'Cowboy' aggression works for Blackwater

[one...two...tree 2,762]

For all its high-profile failings and its reputation for "cowboy" aggression, the secretive security company Blackwater USA has never failed at its primary mission in Iraq: Protecting State Department diplomats.

Not one diplomat has died while being guarded by employees of the politically connected company based in the swamplands of northeastern North Carolina. Experts say that success — combined with the murky legal world in which Blackwater operates and its strong ties to Republicans — has allowed the company to operate with impunity.

"You can argue about the methodology and say it's negatively impacting relationships between the Iraqi government and citizens and the U.S. But if you get right down to the terms of the contract, they're tasked with protecting U.S. diplomatic personnel. They've done that," said Scott Traudt, operations manager for Cohort International, a Lebanon, N.H.-based competitor.

For years, North Carolina Democratic Rep. David Price has urged colleagues to regulate the private security industry and increase congressional oversight of companies such as Blackwater. But as the GOP controlled Congress, he said, his efforts went nowhere.

"I was getting silence," Price said. "My impression is that many Republicans see any attempt to tighten up the contracting practice as an implicit criticism of the Bush administration."

Blackwater's ties to the GOP run deep. Company founder and former Navy Seal Erik Prince has given more than $200,000 to Republican causes, a pattern of donation followed by other top Blackwater executives. The company's vice chairman is Cofer Black, a former CIA counterterrorism official who is serving as a senior adviser to Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

Members of Blackwater's legal team have included former Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth Starr and current White House Counsel Fred Fielding. The company tapped a GOP-connected public relations firm after the grisly 2004 deaths of four Blackwater employees who were ambushed by insurgents in Fallujah. Their remains were strung from a bridge.

"I'm disappointed it became a matter of politics," said Peter W. Singer, a senior fellow in foreign policy at The Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. "At the end of the day, it's really about fundamental choices that the nation needs to make: What aspects of your national security do you keep within the control of your government?"

It's a question that Navy Adm. William Fallon, the senior U.S. military commander for the Middle East, planned to address in weekend meetings with U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq.

Fallon said security contractors shouldn't be seen as a "surrogate army" of the State Department or any other agency whose workers they protect.

"My instinct is that it's easier and better if they were in uniform and were working for me," Fallon told The Associated Press in Kabul, Afghanistan. "There's a rule set out there, and these guys should adhere to it as far as action, training and accountability."

But it is largely accepted that the Pentagon doesn't have enough troops to fight both the war in Iraq and perform all the tasks contracted out to firms such as Blackwater, including protecting diplomats and other civilians in one of the world's most dangerous places.

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

Blackwater, the biggest of the State Department's three private security contractors, has remained largely silent about the slayings since issuing a short statement the next day defending its actions.

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

For example, a Blackwater employee accused of shooting the bodyguard of Iraq's Shiite vice president, Adel Abdul-Mahdi, during an off-duty incident in December was flown home and fired. Blackwater has said it is cooperating with a Justice Department investigation, but no charges have been filed.

The company has also succeeded so far at keeping a civil case tied to the Fallujah deaths away from a jury. The Blackwater contractors were mutilated and strung from a bridge in an incident that's widely viewed as a turning point in the war.

In addition, Blackwater has denied any involvement in illegal weapons smuggling, responding to news reports that federal prosecutors in North Carolina are investigating whether the company shipped unlicensed automatic weapons and military goods to Iraq.

___

Associated Press writer Brian Murphy in Kabul, Afghanistan, and National Writer Allen G. Breed in Raleigh contributed to this report.

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

Who's footing the bill for these private security forces?

[almaty 19]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

Who's footing the bill for these private security forces?

when my son was at abu g..they tried to tried to talk him in joining them once he got out..$145,000 tax free over there..they slept in air condiitoned trailers..the troops in jail cells...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

Who's footing the bill for these private security forces?

when my son was at abu g..they tried to tried to talk him in joining them once he got out..$145,000 tax free over there..they slept in air condiitoned trailers..the troops in jail cells...

I heard that the money was really high... and with something like over 100,000 independent contractors in Iraq, that's gotta be a huge tax burden. All for the sake of what?

[almaty 19]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

Who's footing the bill for these private security forces?

when my son was at abu g..they tried to tried to talk him in joining them once he got out..$145,000 tax free over there..they slept in air condiitoned trailers..the troops in jail cells...

I heard that the money was really high... and with something like over 100,000 independent contractors in Iraq, that's gotta be a huge tax burden. All for the sake of what?

they offer me a contract...to go camp liberty....6 weeks there and 4 weeks home...120,000 a year..to provide ptsd and cisd work...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The latest controversy swirling around Blackwater is the Sept. 16 shooting of 11 Iraqis by contractors protecting a U.S. diplomatic convoy in Baghdad, an incident that prompted the Iraqi Interior Ministry to order the company out of the country.

But less than a week later, Blackwater was back on duty, and an Iraqi official admitted that without the company's contractors there would be a "security imbalance in securing Baghdad" that would force troops off the battlefield to take their place.

extra salt with that crow?

Contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials have immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law, thanks to a directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004. Blackwater's contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law.

that's been discussed at length in vj. while the above is true, it paints a picture of them not facing any prosecution, which is false, they still face prosecution under us law.

Who's footing the bill for these private security forces?

when my son was at abu g..they tried to tried to talk him in joining them once he got out..$145,000 tax free over there..they slept in air condiitoned trailers..the troops in jail cells...

I heard that the money was really high... and with something like over 100,000 independent contractors in Iraq, that's gotta be a huge tax burden. All for the sake of what?

they offer me a contract...to go camp liberty....6 weeks there and 4 weeks home...120,000 a year..to provide ptsd and cisd work...

Good thing you didn't take the offer.

[mRx 16]

they offer me a contract...to go camp liberty....6 weeks there and 4 weeks home...120,000 a year..to provide ptsd and cisd work...

I got some buddies at Liberty. They say that they have internet access in the tents!

Quite a leap in technology compared to the shack that I call "home".

[Ban Hammer 13,677]

they offer me a contract...to go camp liberty....6 weeks there and 4 weeks home...120,000 a year..to provide ptsd and cisd work...

I got some buddies at Liberty. They say that they have internet access in the tents!

Quite a leap in technology compared to the shack that I call "home".

tents are an improvement to '91

[almaty 19]

they offer me a contract...to go camp liberty....6 weeks there and 4 weeks home...120,000 a year..to provide ptsd and cisd work...

I got some buddies at Liberty. They say that they have internet access in the tents!

Quite a leap in technology compared to the shack that I call "home".

i \\

i admire your dedication and spirit brother matt....