMPLOYEES UNDER THE AGE OF 42 THAT HAVE NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY CALL THE NEAREST STATE DEPARTMENT ARMY/AIR FORCE/NAVY/MARINE RECRUITER TO SIGN UP AND STAY IN IRAQ TO FIGHT WITH OUR SWORN IN AMERICAN MILITARY FIGHTERS AND SUPPORT UNITS.

NOW THAT WOULD BE AN ACT OF A TRUE AMERICAN AT A TIME OF THE GREATEST WAR OF OUR TIMES.

YEA RIGHT, THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN, BECAUSE THEY NEED THEM HERE WHEN AND IF MARSHALL IS DECLARED BECAUSE A WOMAN WON THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND THESE GOP MEN, WHO ARE GAY IN THE CLOSET ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.

SO AMERICA GET READY BECAUSE BLACKWATER WILL BE NEAR YOUR BORDER TOWN REAL SOON.

TOO BAD THEY CAN'T BE LIKE FARAKHAN AND HAVE A MILLION BLACK MEN JOIN THEM AND REALLY DO SOMETHING LIKE IN DARFUR.

TOO BLACK FOR BLACKWATER I GET THAT TOO.

HAPPY RECRUITING GEORGE BUSH AND KEN STARR!

"17 Iraqis are allegedly killed by heavy handed Blackwater agents, allegations that are in dispute and under investigation, and the left loses their freaking mind about it."

Wow, in order to provide cover to the thugs from Blackwater Herbie H.. Is willing to say that the soldiers of the United States Army who arrived first on the scene were liars.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/12/iraq.main/index.html

"Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa commands the 3rd Battalion, 92nd Field Artillery Regiment of the 2nd Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division. His unit conducts patrols in the Nusoor Square neighborhood of Baghdad, the U.S. military source told CNN.

The unit was first to arrive at the scene, and soldiers took witness statements, photographs, and made assessments.

The source confirmed remarks made by Tarsa that were reported Friday in The Washington Post.

"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," Tarsa is quoted as saying.

"I did not see anything that indicated they [Blackwater guards] were fired upon."

Heavy handed is not the proper adjective for Blackwaters actions. Cowardly and murderous are more accurate

Blackwater contractors are nothing more than hired assassins with no moral values, no humanity and brave only behind the trigger of a gun. Take the weapons away, and your Blackwater guards would be a bunch of sniveling cowards, because if they were brave, they would have joined the U.S. military or stayed in the U.S. military. How do they get paid - is it per Iraqi life? They are the worst example of American enterprise, but what do you expect from this evil administration - evil begets evil.

* * * * *
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | October 18, 2007 10:45 AM

Dear Chuckles,

Are you always so clueless?

Who said that Americans don’t care about the behavior of military and private contractors in Iraq? Of course we care. We care very much. You can’t have read very much if you think we don’t care.

But there is also little the average American can do about it. We can write to our representatives in Congress to complain, but they are normally too busy fighting over our money to respond with anything more than a computer generated form letter.

Furthermore, in case you haven’t noticed – and I think you are incapable of noticing – our political system moves at a glacial pace within rigid 2, 4, and 6 year election cycles. We don’t have a parliamentary system where a no-confidence vote will result in new elections on short notice. Thus, the ballot box is a very inefficient method for citizens to change the way we do business – but it’s all we’ve got.

What about Guantanamo? We needed a place to hold prisoners of war and war criminals, and Guantanamo was just as good a place as any. What did you expect? That we would simply release back into the wild anyone caught in arms against us? We realized about 145 years ago that a catch-and-release policy during war is not a good idea. But, of course, you don’t think about the practical aspects of waging a war in a foreign country, do you?

And, no, we didn’t steal Guantanamo from the Cubans either. We leased it from them, and the lease is perpetual at the option of the United States. We still tender payment for it too, but the current Cuban government doesn’t cash the checks. Give yourself an education and a life, eh?

Mr. Chuckman, calling Blackwater a bunch of "paid killers" is misleading. Both Blackwater and our soldiers are paid. Both sometimes use lethal force. So what's the distinction? Or are you calling members of the US military paid killers too?

Regarding the claim that Blackwater personnel are cowards and would join the US military if they were real men:
Actually, most of them have joined the military, including its most elite units. But in the special operations community (as in any bureaucracy), men usually stay operational for a small duration after which the command assigns them to staff work. Instead of languishing at a desk, many soldiers and sailors retire from the military not just to make more money, but also to return to the battlefield: the place they've been trained to be, the place were they feel they can best serve their country.

"We needed a place to hold prisoners of war and war criminals, and Guantanamo was just as good a place as any. What did you expect? "

Oh, John w., don't be coy. We didn't put the prisoners at Gitmo beacause "it was as good a place as any". We put them their specifically so that the claim could be made that activities there don't come under the jurisdiction of the Federal courts since it is foriegn soil. Bush chose Gitmo to end run the law, and for no other reason.

And considering that the administration has said that they aren't "Prisoners of War" and not a single perdon there has even been charged with a war crime, your statement seems just a bit disingenous.

The criminals at Gitmo should be brought to the US and tried in the criminal courts of this country. I would think that as a lawyer you would agree.

* * * * *

Posted by: AJF | October 19, 2007 9:01 AM

You are wrong. Placement of prisoners on Guantanamo does not frustrate the Court's jurisdiction over habeas corpus. Given the fact that Guantanamo is virtually U.S. soil, along with the fact that habeas corpus is effective as long as the custodian is subject to the process of a U.S. court, there is (and was) no reason for the administration to believe that housing prisoners on Guantanamo would prevent their access to habeas corpus.

If you keep up on your case law you would have known this.

Second, the United States has clearly designated the prisoners on Guantanamo as falling within two separate categories: 1) "enemy combatants," and 2) “unlawful enemy combatants.” If you have been following the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court on the matter, you would have known that “enemy combatant” is just another name for a P.O.W., and “unlawful enemy combatant” is a P.O.W. who allegedly committed some crime or crimes against the laws of war - for which they could face trial and punishment. Nor is it true that no one has been charged with a war crime there; they just haven’t figured out a way to try them within the Congressional directives issued for that purpose.

So, no, I’m not being disingenuous. You are just ignorant.

As to whether they should be tried in this country, that depends on whether they have violated any laws over which the state or federal courts have jurisdiction. It would be pointless to try them otherwise. Since the courts of the United States don’t have jurisdiction over the laws of war – and only military tribunals do - I do not agree that those prisoners need to be brought to the U.S. for trial. As far as I am concerned, it would be equally acceptable to send them back to Afghanistan to face a court martial.

"You are wrong. Placement of prisoners on Guantanamo does not frustrate the Court's jurisdiction over habeas corpus. "

No John that's not what I said. I said that Bush placed the Prisoners at Gitmo so that they could make that arguement. Which it is a fact that they did. That was the Administrations main arguement in Rasul. I myself did not make that arguement.

http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_334/

on to the next point: I said:

"And considering that the administration has said that they aren't "Prisoners of War"."

Which is also completely true: That is the arguement that the Bush administration (not I) made.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/01/28/ret.wh.detainees/

"However I make my decision, these detainees will be well treated," Bush said. "We are not going to call them prisoners of war in either case, and the reason why is al Qaeda is not a known military. These are killers, these are terrorists."

Do you have this much trouble understanding what people are saying in court? It must drive the judges nuts.

Quit tying yourself in knots trying to pretend that this Administrations intentions when they set up Gitmo has a detention facility were different than what the clear record shows they were. The fact that the Courts disagreed with their interpretation doesn't enter into the discussion of WHY they chose Gitmo. It was not "as good a place as any other.". It was a place that Bush and other elements of his administration felt that they could do certain things outside of the jurisdiction of the US courts. Documented historic fact John W. Why are you so interested in obscuring those facts?

*****
Posted by: AJF | October 20, 2007 9:49 AM

I'm not trying to tie myself in knots, or pretend anything; nor am I interested in obscuring any fact.

I have a hard time believing that Bush and his staff could be such idiots (because nobody could be that idiotic); and I am a bit incredulous that they could make such arguments (as they don’t pass the straight-face test).

Actually, you just proved my point: Guantanamo was a place as good as any other – except to the Bush administration.

"I have a hard time believing that Bush and his staff could be such idiots (because nobody could be that idiotic); and I am a bit incredulous that they could make such arguments (as they don’t pass the straight-face test)."

Go read their arguement in Rasul. It's all there in black and white.

How can you remain a Republican after what these people have done?

* * * * *
How can you remain a Republican after what these people have done?

Posted by: AJF | October 21, 2007 4:41 PM

That's real simple.

Bush and Company do not represent conservatives or even the traditional views of the Republican party. Bush's foreign policy, with particular regard to the Iraq war, is entirely foreign to traditional Republican views. Exporting democracy by force was NEVER a Republican policy before. Before the Iraq war, one had to go all the way back to 1896 for the last time a Republican administration got the U.S. into a long term shooting war.

Bush’s views on human rights don’t square with those of conservatives either. There is nothing conservative about torture or running a police state. Conservatism is supposed to be the means of government, while freedom is still supposed to be the goal. Conservatism also cherishes the rule of law. That means enforcing laws against torture and keeping treaty agreements that guarantee the safe and humane treatment of prisoners.

The same is true of Bush’s domestic agendum. Neo-cons like Bush have no regard for fiscal or institutional conservatism. They accepted the New Deal size and style of government, and merely pay lip service to ideas like “limited government” and “fiscal responsibility.” At the same time, they have allowed Congress to shamelessly spend money and build larger government with wasteful overlapping agencies. This has substantially contributed to the financial debacle in which we now find ourselves.

You should also know that more and more conservatives in the Republican party have rejected the neo-cons for being the frauds and changelings that they are. Many of us do not hope for, and will not tolerate, a Bush clone or Bush-lite as our candidate in ’08. That’s why I won’t vote for Rudi Giuliani. That’s why I have my doubts about John McCain and most of the others – except for Ron Paul.

Moreover, there is no place for me to go, other than to remain an Independent, if I left the Republican Party. There are still those who agree with me, and disagree with Bush and Co. – within the Republican Party. On the other hand, I cannot accept the current ideology of the Democratic Party, which I view as supporting even more radical movement toward socialism and centralization - which contradict both the letter and spirit of the Constitution. Libertarians are not even in the running – because they have this aversion to enforcing laws. I do believe in the rule of law – which neither the current neo-cons nor the current Democrats in Congress seem to care too much about.

So I’ll just have to sit tight, grin and bear it, and hope that things eventually become a lot more sane within the Republican Party. I suspect another shattering loss, and being cast from power for four years, might make the RNC wake up and take note that party members aren’t interested in Bush’s style of government any more.

"Bush and Company do not represent conservatives or even the traditional views of the Republican party."

Then why have none of the front ruinning Republican candidates challenged these positions (Sorry, Ron Paul doesn't count as a front runner)? Why hasn't the Republican party turned on him in mass?

John W. I think it's time that you woke up and realized that George W Bush is 100% of what the modern Republican Party stands for. He's not the exception, he is the rule.

You'll not find me saying any of the Democrats are perfect. Far from it. But I'll take toying with health care coverage over torture and ignoring the most basic civil rights any day.

AJF:

You asked: "Why hasn't the Republican party turned on him in mass?"

How do you know they haven't? Have you looked at Bush's approval ratings lately? They are down into the mid 20s. To get that low requires more than simply the displeasure of the Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and so on. It takes a substantial number of Republicans to turn on him too. The same is true of the exceptionally low approval ratings for Congress. A lot of people are unhappy with all of what is going on.

Furthermore, I talk to a lot of Republicans. Most of them are disgusted with Bush for betraying them. To be sure, I have never heard one of them try to defend Bush against a well reasoned criticism of the policies we’ve been discussing.

You also asked, “Then why have none of the front running Republican candidates challenged these positions ...?”

As a matter of fact, some of the front runners have been taking the time to distance themselves from the Bush's administration and its stance on these issues. Both McCain and Romney have both distanced themselves from Bush's and Congress’ apparent lack of fiscal restraint. Thompson didn’t come straight out and aim his criticism at Bush by name, but he did say we needed to start exercising a lot more fiscal restraint – which I see as a back-handed rebuke towards Bush and Congress. McCain and Romney have also been critical of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, although not critical enough to end it. McCain - a torture victim himself - has been very critical of the Bush administration's attitude toward torture. That is why he pushed through legislation to change that. So, its unfair to say that none of them have challenged these positions. Only the front runner, RG, has withheld his criticism – which is why I will withhold my vote from him.

Consider, also, that the campaigning has just started, and there are plenty more issues to air out before we head for the ballot box. Were I a betting man, I would venture that more people are going to distance themselves from Bush in the upcoming months.

The foregoing is why I can’t bring myself to agree with your proposition that, “George W Bush is 100% of what the modern Republican Party stands for.” I am quite sure that most Republicans, whether they will admit it or not, will breathe a lot easier when Bush is out of office.

I think that somebody has to do the dirty work. You also have to look at who is paying Blackwater. The just dont want to deal with the rules that the USA puts on their Mersenaries.