So, District Judge Ricardo Urbina has tossed out the indictments. According to Urbina, the prosecution and agents working the case improperly used statements provided by the five Blackwater hirelings to the State Department regarding their murderous actions in Nisoor Square on September 17, 2007. The loophole? That the five contractors had agreed to provide statements to the State Department on the condition that what they said could not be used to incriminate them.

So they killed fourteen people, wounded twenty others, and are free men. Of course, the Iraqis can’t touch them because at the time foreign contractors were immune to Iraqi law. Not even the Iraqi President could do anything about a crime committed in his own country. He had to leave it up to those occupying it. And, as predicted, those that were guilty got away with it.

They’re not the only ones that ‘got away with it’. We’re not exactly sure how many Iraqis have died since 2003. In fact, as far as the American government is concerned, they don’t even care. That’s how pathetic the whole thing is.

Oh, and don’t sit there with a smug look on your face shaking your head because you’ve heard umpteen idiots on television extol the supposed success of The Surge and how it gloriously helped “end the war”. As John Pilger said of The Surge the other day…

“The Americans did this in Iraq and destroyed a multi-ethnic society. They bribed and built walls between communities who had once inter-married, ethnically cleansing the Sunni and driving millions out of the country. The embedded media reported this as “peace,” and American academics bought by Washington and “security experts” briefed by the Pentagon appeared on the BBC to spread the good news.”

I guess you can call that a success, just as much as you can call the dismissal of indictments against five murders acceptable because what they told one of the highest departments of the US government came with a catch – that the fucking truth couldn’t be used against them.

Ain’t the ‘rule of law’ a bitch?

January 2, 2010

There are currently more private contractors in Afghanistan than there are US troops. While the Western media and politicians have been selling a bill of goods that reconstruction in that country is coming along swimmingly, the reality is that through the trickle down process of employing subcontractors money is being made hand over fist and very little has actually been accomplished.

The process is simple for those greedy and ambitious enough to take advantage.

Let’s say that you are contracted to build a school and receive $1 million dollars to do it. The first step is quite simple. Pocket $700,000 dollars of that money and use the remainder to purchase supplies (in some cases) and then hire a subcontractor to build the school for $300,000 dollars. Now, any sane person would think that that wouldn’t be tolerated, but unfortunately sane has nothing to do with it. Little to no oversight exists, so the process isn’t questioned, nor are inflated estimates initially made by contractors to do a job.

Moving along – now that the project has been subcontracted out, that subcontractor wants their cut, so they skim $100,000 dollars off the top and hire another subcontractor to actually build the school for $200,000 dollars. This new contractor is local, which means they know that they can hire local labourers for next to nothing, leaving them in the position of taking their own cut. In the end, the entire process takes so long that the actual construction of the school is terminally delayed. Again, oversight is minimal, if not altogether nonexistent, so maybe the school gets built, maybe it doesn’t.

At the end of the day, it’s your tax dollars that are filling the coffers of those companies that bid on and receive contracts for a variety of undertakings, the costs of which are enormously inflated.

Such corruption doesn’t exclude military contractors either…

“Armed guards from the security firm once known as Blackwater Worldwide are still protecting U.S. diplomats in Iraq, even though the company has no license to operate there and has been told by the State Department its contracts will not be renewed two years after a lethal firefight that stirred outrage in Baghdad.

Private security guards employed by the company, now known as Xe, are slated to continue ground operations in parts of Iraq long into the summer, far longer than had previously been acknowledged, government officials told The Associated Press.

In addition, helicopters working for Xe’s aviation wing, Presidential Airways, will provide air security for U.S. diplomatic convoys into September, almost two years after the Iraqi government first said it wanted the firm out.

The company’s continued presence raises fresh questions about the strength of Iraq’s sovereignty even as the Obama administration urges the budding government to take more responsibility for the nation’s future.

Iraqis had long complained about incidents caused by Blackwater’s operations. Then a shooting by Blackwater guards in Baghdad’s Nisoor Square in September, 2007 left 17 civilians dead, further strained relations between Baghdad and Washington and led U.S. prosecutors to bring charges against the Blackwater contractors involved.

That deadly incident was the end, Iraqi leaders said. Blackwater had to get out.

But State Department officials acknowledge the company is still there.

The company declined to comment about a timetable for leaving. “We follow the direction of our U.S. government client,” Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrrell said. Last February, Blackwater changed its name to Xe — pronounced ZEE — in a bid to leave its controversial reputation behind.

Defense analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said Iraq’s ability to enforce bans on companies like Blackwater may provide an early measurement of the strength of its internal sovereignty. As the Iraqi leaders gain more control, he said, the final exit for Blackwater will be inevitable.

“But let’s face it, they’re not entirely their own masters yet,” he said.

In Baghdad, an Iraqi security official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said that while Xe will not be allowed to work in Iraq, the company needs “some time” to fully shut down its operations there. The official did not give further details on the timetable.

The State Department’s continued reliance on Blackwater also underscores the difficulties facing the U.S. government in finding other options to protect its diplomats in dangerous areas.

They need time to find other options? How about the United States military, whose task it would normally be?

April 21, 2009 5 Comments

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post hits the nail on the head…

“The federal manslaughter indictment of five Blackwater Worldwide security guards in the horrific massacre of more than a dozen Iraqi civilians in Baghdad may look like an exercise in accountability, but it’s probably the exact opposite — a whitewash that absolves the government and corporate officials who should bear ultimate responsibility.

If what Justice Department prosecutors allege is true, the five guards — Donald Ball, Dustin Heard, Evan Liberty, Nicholas Slatten and Paul Slough — should have to answer for what happened on Sept. 16, 2007. The men, working under Blackwater’s contract to protect State Department personnel in Iraq, are charged with spraying a busy intersection with machine-gun fire and grenades, killing at least 14 unarmed civilians and wounding 20 others. One man, prosecutors said yesterday, was shot in the chest with his hands raised in submission.

The indictment, charging voluntary manslaughter and weapons violations, demonstrates that those who engage “in unprovoked attacks will be held accountable,” Assistant Attorney General Patrick Rowan claimed.

But it demonstrates nothing of the sort. As with the torture and humiliation of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, our government is deflecting all scrutiny from the corporate higher-ups who employed the guards — to say nothing of the policymakers whose decisions made the shootings possible, if not inevitable.”

Good man.

December 9, 2008 12 Comments

If you were looking for a fine example of ridiculousness today, look no further than the words of Stephen Mull, the US State Department’s acting assistant secretary for political-military affairs.

Yesterday, Mull made the following comment with regards to those nations currently participating at a conference in Dublin where representatives from more than 100 nations are working to craft a treaty to ban the use, production, stockpile, and sale of Cluster Bombs…

“This would have very grave implications. With one stroke, any country that signs the convention as it is now and ratifies it, in effect would make it impossible for the United States or any of our other allies who rely on these weapons to participate in these humanitarian exercises.”

So, for example, were Brazil to sign the treaty and a massive natural disaster were to devastate part of that country, Mull is basically saying that the United States would not offer humanitarian assistance because of Brazil’s stance on the United States’ refusal to stop producing, using, selling, and stockpiling Cluster Bomb munitions.

Even more – Canada is also represented at the conference and is one of the key nations, along with France and Germany, expected to play a role in swaying the UK’s position on the treaty.

So what if a part of this nation were devastated by a natural disaster? What if my hometown were to be rocked by the long awaited earthquake that we’ve been expecting for basically my entire lifetime? Canada is America’s foremost trading partner, not to mention the fact that after Katrina hit, members of my hometown’s emergency response team were there and helping people before their American counterparts even showed up. So much so, in fact, that various neighbourhoods were awash in Canadian flags as a show of gratitude.

What then, Mr. Mull? Are we on our own because we dared to stand with others and say that the use, production, stockpile, and sale of one of the most despicable conventional weapons in the world should be banned?

Given FEMA’s reposnse to Katrina, and the Bush Administration’s mishandling of the disaster, what of the outpouring of support from other countries, even those the United States government considers enemies, such as Cuba and Venezuela? Do you not think that by taking such a ridiculous position that further isolating the United States from those that, in times of disaster, are willing to forego ideological differences to lend their support is a good idea?

Arrogance knows no bounds, it seems. And all over a bloody bomb.

May 22, 2008 18 Comments

If you’re labouring under the misconception that the Bush Administration is going to leave office without first confronting the Iranians, it’s time to start paying serious attention.

The propaganda machine is in full swing, led by a new report by the State Department that labels Iran the most active sponsor of terrorism. If you can believe it, the Sudanese government actually ranked lower despite the fact that it has been complicit in supporting the Janjiweed who have been responsible for a genocidal campaign in Darfur.

Falling conveniently in line with the State Department’s release, the United States has deployed a second US carrier group to the Gulf with the specific purpose of “developing new options for attacking Iran” – a directive issued directly by The Pentagon. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is justifying the move as a response to what the United States now believes is official Iranian policy – “killing American servicemen and -women inside Iraq”. Michael Hayden, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, recently asserted at a lecture at Kansas State University…

“It is my opinion, it is the policy of the Iranian government, approved to highest level of that government, to facilitate the killing of Americans in Iraq.”

It would seem that it is more than Mr. Hayden’s opinion, and a very crucial question has to be asked – why is the director of the CIA making such claims during a lecture? This is the same man whose agency provides the White House with a daily brief, which means that Hayden’s position has not only been presented the President, but also obviously adopted. If it hadn’t been, the White House would have condemned his assertion during that lecture, which it hasn’t, meaning that Hayden’s mentioning of it is being used as a tool with regards to circulating policy in the press without it coming directly from the President’s mouth.

Added to all of this, rather conveniently, is also another Pentagon assertion that the Iranians are directly aiding the Taliban in Afghanistan, a claim that was originally made last year and denounced by both the Iranians and the Afghan government. It should also be noted that it was made around the same time as US allegations that the Iranians were also supporting Sunni extremists in Iraq, which were quickly attacked by various analysts as being utterly preposterous given the massive, and historic, ideological differences between the two. Not surprisingly, the promotion of that information was tracked back to the office of the Vice President.

On the nuclear front, the Israelis are playing their part, with Israeli Transportation Minister, Shaul Mofaz, claiming yesterday that Iran will likely possess the ability to produce a nuclear weapon before the end of 2008. His source? Israeli intelligence, of course. Ironically, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert refused to comment on Mofaz’s claim, which is interesting being that his office is in direct control of the Israeli intelligence apparatus and has far more insight than that of the office of the Transportation Minister.

So what does all of this add up to? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure it out. Fishermen call it baiting a hook; the intelligence community refers to it as Psy-Ops. And if you think it’s the Iranians that are the target with regards to psychological initiatives employing the media as their primary conduit, think again. It is, in fact, the American people being targeted.

The question is, have the people of the United States learned their lesson?

Iraq was invaded because they supposedly possessed weapons of mass destruction, or, at the very least, were in the process of obtaining them.

After that justification fell through, the toppling of the regime of Saddam Hussein took its place, and human rights, liberty, and democracy became the bugle call.

After Hussein’s capture, and the continued occupation of the country to combat the insurgency, al-Qaeda was used as the primary justification despite the fact that their numbers in Iraq, which didn’t exist prior to the occupation, constituted less than 5% of the insurgency itself.

And so here we find ourselves, five years after the fact, with the Iranians having become the new justification. Like Hussein’s regime prior to the invasion, the Iranians are being accused of attempting to secure a nuclear weapon. Their intended target? Israel. The consensus, of course, is that were they to acquire one they would use it, that it would not be seen as the acquisition of a deterrent, but rather an offensive weapon.

In my next entry, although I have covered the subject before, I will delve into the reality of why that line of thought is based on nothing more than the desire to militarily confront Iran, not the Iranian regime’s desire to actually engage in a nuclear exchange.

May 1, 2008 13 Comments