The mercenary firm Blackwater has become a symbol of the utter lawlessness and criminality that permeates the privatised wing of the US war machine. The company's operatives have shot dead scores of Iraqi and Afghan civilians, while former employees allege in sworn statements that Blackwater's owner Erik Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe", and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life". Five Blackwater employees will stand trial in federal court in the US on charges that they slaughtered 14 innocent Iraqis, while a sixth Blackwater operative has already pleaded guilty. The company faces allegations of illicit weapons-smuggling and tax evasion, and is being sued for war crimes. The private army is under fire. And yet, despite all the action, none of the legal bullets has – to date – landed a serious blow.
An explosive report in the New York Times today could change that. The paper alleges that in the aftermath of the infamous 2007 Nisour Square massacre of 17 Iraqi civilians, top Blackwater officials "authorised secret payments" of about $1m into Iraq intending to bribe officials to allow Blackwater to remain in Iraq despite Baghdad's position that the company would be banned and the killers prosecuted. Blackwater continued to operate in Iraq for two years after the Iraqis announced the company would be kicked out – a fact that has baffled and angered Iraqis. In fact, Blackwater remains in Iraq to this day on a $200m contract that was recently extended by the Obama administration. The new report, if true, could help explain why Blackwater has survived so long in Iraq. It could also be a window into what may become the most serious legal issue facing Prince and other executives.
Claims that Prince was aware of the bribery scheme – and that his deputy, the company president Gary Jackson, directed the transfer of the money to Blackwater's hub in Jordan, from where it was funnelled to a top Blackwater manager in Iraq – are reported in the New York Times. Such actions would be illegal under US law. At the time of the alleged bribery scheme, FBI agents were on the ground in Baghdad conducting a criminal investigation of the incident and were, in part, relying on the cooperation of Iraqi officials – particularly from Iraq's interior ministry, the alleged intended recipients. If true, that means that Blackwater or its executives could face charges of obstruction of justice. There is a grand jury investigating Blackwater in its home state of North Carolina.
Today, Blackwater works in Afghanistan for the state department, the CIA and the defence department. It protects US officials there and guards visiting congressional delegations. Democratic Representative Jan Schakowsky, a close friend of President Obama, says she was guarded by Blackwater on a recent trip to Afghanistan and that the company is involved with the security details of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Ambassador Richard Holbrooke when they visit the country. But as the investigations into Blackwater deepen and the scandals expand, perhaps the most urgent question is this: why does President Obama continue to use this company?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/nov/11/blackwater-mercenary-scandal-legal-sanction
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
