Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How do the democratic candidates plan on dealing with Blackwater?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
phillyliberal Donating Member (123 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:18 PM
Original message
How do the democratic candidates plan on dealing with Blackwater?
This issue has been very quiet throughout the debates, and to my knowledge hasn't been asked. What do the top democratic candidates plan to do with organizations such as Blackwater? Blackwater to me seems to be one that could only remain in a republican administration. However, I have not heard Hillary or anyone else discuss the atrocities and massacres that this private security company has participated in.

Blackwater MUST be removed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
1. Follow the Law...
See, we don't have to do anything new, or different. All we have to do is follow the law.

Which, of course means getting rid of them, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. OT, but...
who IS that in your sig line? Looks like my graduate coordinator when she disagrees with a point being made in a seminar...

:D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Fay Dunaway as Joan Crawford in "Mommie Dearest" n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
12. Wire Hangers!
I know it was serious scene but the wife and I laughed until we cried when we saw her screaming about wire hangers. That was a totally surreal scene.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:42 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. Yes, well...
all the proper elements are in place, then, regarding "she who is not to be corrected/challenged" on a point of historical interpretation... :rofl: Thanks for answering.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bobbieo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. Colbert - Who is she? Really - I've seen her somewhere but where -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
2. My bet is that they will probably keep them around...
along with most, if not all, of the surveillance legislation as well as the presidential authority legislation...

I'm sorry, but I am absolutely skeptical of anyone relinquishing tools of power once they attain access to those tools.

Just call me a 52 year old, tired of it all, cynic. :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. no govt. ever WILLINGLY gave up powers it possessed.
I do not think any DLC candidate will give up any of the powers grabbed by the current administration. They will likely say they'll use those powers more benignly, but I agree that I don't see them ceding any powers unless forced to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:30 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Yup...the promise is always to "do good" with these instruments...
but "doing good" isn't where the problem lies.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Personally, I don't know ...
... but I'm sure there will be at least a dozen threads up in the next few minutes about how Hillary has already cut a deal with them whereby they will enforce her edict when she declares martial law, Kucinich has secretly been on their payroll for years, Edwards has enjoyed a non-publicized position on their board of directors since mid-2005, and Biden plans to pardon any and all Blackwater employees from any fines or prison sentences that may result from future investigations and indictments.

I have left out Richardson, because it is a secret (known to all) that he started Blackwater to begin with under an assumed name.

Just figured that with all of the crapola being posted here lately, I may as well join in the insanity.

Jesus wept.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:34 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. I hope not to be a part of the inanity, NanceGreggs...
I am just cynical of surrendering power once one attains it...I don't have any particular candidate or scenario in mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ColbertWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:39 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. ???
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
10. By their demeanor alone, Blackwater's sense is that they have become...
so entrenched within the DC system that either, or no party, will be able to stop them. True, they must go. You want them gone as I do? Tax their high-riding asses out from under their no-bid crony contracts. Have them made to abide by the laws of this land. Then hold them, him, Prince, responsible for every...single...shrieking bullet they squeeze off. Strip them of their Rock & Roll/Rockstar status...soon, they will be gone as we see them today. And we do!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Adsos Letter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #10
14. I hope you are correct...and your wau seems like the best way...
I guess I just have 52 years of cynicism behind me on these issues (yes, I was born cynical) :D.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bridgit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:51 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. evening, adsosletter, and yeah...
hubby keeps trying to persuade me to not be so cynical...but this stuff just keeps going on & on dammit!! and must stop x( :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1corona4u Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:40 PM
Response to Original message
11. Joe doesn't plan on keeping them..that, I'm sure of...
Edited on Sun Dec-30-07 08:41 PM by 1corona4u
in fact, back in October, he recommended that the dept. hire more DS agents, and obviously that has gone ignored. He raised serious questions to Condi, and I'd be willing to bet, they are still unanswered;

October 30, 2007
Press Release

BIDEN Questions Grants of Immunity to Blackwater Employees


Washington, DC – Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D-DE) sent the following letter today to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, asking for specific answers regarding the Blackwater investigation and about the Department’s reliance on security contractors in Iraq and elsewhere:

October 30, 2007

The Honorable Condoleezza Rice
Secretary of State
Washington, DC 20520

Dear Secretary Rice:

I write regarding the use of personal security contractors, particularly in Iraq and Afghanistan. Currently, three security firms – Blackwater USA, DynCorp, and Triple Canopy – operate under the “Worldwide Personal Protective Services Program (WPPS)” administered by the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS).

The use of these security firms raises serious oversight issues, including the accountability of such contractors, and whether we should expand the ranks of Diplomatic Security rather than continue to rely so heavily on contractors. I appreciate your prompt action to implement several of the recommendations of the panel that you appointed to examine this issue. I would expect that Ambassador Kennedy, who served as the Executive Secretary for the panel, will be questioned on these issues during the hearing on his nomination, scheduled for later today, to be Under Secretary of State for Management.

As the Committee considers this issue, I request that the Department provide information and responses on the following:

1. Duration of the WPPS program/whether to hire more DS special agents. The number of security contractors used by the Department for personal security (not including contractors who provide perimeter security at posts worldwide) is now comparable to the entire contingent of DS special agents worldwide. It is difficult to conclude, however, that this will remain an interim arrangement. The security situation in Iraq has not materially improved. The requirement for extensive personal security to protect the employees of the U.S. mission will continue for several years to come – regardless of the number of U.S. forces in Iraq. Does it make sense, therefore, to continue to consider this a temporary program? In other words, should the Department not examine whether it would be more cost effective, and beneficial to the overall mission, to expand the number of DS agents available worldwide, rather than rely so extensively on contractors? In your judgment, what are the factors relevant to this decision?

In any event, I expect that the Department will need additional DS agents to maintain the level of oversight in Iraq that you have just ordered. Therefore, I encourage you to begin planning to hire additional agents over attrition in the coming years, beginning with the FY 2009 budget.

2. Liability issues. The shooting incident last month involving Blackwater USA has focused increased attention on the question of liability for criminal wrongdoing. Possible gaps in law may make it difficult to prosecute criminal acts. Please answer the following questions:

a. Press reports today indicate that DS agents offered grants of immunity to Blackwater employees after the September 16 shooting incident in Baghdad. Are these reports accurate? If so, who authorized these grants of immunity? Was there consultation with the Department of Justice prior to such grants of immunity?

b. Has the Department, and the Departments of Defense and Justice, examined the status of security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan under the law of armed conflict? If so, what is their status?

c. Is the United States responsible for ensuring that its contractors (while acting in Iraq) comply with the law of armed conflict? And is the United States responsible for taking disciplinary steps against contractors responsible for violations of the law of armed conflict?

d. To what degree is the War Crimes Act (18 U.S.C. 2441) applicable to contractors who are U.S. nationals?

e. With regard to the broader question of liability, do you agree with the recommendation of your panel that additional laws are necessary to permit prosecution in the United States of criminal acts committed by contractors overseas, whether or not such crimes constitute a war crime? Should such laws also be extended to direct hires (who would usually have immunity overseas)?

3. Oversight and costs of security contractors. The rapid expansion of contracts under the WPPS program raises several issues. I request responses to the following:

. The Committee has already received data on expenditures under the WPPS contract for FY 2001 through 2006. Please provide information on the amount expended in FY 2007 and projections for FY 2008

b. Have the task orders under WPPS been audited in the last three fiscal years, either by the contracting office, the Office of the Inspector General, or the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction? Please provide specific information, and copies of any completed audits.

c. What is the annual average cost, per contractor, under the WPPS contract? What is the annual average cost of a DS agent assigned (i) domestically; and (ii) overseas?

d. As contract expenditures have grown under WPPS from $50 million in FY 2003 to $613 million in FY 2006, have there been commensurate increases in the number of personnel in DS and, as appropriate, in the Bureau of Administration, to supervise and monitor the contracts? Please provide specific information about increases in authorized positions during the last three fiscal years, and whether such positions are filled.

4. Oversight of operations/operational impact. Please answer the following questions:

a. What specific mechanisms are in place for the reporting and review of incidents in which weapons are discharged? Are written reports required in each instance? To which office(s) are they submitted? What is the level and scope of the review of these reports?

b. What specific mechanisms are in place for oversight of compliance by the contractors with (i) vetting of personnel; (ii) provision of armor and equipment to the personnel; (iii) operational procedures requiring coordination with Department of Defense elements and with other civilian security personnel?

c. What are the rules of engagement for DS contractors, and how do they compare for the rules applicable to DS personnel, DoD personnel, or DoD contractors engaged in similar duties?

d. What is being done to coordinate those rules of engagement and to foster better communication between DS contractors and DoD in theater?

e. What incidents involving DS contractors under WPPS have led to investigations by DS, OIG, or other entities? Did any of these lead the Department to believe that wrongdoing or negligence had occurred on the part of DS contractors? Did DoD reach different conclusions in any cases?

f. In light of those cases, what approach should be taken to instituting accountability and some means to enforce rules of engagement or rules of conduct, other than just by reassigning, firing, and/or lifting the security clearances of wayward personnel?

g. Section 871 of H.R. 1585 (the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008), as passed by the Senate, requires the Secretary of Defense to "prescribe regulations on the selection, training, equipping, and conduct of personnel performing private security functions under a covered contract or covered subcontract in an area of combat operations." Paragraph (d)(1) of this section states: "The term 'covered contract' means a contract of a Federal agency for the performance of services in an area of combat operations, as designated by the Secretary of Defense...." If this section is enacted into law, will it apply to DS contractors? If so, what are the Department of State's views regarding this section?

h. Does your instruction for DS agents to accompany private security details constrain the ability of U.S. diplomats to travel outside of the International Zone? Are there adequate numbers of DS agents available to deploy to Iraq to perform this function? From where would they be drawn?

I appreciate your attention to this request.

Sincerely,

Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
Chairman
http://biden.senate.gov/newsroom/details.cfm?id=286393&
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seasat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Dec-30-07 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
15. From Richardson's website: Eliminate the role of mercenaries
Edited on Sun Dec-30-07 08:50 PM by seasat
Here's the section from his defense modernization plan.

Since the war in Iraq has begun, “more than 1,000 contractors have been killed and some 13,000 wounded,”<80> with an estimated 125,000 to 180,000 contractors currently in-country. This represents a force as large as our formal military presence, and has cost American taxpayers some $100 billion over the past four and a half years.<81>

While Governor Richardson understands that there will always be some role for civilian contractors in our overseas engagements, he will end the practice of outsourcing our national security to unaccountable private military corporations whose goals do not always reflect America’s strategic interests, as evidenced by the recent Blackwater scandal in which American contractors killed eleven Iraqi civilians.<82>

It is unacceptable to have a private army with a separate, profit-driven agenda, affecting our policy on a mission that is vital to the Nation’s defense. When he is President, Governor Richardson will end our dependence on this private army.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC