[idertedype]

okay, let’s try again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...100302646.html

this is a very powerful, saddening, and infuriating story about the blackwater shooting incident in iraq several days ago. it differs from most in that it actually talks about the victims, which is why i think it’s worth reading, and also worth finding out what supporters of the war have to say in response to it.

[eFDMBwKH]

The opening post has been edited to remove the baiting. Let's see if we can discuss the issue without the OP's blanket insults.

Matt

[Theorsell]

From the article, it appears that the events of that day are still not concretely known. It was certainly a tragic event, but I don't think we really know what happened.

Matt

[Dxwlxqvg]

the testimony of the iraqi civilians involved, the hospital personnel and the eyewitnesses appear to be basically in agreement. there doesn’t seem to be much about the episode that’s unclear, although i’ve noticed that a lot of these things pop up, get shunted into interminable investigations that are never resolved, and then when administration officials get asked about it they say, “we can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.” it comes off as a stalling tactic, and that’s what saying “this episode seems unclear” appears to be as well.

it reminds me of the blackwater guy who shot the iraqi security guard and then was apparently snuck out of the country. he’s been “under investigation” by the state department for nine months and yet he’s evidently not even in custody even though he basically confessed. it seems like they just wanted to sit on it and hope it’d go away.

[MFSSCW2c]

I have no particular investment either way, so claiming I am "stalling" is baseless and pointless.

Besides, the author of the article plainly states that the events in question are still contested.

Matt

[AngelBee]

“we can’t comment on an ongoing investigation.” it comes off as a stalling tactic Or it could be that they actually can't comment on an ongoing investigation. It's not a stalling tactic, its doing the responsible thing during a investigation.
If those in black water are guilty then they will be punished

[Heessduernbub]

This has always been the American way of killing - to speak about democratization, children care and women's roghts to tax payers and put CIA to organize the slaughter secretly through the US "private" death squads not spoiling the image of the US Army. This was very much the case in El Salvador and elsewhere in C and S America and Vietnam and in that region. It is the same with the drugs business run by CIA and the assassination operations so commonly organized by US governments.

[elapicearpisp]

I have no particular investment either way, so claiming I am "stalling" is baseless and pointless.

Besides, the author of the article plainly states that the events in question are still contested.

Matt

you’re claiming to no investment in this issue? that surprises me. first, i’d expect most people to have a powerful, visceral reaction to a story of this sort. hats off to you if you can manage to read about that stuff without feeling emotion. but i’m also curious -- what would YOU say your political affiliation is?

and yes, it’s still contested in that it’s still being investigated. this doesn’t mean that we can’t examine the evidence and come to our own conclusions as private citizens. imagine if someone had stood around the water cooler during the OJ simpson trial and said, “now, now, in fairness, let’s await a verdict.” they’d be laughed out of the room.

they’re saying blackwater’s been involved in something like 200 shooting incidents (that we know of, they themselves admit that most of the times they fire on people there’s no paper trail created) and in 80 percent of the incidents they shot first. you have to evaluate the evidence on your own but here’s the thing -- if blackwater really is behaving recklessly and without accountability in iraq and someone tries to defend the company for partisan or other reasons, they’re actively making it more likely that massacres like this will continue to happen in the future. anyone defending blackwater needs to square this with their own conscience.

[bebeacc]

hmm, outlaw the insults and personal attacks and suddenly the right has little or nothing to say on this subject. could it be that attacking anyone who brings these things up is the only way the war supporters can deal with this issue?

it sorta seems that way, yes?

[Dilangos]

No. You stopped (or had removed) all the insults from your posts which is why no-one has now responded with posts repudiating your insults.

The reason nobody has responded to your thread is there isn't anyone who gives a flying fuck. Apart from you it seems that is.

[TimoPizaz]

okay, let’s try again.

washingtonpost.com - nation, world, technology and Washington area news and headlines

this is a very powerful, saddening, and infuriating story about the blackwater shooting incident in iraq several days ago. it differs from most in that it actually talks about the victims, which is why i think it’s worth reading, and also worth finding out what supporters of the war have to say in response to it.

Thank you for creating a more tactful thread. As promised, I'll try to be involved.

IMO, Blackwater (and possibly all similar contractors) need to be put through a rigorous and public investigation as soon as the man-power is available. I feel uncomfortable with their role in Iraq to begin with, though it's likely unavoidable. Given the rising number of accusations and general lack of trust, some serious house-cleaning might help to restore some confidence (both in the US and Iraq), clear out the worst offenders, and put most contractors on notice that they'll be held accountable in the future.
Even if all the accusations prove faulty (which is unlikely at this point, IMO) at this point, the public trust benefits make a thorough, open investigation worth-while.

[Corporal White]

Traveler;
The reason nobody has responded to your thread is there isn't anyone who gives a flying fuck. Apart from you it seems that is. Presumptious sort, aren't we.

Iraq's government has called for guards from the US security firm Blackwater to be prosecuted for the shooting of 17 civilians in Baghdad last month.

An official inquiry found the guards had not been attacked, as they had claimed, calling it a deliberate crime.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq urges Blackwater prosecution That's the victim's end of it complete. Now let's see how the accused react to the civil request for prosecution.

[chuecalovers]

“What they committed is considered a crime of deliberate killing and they must be held accountable according to the law,” Dabbagh said, adding the company itself could face legal action.

Iraq to Sue Blackwater, Says Toll 17 The company itself ? Nice one. The ol' 'sacrifice a few pawns' defense has been stale for years.

[vvxtiopmx]

German "Spiegel" writes Iraq demands 136 million $ compensation from Blackwater, plus US gouvernment cancelling all contracts with Blackwater. Sounds fair enough to me.

[bugagasikaga]

German "Spiegel" writes Iraq demands 136 million $ compensation from Blackwater, plus US gouvernment cancelling all contracts with Blackwater. Sounds fair enough to me. That would be fair to the Iraqis, if the families accepted the payment, because that is the way they do things sometimes.

Blackwater itself would be punished if it was excluded from government contracts in future. ( They could still work for foreign governments though )

What isn't fair to us , under that scenario, is that the trigger men get away Scot-free.

[jessyhalm]

That would be fair to the Iraqis, if the families accepted the payment, because that is the way they do things sometimes.

Blackwater itself would be punished if it was excluded from government contracts in future. ( They could still work for foreign governments though )

What isn't fair to us , under that scenario, is that the trigger men get away Scot-free.

I agree. They should be trialed as terrorists, for they terrorized the Iraqi civil population.

[CIAFreeAgent]

The US State Department is considering banning the use of private security guards in Iraq, though one scheme would involve just hiring the guards as US government employees. The privatization of war fighting, a major step back to the 18th century favored by the Bush administration as a way of throwing money to its friends, has the disadvantage of roiling diplomatic relations.

http://www.juancole.com/ http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7008789515


Bush's 'friends' won't allow him to do any such thing, imo. It's way too lucrative to allow politics to get in the way of the cash convoys.
Hell, they've shot Presidents for less.

[HartOvara]

I agree. They should be trialed as terrorists, for they terrorized the Iraqi civil population.

Maybe you should look up the definition of terrorist

[dselectronics]

Whose definition of terrorist ? According to the State Department ?

[shinesw]

The UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (UNAMI) has said it is considering charging private security guards hired to support US-led forces in Iraq with war crimes or crimes against humanity for killing civilians.

"International humanitarian rights law applies to them as well," Ivana Vuco, a human rights officer with the agency, said on Thursday.


"We will be stressing that in our communications with US authorities. This includes the responsibility to investigate to supervise and prosecute those accused of wrongdoing," Vuco said.

UNAMI also expressed concern that too many Iraqi civilians are being killed in US military operations.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exer...463975377A.htm I'd forgotten all about the UN. I wonder if their intervention will assist prosecutions ?