[DaveW]

Isn't the current situation...Congress, the FBI, and everyone else with political hay to make diving in to investigate...enough for you?

No that's the opposite of what I was saying..... I said an INDEPENDENT court of inquiry, as in no political interference.

Yeah I know a big ask for your lot, and I'm not entirely sure you have such a thing unlike the English style legal system/judiciary? But hey a guy can wish can't he?

 

[MikeD]

No that's the opposite of what I was saying..... I said an INDEPENDENT court of inquiry, as in no political interference.

Who is that? Everyone's politcial. I assume you'd want someone from the judiciary branch? That's not really the way our legal system works...Congressional inquiry is the way these things are done.

 

[valve bouncer]

Who is that? Everyone's politcial. I assume you'd want someone from the judiciary branch? That's not really the way our legal system works...Congressional inquiry is the way these things are done.

Really? If so I'm amazed that you have no sort of judicial inquiry system. Surely you must?
To Dave- I assume you're talking about something similar to a Royal Commission? I think the kind of thing talked about in this thread would be the sort of thing that would be investigated by a parliamentary inquiry even in our countries, certainly in Australia it would.

 

[MikeD]

I think the kind of thing talked about in this thread would be the sort of thing that would be investigated by a parliamentary inquiry even in our countries, certainly in Australia it would.

That's my point, not that judicial inquiry doesn't exist, although I have to admit complete ignorance on the topic.

 

[BurlyShirley]

That's my point, not that judicial inquiry doesn't exist, although I have to admit complete ignorance on the topic.

Er, I think the only "judicial inquiry" we have is when something goes to the supreme court...and those types of deals only relate to constitutionality concerns.

 

[MikeD]

Er, I think the only "judicial inquiry" we have is when something goes to the supreme court...and those types of deals only relate to constitutionality concerns.

That's judicial review, not judicial inquiry.

Some courts can order investigations under certain circumstances, I'm pretty sure.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Oh, I see.

Actually I recall something in the news recently about a court ordered inquiry into some business, but cant remember what it was.

 

[DaveW]

Really? If so I'm amazed that you have no sort of judicial inquiry system. Surely you must?
To Dave- I assume you're talking about something similar to a Royal Commission? I think the kind of thing talked about in this thread would be the sort of thing that would be investigated by a parliamentary inquiry even in our countries, certainly in Australia it would.

Yeah sorry a Royal Commission of Inquiry is the style I meant.... ie an investigation with complete political neutrality.
I just can't see a congressional inquiry (given the corrupt nature of American politics) being anything but a political football/witch hunt where reality/truth/facts are bypassed or ignored.

 

[ohio]

given the corrupt nature of American politics

Whoa. American politics can be ugly and partisan, but the SYSTEM is not corrupt (yet).

And even in terms of partisanship, congressional inquiries might be commissioned for partisan reasons, but the inquiries themselves are pretty thorough and neutral.

 

[MikeD]

Whoa. American politics can be ugly and partisan, but the SYSTEM is not corrupt (yet).

And even in terms of partisanship, congressional inquiries might be commissioned for partisan reasons, but the inquiries themselves are pretty thorough and neutral.

Your post has been tainted by contact with a corrupt American internet. Why should we listen to you?

 

[MikeD]

an investigation with complete political neutrality.

Where, pray tell, do you find these completely neutral people? Are they aliens, or do you just grow them in pods down in Gore?

 

[valve bouncer]

Where, pray tell, do you find these completely neutral people? Are they aliens, or do you just grow them in pods down in Gore?

Typically, a Royal Commission type of inquiry such as you'd find in Britain, Aust, Can or NZ is led by a current or retired judge. The problem comes from the "terms of reference" that the commission operates under as these are set by the government and are therefore usually political in nature. This can also backfire as if the terms are seen to be too restrictive the government can come under pressure for refusing to allow a thorough investigation.
Royal Commissions are usually held for things such as police corruption or maladministration in government policy.

 

[MikeD]

pure...comedy...gold. I love the "rejects from pro wrestling" line. We should mandate luceador Mexican wrestling masks for all PSD personnel.
=====
http://www.nypost.com/seven/09302007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/trouble_for_hire.htm

TROUBLE FOR HIRE
THE MERCENARIES WHO MURDER IN YOUR NAME

Ralph Peters

September 30, 2007 -- Americans have always despised mercenaries. Our dislike of hired killers dates back to the days of our Founding Fathers. When Washington crossed the Delaware to defeat the Hessians at Trenton, he targeted hirelings who’d burned, raped and murdered their way across northern New Jersey.

During our Civil War, the fiercest insult Southerners hurled across the Potomac was the accusation that the Irish immigrants inducted into the Union armies were mercenaries. Men who fought for pay alone were repulsive to American values.

And now the United States has become the world’s No. 1 employer of hired thugs. By a conservative count, we and our partners in Iraq employ 5,000 armed American and other Western expatriates, at least 10,000 third-country-nationals or TCNs, and upwards of 15,000 Iraqis who should be serving their own country in uniform.

George Washington must be grinding his false teeth in heaven.

To be fair, not all of the mercenaries your tax dollars pay create problems (although they all pose moral issues). TCNs, such as the Peruvian guards in the Green Zone and Ugandans guarding mess halls on Marine forward operating bases, usually take their responsibilities seriously. As for the Iraqi hires, it’s a constant game of “Who Do You Trust?”

The gravest problems arise from the collection of psychos, misfits, sadists and can’t-make-it-back-home gunslingers employed by the “private security contractors” or PSCs. For one American tax dollar to go to these thugs is a travesty.

We’ve starved our armed forces. Now we’re doling out billions for armed farces.

Again, it’s vital to be fair - and PSCs come in a wide range of flavors. Some contractors are disciplined and wary of doing harm. Nor could we do without them, having painted ourselves into an ugly corner by making a religious cult of privatization and outsourcing. Our troops abroad now depend on contractors for elementary services.

Nonetheless, rogue elements within the security contractor world do so much damage to our strategic goals and international relationships that it’s hard not to conclude that we should just shut them down and do the best we can without them.

The most notorious recent incident occurred two weeks ago, when gunmen from Blackwater USA, an organization that’s created far more than its fair share of trouble, shot up a crowd of Iraqi civilians in a thriving district of Baghdad.

The details remain murky - and Blackwater and its State Department defenders are doing all they can to make them murkier. But most accounts, whether from “our” Iraqis or U.S. soldiers who rushed to the scene, pin the blame on Blackwater’s thugs.

The information emerging suggests that, in the course of a routine escort mission for American diplomats, at least one of the Blackwater boys either imagined a threat or just felt like busting some caps. A woman and child died in a car (which did not carry any bombs). Up to 10 more unarmed Iraqis were slaughtered in a tempest of automatic weapons fire. Up to two dozen were wounded.

The firepower employed by Blackwater was better suited to a full-scale combat engagement with an enemy army than it was to the protection of a diplomat - who was, apparently, never in any danger.

Blackwater claims that Iraqi security forces returned fire at its convoy. Well, if they did, they were awfully brave, since the Iraqi police don’t have the kind of heavy weaponry packed by Blackwater’s gunmen (without proper licenses, at that). On the contrary, reports suggest that Blackwater’s men just got into a partying spirit, emptying additional magazines long after any threat had evaporated. Some accounts describe internal confrontations between Blackwater supervisors and sadists who wouldn’t stop shooting.

With Blackwater reinforcing its thugs with its own helicopter gunships and Iraqi security forces begging for help to save civilian lives, the U.S. Army had to step in and enforce a cease-fire.

Oh, one Blackwater employee did suffer a minor injury. And a number of the company’s vehicles were scratched. Guess that makes up for the dead mom and her kid.

In war, the innocent die. Got it. And no apologies are necessary for legitimate casualties in the course of combat. But there’s no excuse for killing the innocent just for a hoot.

Blackwater couldn’t care less - if it did, it would press for prosecutions itself. Instead, the company works the loopholes in the shabby system the State Department forced on the government of Iraq.

And who gets the blame? Our troops. Iraqis just see all of the pale faces with guns as Americans. They don’t differentiate between the honorable men and women in uniform and the narcissistic killers who adorn themselves with knives and cop-killer side arms - and who look like rejects from professional wrestling.

 

[MikeD]

And, as any soldier in Iraq can tell you, one contractor shoot-’em-up can ruin months of progress. (Of course, the contractors don’t make money off of progress - a peaceful Iraq would be terrible for business.)

Speaking with Army officers in Iraq, you’ll find some who defend specific security contractors as responsible and valuable. I’ve personally seen some who behaved with discipline and professionalism. But I couldn’t find one military officer who had a good word to say about Blackwater - the kindest comment came from a major on a repeat tour who told me that “given my own dealings with them in ’05, this latest incident [has] not come as a surprise to me.”

A well-placed colonel had believed that Blackwater’s cowboy years had been back in 2004 and 2005. He’d hoped that the company was now under control.

It wasn’t.

Another officer recalled his experiences up-country on his last tour of duty. A rival of Blackwater’s, Triple Canopy, escorted State reps who visited his unit’s area. The security details always checked in, got briefed, confirmed the route status, made sure the Army knew when they entered and exited the sector, and even asked if any large gatherings of Iraqis were expected - so they could bypass them. The soldiers and the contractors from Triple Canopy “developed a rapport.”

Then Blackwater took over the escort mission. The officer “got a decidedly different impression of the guys I came in contact with . . . Security officers who came to the TOC [tactical operations center] were swaggering, arrogant and didn’t want to be bothered knowing about the route status . . . I clearly remember the first day I met them [and] began the standard brief I would give to Triple Canopy. The Blackwater guy threw up his hand and said dismissively, ‘I’m good to go, Hoss.’”

Soon after that, Blackwater gunmen shot up some locals, killing one civilian and wounding several others. They didn’t bother to inform the Army unit responsible for the area - which had to pick up the pieces. Our troops hadn’t known that State had anyone in the area that day and only found out after the damage was done.

How can it be that you and I are working and paying taxes to fund six-figure salaries for thugs who undercut our progress in Iraq, make a mockery of the values we profess, and trash America’s image?

The Bush administration has made sure that there’s no real accountability in the contracting arena, but the particular villain in this mess in the State Department. Our military has been doing all it can to keep Blackwater’s cowboys at arms’ length in Iraq. But State’s diplomats - the men and women theoretically responsible for building good relations with Iraqis - prefer the Blackwater approach (shoot first, and don’t bother asking questions).

To those who know little or nothing of State, it doesn’t make sense. Why should our diplomats, of all people, hire out-of-control gunslingers who routinely set back progress, who are despised by our military, who we protect from Iraqi or American justice - and who won’t even play by the loose rules laid down for security contractors in Iraq?

Actually, the answer’s simple: Our foreign service officers - the professional diplos - are just the most-frightened human beings you’ll ever meet (I swear they take showers in body armor). Although I’ve met some impressive State employees over the years, they’ve been the exceptions. The average junior FSO is cowardly, arrogant to a degree that would embarrass the Greek gods, and disdainful of anyone stupid enough to wear a military uniform.

Of course, State always wants to run the show - it just doesn’t want its diplomats to spill their Diet Cokes. Dead Iraqis? Better than stained trousers.

Let’s be clear: The real diplomacy in Iraq is being conducted by our soldiers and Marines. State has botched every single thing it touched, from the disastrous reign of “Jerry” Bremer to the botch-up with our imperial embassy compound (the hubris of which makes the Tower of Babel seem like a homeless shelter). And State firmly believes that the life of the lowliest diplomat is far more valuable than the life of any one else, American or Iraqi.

So State’s mission for Blackwater is straightforward: “Protect the principal.” Defend the diplomat, whatever the cost. Well, maybe it’s time for State to risk a few principals in support of America’s principles.

Our country has been dishonored. By our “Hessians.”

Ralph Peters is a retired Army officer and the author of the recent book “Wars Of Blood And Faith.”

BLACKWATER USA

Founded: 1997 in North Carolina by former Navy SEAL Erik Prince

Logo: A bear claw within a rifle sight

Employees: It boasts a database of 20,000 men; it’s estimated they have about 1,000 contractors in Iraq.

Pay: Blackwater has four tiers of contractor. Tier 1, made up mostly of former military personnel, can pay $600-$650 a day, according to author Jeremy Scahill. The bottom tier, usually Iraqi locals, make much less. Scahill heard that Colombian contractors, at Tier 3, made as little as $34 a day.

Contracts: Over $700 million in State Department contracts alone since 2003, including a $27 million contract to guard Iraq administrator Paul Bremer for 11 months.

Nickname: Iraqis call it “the Mossad.” “There’s probably no deeper insult for the Iraqis,” Scahill says.

OLD BLACKWATER, KEEP ON ROLLIN'

Jeremy Scahill, author of “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army” (Nation Books), explains the meteoric ascent of the troubled private military contractor. Blackwater may not be the largest of these companies, “but it’s a high-end boutique on a strip-mall full of Wal-Marts. And it’s politically closest to the administration.”

1997 - Erik Prince, a former Navy SEAL whose family is a major Republican donor, founds Blackwater Lodge and Training Center in North Carolina. The name is a tip of the hat to the local swamps, and it’s advertised as a sportsman’s paradise - though the company mentions that a growth area could be in the increased outsourcing of military contracts.

1999 - After the Columbine tragedy, Blackwater builds a mock high school called RU Ready High. Law enforcement officials from around the country train in the facility to respond to school shootings.

2000 - After the U.S.S. Cole bombing in Yemen, the U.S. Navy grants Blackwater a $35 million contract to train its sailors to respond to terrorist attacks.

2001 - After 9/11, Blackwater is granted its first contract in a military zone. Details are classified; Scahill believes the mission was to guard a structure in Afghanistan for the CIA.

2003 - Blackwater receives a $27 million no-bid contract to guard U.S. administrator Paul Bremer in Iraq.

2004 - In March, Iraqi insurgents attacked a convoy containing four Blackwater contractors, who were killed, their bodies hung from a Euphrates bridge. The company hired lobbyists from the Alexander Strategy Group the day after the ambush, and within a week Blackwater officials met with top GOP lawmakers. Three months later, Blackwater was awarded a $320 million contract to provide diplomatic security in Iraq.

2005 - After Hurricane Katrina, Blackwater is contracted to provide security, logistics and transport on the Gulf Coast. Its employees protect government facilities for the Department of Homeland Security.

2006 - On Christmas Eve, an off-duty Blackwater contractor shoots and kills a bodyguard for the Iraqi vice president inside the Green Zone. The Iraqis label it a “murder.” Blackwater admits it whisked the contractor out of Iraq.

2007 - On Sept. 16, at Nissor Square in Baghdad, Blackwater contractors get into a fire fight in which 11 Iraqis are killed. Blackwater officials say that they came under attack from multiple locations. According to an Iraqi investigation, the Blackwater contractors fired at a car that ignored warnings and Iraqi Army soldiers responded by firing on the Blackwater team, which was answered by more shooting. The next day, the Iraqi government revoked Blackwater’s license to operate in the country. So far the Bush administration has backed Blackwater. “The company has lost about 30 men in Iraq,” Scahill says. “They’ve never lost anyone they were assigned to protect. So there’s a lot of institutional loyalty.”

 

[ohio]

"Our foreign service officers - the professional diplos - are just the most-frightened human beings you’ll ever meet (I swear they take showers in body armor). Although I’ve met some impressive State employees over the years, they’ve been the exceptions. The average junior FSO is cowardly, arrogant to a degree that would embarrass the Greek gods, and disdainful of anyone stupid enough to wear a military uniform."

Tell us how you really feel.

There's a bit of a logical disconnect between this and the claims about Blackwater... can't really see how one leads to the other, assuming either are true, especially in light of his glowing opinion of Triple Canopy.

 

[MikeD]

There's a bit of a logical disconnect between this and the claims about Blackwater... can't really see how one leads to the other, assuming either are true, especially in light of his glowing opinion of Triple Canopy.

I believe his point is that the scared little wussy diplomats need the testosterone overdose of Blackwater to feel safe, since they're incapable of accepting risk to themselves, and that State accepts/fuels/fosters the supposed heavy-handed and indiscriminate methods used by Blackwater towards this feeling.

 

[DaveW]

Blackwater to blame for Iraq shooting, US military says

 

[MikeD]

Blackwater to blame for Iraq shooting, US military says

That should read, "Anonymous Man in Uniform Makes Non-Specific Claims, but Obviously Thinks Blackwater is a Bunch of Assholes."

Much like the guy who wrote the article above, there are a lot of field-grade Army types who really, really hate Blackwater because Blackwater isn't an organization who cares about their rank. They also hate the beards and cool sunglasses, and they really, really resent that former sergeants are pulling a MUCH bigger paycheck than their former senior officers.

 

[MikeD]

Hah, as if DS hasn't been doing this all along...just not enough agents to ride with every motorcade. (And yes, normally, the agents would perform the entire security mission...it's just that there aren't enough agents worldwide to staff the Baghdad debacle, including all the leadership, and only a small fraction are trained to do the job in an actual war zone...and if you wanted to hire more, you'd be in the pipeline for 2 years waiting for the new trainees, by which time the mission could be over, and you'd have a huge surplus of agents with nothing to do...hence, the use of contractors, who coincidentally don't need the myriad law-enforcement skills taught to agents--just the war-zone protective skills.)


----
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5j5Qg7S2DJWcz0w9lp6wwQqM2wMGA

Rice's low-key agents stalk trigger-happy armed guards in Iraq
2 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Aided by radio and video links, a little known enforcement arm of the US State Department is to stalk the guards of American private security firm Blackwater in Baghdad after their trigger happy ways anger Iraqis.

Agents from the diplomatic security bureau, whose current duties range from protecting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to running a reward program to catch terror mastermind Osama bin laden, are being sent to Baghdad to rein in Blackwater's armed guards, officials said.

Rice ordered the move Friday following a probe into a September 16 incident in which staff of Blackwater, tasked with guarding US diplomats and dignitaries in Baghdad, went on a shooting spree in the Iraqi capital, killing at least 10 innocent Iraqis.

The slaughter angered Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who wants all the 850-odd Blackwater staff out of the country, and infuriated US lawmakers concerned over the lack of oversight of the top US private military contractor.

Constrained by a staff shortage, the diplomatic security bureau had contracted the task of protecting diplomats in Baghdad to Blackwater but now, ironically, it has to add its own resources to keep watch on the company.

Blackwater staff travel along Baghdad streets in their trademark heavily armoured black Chevrolet Suburbans, have their own helicopters and body armor and also reportedly set their own rules of engagement.

An initial State Department probe on the September 16 incident discovered a lack of management control over Blackwater staff, who have been accused of involvement in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq.

So, Rice directed special agents from her bureau of diplomatic security to travel to Baghdad to begin accompanying every Blackwater protective details.

The bureau, which currently monitors radio transmissions involving Blackwater staff, has to now actually record those transmissions to ensure that there was adequate electronic data available in case of future controversies.

It will also mount video cameras on Blackwater-escorted convoys venturing outside of Baghdad's heavily fortified "Green Zone."

In addition, Blackwater staff have to keep closer contact with US military units operating in their area.

"If there are those who go beyond or violate in any way those rules, regulations or laws, she (Rice) expects those people to be held to account," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack warned.

The department, which has earlier been accused of covering up some of Blackwater's wrongdoings, is not giving the number of diplomatic security staff who will be engaged in the shadowing operations.

There are at least two security convoys for every convoy carring American diplomats or dignitaries in Baghdad -- one an advanced team and the other a reserve in case an incident erupts.

"You actually have three separate convoys that you need to make sure you have a DS (diplomatic security) agent present. So that will give you an idea of the kinds of resources that we're devoting to this," McCormack said.

As the department's security and law enforcement arm, the bureau of diplomatic security, with a staff strength of at least 1,450, plays largely a behind-the-scenes role.

In the United States, it is in charge of protecting the Secretary of State, the US ambassador to the United Nations and foreign dignitaries below the head-of-state level who visit the United States.

It also assists US-based foreign embassies and consulates with security for their missions and personnel.

Overseas, the bureau protects personnel in US diplomatic missions, being the most widely represented US law enforcement group globally.

 

[MikeD]

Statement by Sean McCormack, Spokesman



Secretary Rice Directs Actions to Approve Operational Accountability and Control



Secretary Rice has received an initial assessment of Blackwater operations in support of Embassy Baghdad from the first two team members. The balance of the team – General Joulwan and Ambassador Roy – will arrive in Baghdad next week, and they will work to finalize the assessment and report as soon as possible.



Based on the initial findings, the Secretary has directed the following actions to improve operational accountability and control:



First, Special Agents from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security will begin accompanying Blackwater protective details. Additional agents are en route to Baghdad and we will continue to deploy agents to supplement existing assets.



Second, she has directed the Bureau of Diplomatic Security to increase our capability to review material after a reported incident. We currently monitor radio transmissions; we will begin recording them. We will also mount video cameras in security vehicles, and begin archiving electronic tracking of movement data.



Third, she has directed the expansion of existing communications links to U.S. military units operating in the same area.



--------------

That's written as if State agents hadn't been riding with Blackwater to date, which I find odd...true, this does direct an expansion of that, and that's gonna take some doing to put into practice.

 

[MikeD]

From Stratfor.com:

Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

As Stratfor CEO George Friedman discussed Oct. 9, some specific geopolitical forces have prompted changes in the structure of the U.S. armed forces -- to the extent that private contractors have become essential to the execution of a sustained military campaign. Indeed, in addition to providing security for diplomats and other high-value personnel, civilian contractors conduct an array of support functions in Iraq, including vehicle maintenance, laundry services and supply and logistics operations.

Beyond the military bureaucracy and the geopolitical processes acting upon it, another set of dynamics is behind the growing use of civilian contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. These factors include the type and scope of the U.S. diplomatic miss ion in the country; the nature of the insurgency and the specific targeting of diplomats; and the limited resources available to the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Because of these factors, unless the diplomatic mission to Iraq is dramatically changed or reduced, or the U.S. Congress takes action to radically enlarge the DSS, the services of civilian security contractors will be required in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Those contractors provide flexibility in tailoring the force that full-time security officers do not.

Civilians in a War Zone

Although it is not widely recognized, the protection of diplomats in dangerous places is a civilian function and has traditionally been carried out by civilian agents. With rare exceptions, military forces simply do not have the legal mandate or specialized training required to provide daily protection details for diplomats. It is not what soldiers do. A few in the U.S. military do posses s that specialized training, and they could be assigned to the work under the DSS, but with wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they currently are needed for other duties.

For the U.S. government, then, the civilian entity responsible for protecting diplomatic missions and personnel is the DSS. Although the agency's roots go back to 1916, Congress dramatically increased its size and responsibility, and renamed it the DSS, in 1985 in response to a string of security incidents, including the attacks against the U.S. embassies in Lebanon and Kuwait, and the security debacle over a new embassy building in Moscow. The DSS ranks swelled to more than 1,000 special agents by the late 1980s, though they were cut back to little more than 600 by the late 1990s as part of the State Department's historical cycle of security booms and busts. Following 9/11, DSS funding was again increased, and cur rently there are about 1,400 DSS agents assigned to 159 foreign countries and 25 domestic offices.

The DSS protects more dignitaries than any other agency, including the U.S. Secret Service. Its list of protectees includes the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the approximately 150 foreign dignitaries who visit the United States each year for events such as the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) session. It also provides hundreds of protective details overseas, many of them operating day in and day out in dangerous locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Colombia, the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and nearly every other global hot spot. The DSS also from time to time has been assigned by presidential directives to provide stopgap protection to vulnerable leaders of foreign countries who are in danger of assassination, such as the presidents of Haiti and Afghanista n.

The DSS is charged by U.S. statute with providing this protection to diplomats and diplomatic facilities overseas, and international conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations permit civilian agents to provide this kind of security. Because of this, there has never been any question regarding the status or function of DSS special agents. They have never been considered "illegal combatants" because they do not wear military uniforms, even in the many instances when they have provided protection to diplomats traveling in war zones.

Practically, the DSS lacks enough of its own agents to staff all these protective details. Although the highest-profile protective details, such as that on the secretary of state, are staffed exclusively by DSS agents, many details must be augmented by outside personnel. Domestically, some protective details at the UNGA are staffed by a core group of DSS agents that is augmented by deputy U.S. marshals and a gents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Overseas, local police officers who operate under the supervision of DSS agents often are used.

It is not unusual to see a protective detail comprised of two Americans and eight or 10 Peruvian investigative police officers, or even a detail of 10 Guatemalan national police officers with no DSS agents except on moves to dangerous areas. In some places, including Beirut, the embassy contracts its own local security officers, who then work for the DSS agents. In other places, where it is difficult to find competent and trustworthy local hires, the DSS augments its agents with contractors brought in from the United States. Well before 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the DSS was using contractors in places such as Gaza to help fill the gaps between its personnel and its protective responsibilities.

Additionally, for decades the DSS has used contract security officers to provide exterior guard se rvices for U.S. diplomatic missions. In fact, contract guards are at nearly every U.S. diplomatic mission in the world. Marine Security Guards also are present at many missions, but they are used only to maintain the integrity of the sensitive portions of the buildings -- the exterior perimeter is protected by contract security guards. Of course, there are far more exterior contract guards (called the "local guard force") at critical threat posts such as Baghdad than there are at quiet posts such as Nassau, Bahamas.

Over the many years that the DSS has used contract guards to help protect facilities and dignitaries, it has never received the level of negative feedback as it has during the current controversy over the Blackwater security firm. In fact, security contractors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting those placed in their charge, and many times have acted heroically. Much of the current controversy has to do with the size and scope of the contrac tor operations in Iraq, the situation on the ground and, not insignificantly, the political environment in Washington.

The Iraq Situation

With this operational history in mind, then, we turn to Iraq. Unlike Desert Storm in 1991, in which the U.S. military destroyed Iraq's military and command infrastructure and then left the country, the decision this time was to destroy the military infrastructure and effect regime change, but stay and rebuild the nation. Setting aside all the underlying geopolitical issues, the result of this decision was that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has become the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, with some 1,000 Americans working there.

Within a few months of the invasion, however, the insurgents and militants in Iraq made it clear that they would specifically target diplomats serving in the country in order to thwart reconstruction efforts. In August 2003, militants attacked the Jordanian Embassy and the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad with large vehicle bombs. The attack against the U.N building killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights in Iraq. The U.N. headquarters was hit again in September 2003, and the Turkish Embassy was attacked the following month. The U.S. Embassy and diplomats also have been consistently targeted, including by an October 2004 mortar attack that killed DSS Special Agent Ed Seitz and a November 2004 attack that killed American diplomat James Mollen near Baghdad's Green Zone. DSS Agent Stephen Sullivan was killed, along with three security contractors, in a suicide car bombing against an embassy motorcade in Mosul in September 2005. The people being protected by Sullivan and the contractors survived the attack.

(cont'd)

 

[MikeD]

And diplomatic targets continue to be atta cked. The Polish ambassador's motorcade was recently attacked, as was the Polish Embassy. (The embassy was moved into the Green Zone this week because of the continuing threat against it.) The Polish ambassador, by the way, also was protected by a detail that included contract security officers, demonstrating that the U.S. government is not the only one using contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. There also are thousands of foreign nationals working on reconstruction projects in Iraq, and most are protected by private security contractors. The Iraqi government and U.S. military simply cannot keep them safe from the forces targeting them.

In addition to the insurgents and militants who have set their sights on U.S. and foreign diplomats and businesspeople, there are a number of opportunistic criminal gangs that kidnap foreigners and either hold them for ransom or sell them to militants. If the U.S. government wants its policy of rebuilding Iraq to have any chance of success, it needs to keep diplomats -- who, as part of their mission, oversee the contractors working on reconstruction projects -- safe from the criminals and the forces that want to thwart the reconstruction.

Practical motivations aside, keeping diplomats safe in Iraq also has political and public relations dimensions. The kidnappings and deaths of U.S. diplomats are hailed by militants as successes, and at this juncture also could serve to inflame sentiments among Americans opposed to the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Hence, efforts are being made to avoid such scenarios at all costs.

Reality Check

Due to enormity of the current threat and the sheer size and scope of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the DSS currently employs hundreds of contract security officers in the country. Although the recent controversy has sparked some calls for a withdrawal of all security contractors from Iraq, such drastic action is impossible in practical term s. Not only would it require many more DSS agents in Iraq than there are now, it would mean pulling agents from every other diplomatic post and domestic field office in the world. This would include all the agents assigned to critical and high-terrorism-threat posts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon; all agents assigned to critical crime-threat posts such as Guatemala and Mexico; and those assigned to critical counterintelligence-threat posts such as Beijing and Moscow. The DSS also would have to abandon its other responsibilities, such as programs that investigate passport and visa fraud, which are a critical part of the U.S government's counterterrorism efforts. The DSS' Anti-Terrorism Assistance and Rewards for Justice programs also are important tools in the war on terrorism that would have to be scrapped under such a scenario.

Although the current controversy will not cause the State Department to stop using private contractors, the department has mandated that one DSS agent be included in every protective motorcade.

Since 2003, contractors working for the DSS in Iraq have conducted many successful missions in a very dangerous environment. Motorcades in Iraq are frequently attacked, and the contractors regularly have to deal with an ambiguous opponent who hides in the midst of a population that is also typically heavily armed. At times, they also must confront those heavily armed citizens who are fed up with being inconvenienced by security motorcades. In an environment in which motorcades are attacked by suicide vehicle bombs, aggressive drivers also pose tactical problems because they clearly cannot be allowed to approach the motorcade out of fear that they could be suicide bombers. The nature of insurgent attacks necessitates aggressive rules of engagement.

Contractors also do not have the same support structure as military convoys, so they cannot call for armor support when their convoys are attacked. Although some private outfits do have light aviation support, they do not have the resources of Army aviation or the U.S. Air Force. Given these factors, the contractors have suffered remarkably few losses in Iraq for the number of missions they have conducted.

It is clear that unless the United States changes its policy in Iraq or Congress provides funding for thousands of new special agents, contract security officers will be required to fill the gap between the DSS' responsibilities and its available personnel for the foreseeable future. Even if thousands of agents were hired now to meet the current need in Iraq, the government could be left in a difficult position should the security situation improve or the United States drama tically reduced its presence in the country. Unlike permanent hires, the use of contractors provides the DSS with the flexibility to tailor its force to meet its needs at a specific point in time.

The use of contractors clearly is not without problems, but it also is not without merits.

 

[ohio]

too many words.

give me the ADD version.

 

[MikeD]

Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. But more official-like.

 

[ohio]

Pretty much what I've been saying the whole time. But more official-like.

"ohio = awesome?"

I didn't realize it took so many words to describe the extent of my awesomeness, but I suppose if it's for official purposes, it's better to be thorough.

 

[MikeD]

So awesome the Iraqi government is considering N8ing you.

 

[MikeD]

Hey, we're back!

Looks like Obama's (and Clinton's, although hers was largely election grandstanding...) desires to de-privatize the diplomatic security function in Iraq are manifesting already.

(See http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill by Jeremy Scahill, a noted douchebag)

State has been authorized to hire Security Protective Specialists. As I have prophesied (and hoped, actually) these will *likely* be personnel hired to work for State on a (wait for it...) contractual basis, not full-fledged lazy federal employees with tenure and pension and all. Still, they'll be officially governmental personnel (exactly like the existing personal service contract employees who hand out candy to babies and file paperwork and do all other manner of work for State) and the corporate entity will be cut out of the middle.

I think it's high time this happened for purely functional reasons. Ironically, they'll now have 100% diplomatic immunity AFAIK. They will likely be beholden to US law (good thing, too) but not to any Status of Forces agreement which governs the military or military contractors.

And they're probably just going to get the same guys from the current BW contract right back to provide security under the aegis of State.

Edit: Looks like the hiring mechanism will be the "3161" or "limited non-career appointment" designation, which I believe was created specifically to get those with certain skillsets (lawyers, etc.) to Iraq for assistance with creating new governmental institutions and the like. Those hired as 3161 will be full-fledged members of the US Foreign Service, but only for the duration of the particular appointment. Seems just about right for the situation.

 

[Samirol]

Jeremy Scahill owns, sorry.

That article is from nearly a year ago, too, and I haven't seen anything recent about PMCs in Iraq.

 

[MikeD]

Yes, the article is old but shows Obama and Clinton's previous statements on the PSC issue...I just included it for background. State's hiring move is brandy-new and obviously one of the new POTUS/SECSTATE measures to take action on their desires and promises...

 

[Lowlight7]

MSNBC.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28908486


Iraq: Blackwater not welcome
U.S. embassy told to find new security after contractors' 'improper conduct'
The Associated Press
updated 7:25 a.m. CT, Thurs., Jan. 29, 2009
BAGHDAD - Iraq will not allow Blackwater Worldwide to continue providing security protection for U.S. diplomats in the country, Iraqi and U.S. officials said Thursday, a move that would deprive U.S. officials of their primary protection force.

Blackwater's image in Iraq was irrevocably tarnished by the September 2007 killing of 17 Iraqi civilians in Nisoor Square. Five former Blackwater guards pleaded not guilty Jan. 6 in federal court in Washington to manslaughter and gun charges in that shooting.

Even before the shooting, Blackwater had a reputation for aggressive operations and using excessive force in protecting American officials, an allegation the company has disputed.

Anne Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for the North Carolina-based company, said the company had not yet been notified of the Iraqi decision.

"I can tell you that we have received no official communications from the government of Iraq on this matter," she said.

'Excessive use of force'
The decision not to issue Blackwater an operating license was due to "improper conduct and excessive use of force," said Interior Ministry spokesman Maj. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf.

Neither Khalaf nor a U.S. Embassy official gave a date for Blackwater personnel to leave the country and neither said whether they would be allowed to continue guarding U.S. diplomats during the interim.

A U.S.-Iraqi security agreement approved in November gives the Iraqis the authority to determine which Western security companies operate in Iraq. A joint U.S.-Iraqi committee is drawing up procedures for licensing and regulating security companies under the security agreement and it is unclear when it will finish the process.

"We have followed the procedures to apply for and secure operating licenses in Iraq," said Tyrrell, the Blackwater spokeswoman. "Any further questions about that the licensing process should be directed to our customer."

U.S. told to find new security
Khalaf said Blackwater employees who have not been implicated in the 2007 shooting have the right to work in Iraq but must find a different employer.

"We sent our decision to the U.S. Embassy last Friday," Khalaf told The Associated Press in a phone interview. "They have to find a new security company."


The U.S. Embassy official confirmed it received the government's decision, saying that U.S. officials were working with the Iraqi government and its contractors to address the "implications of this decision."

The official made the statement on condition of anonymity under embassy regulations.

In the 2007 shooting, Blackwater maintains its guards opened fire after coming under attack after a car in a State Department convoy broke down.

The Iraqi government has labeled the guards "criminals" and is closely watching the case.

The State Department relies heavily in Blackwater since it is the largest and best-equipped security company here.

But the company has become a lightning rod for Iraqi complaints about the behavior of Western security companies, whose employees were immune from prosecution under Iraqi law until the security agreement took effect this month.

More on Blackwater


© 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28908486/


__________________________________


Not that this means anything, as the WPPS contract is split between two other companies who are still able to legally operate in Iraq...

I'm eager to see how SecState plans to terminate their contracts...

 

[jimmydean]

Man, shoot recklessly into a group of unarmed civilians and this is how you get treated? What a ripoff.

 

[oly]

Man, shoot recklessly into a group of unarmed civilians and this is how you get treated? What a ripoff.

Good thing for BW, there's a new market quickly emerging for them to operate in.... Only bad thing is they wont rack up airline miles... since they will be working so close to home......

 

[Lowlight7]

wha...?