NationStates Jolt Archive

Iraqi probe implicates Blackwater (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater)

In Washington on Thursday, the House passed a bill that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts.

I would have liked it to be inside the nations that their crimes occur in but I guess this is as good as it is liable to get.

Huzzah. Not that this will mean anything much, as a) it'll probably get vetoed and b) this doesn't mean that they'll get much of a trial over it.

What is this! Congress doing something useful, rather than scold moveon and other random groups, it's a strange day.

ooops.

i read it wrong sorry.




still "private contractors" is the politically correct term
for 'mercenaries'

What is this! Congress doing something useful, rather than scold moveon and other random groups, it's a strange day.

Congress scolding MoveOn is a once-every-thousand-years thing. I certainly wouldn't get used to that.

ooops.

i read it wrong sorry.




still "private contractors" is the politically correct term
for 'mercenaries'

oooh, I thought it meant contractors as in people who help the process of building houses. because that's a pretty harsh punishment for building houses.

I'm betting on a veto.


Any bets?

Congress scolding MoveOn is a once-every-thousand-years thing. I certainly wouldn't get used to that.

I was simply referencing their attraction to the creation of often pointless legislation.

I was simply referencing their attraction to the creation of often pointless legislation.

Did you know that poultry farmer day is coming up. That was probably my favorite bill ever.

I'm betting on a veto.


Any bets?

No bets from here. If that happens, there could be an override.

couldn't companies like blackwater just take the government up on its "come to prison or else"?

could make a good game..

A step in the right direction. If you can gaol US military personnel for mowing down people with bullets, you should be able to apply that to these mercenaries as well.

couldn't companies like blackwater just take the government up on its "come to prison or else"?

could make a good game..

Then the US government makes all kinds of hell for them financially. The IRS is one mean machine if you piss it off ;)
Besides, I wouldnt think they'd want to risk pissing off their best customer. Or rather...second best. I guess the insurgents pay more for guns than we do.

Iraqi probe implicates Blackwater (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater)

I would have liked it to be inside the nations that their crimes occur in but I guess this is as good as it is liable to get.
I am surprised that you would actually start a thread such as this, considering that it leaves you open to more of your previous posts coming back to bite you in the ass. :eek:

How would this work exactly in Iraq? They'd need to press charges first won't they? And Order-17 means they can't.

And would anyone in the US have the clout enough, along with the desire, to put them in court?

Cat Tribe might be able to shed more light on this.

I am surprised that you would actually start a thread such as this, considering that it leaves you open to more of your previous posts coming back to bite you in the ass. :eek:

Um yea...and this contributes how?

Um yea...and this contributes how?
Well, since you ask, this situation with the contractors, in this case Blackwater, goes back to a discussion that you and I had (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8570341&postcount=400)about Bremer's Orders. You insisted that the new Iraq government would be able "change" them, in this case, Bremer's Order 17 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf). Iraq is absolutely powerless over these contractors that appear to have commited murder, and now the US is faced with making a law to hold Blackwater accountable. Too bad that it won't be retroactive, as it appears that these guys will get away with murdering innocent civilians.

Well, since you ask, this situation with the contractors, in this case Blackwater, goes back to a discussion that you and I had (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8570341&postcount=400)about Bremer's Orders. You insisted that the new Iraq government would be able "change" them, in this case, Bremer's Order 17 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf). Iraq is absolutely powerless over these contractors that appear to have commited murder, and now the US is faced with making a law to hold Blackwater accountable. Too bad that it won't be retroactive, as it appears that these guys will get away with murdering innocent civilians.

Which is unfortunate. We are going to see just precisely what is going to happen. Of course, one can always hope that the Government does the right thing and hand these thugs over to the Iraqis but we all know that is not going to happen.

Um yea...and this contributes how?

Well, since you ask, this situation with the contractors, in this case Blackwater, goes back to a discussion that you and I had (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8570341&postcount=400)about Bremer's Orders. You insisted that the new Iraq government would be able "change" them, in this case, Bremer's Order 17 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf). Iraq is absolutely powerless over these contractors that appear to have commited murder, and now the US is faced with making a law to hold Blackwater accountable. Too bad that it won't be retroactive, as it appears that these guys will get away with murdering innocent civilians.

Very interesting, and very revealing. CH has 'previous' with OC3, and is so focussed on these unpicked bones as to ignore the thread subject entirely in their first post to the thread. "Hypocrit! You contradict yourself on X."

Corn2 calls that, and now CH wants to pursue 'previous' with C2.

Canuck Heaven, do you have a position of your own on private contractors? Could you, just as a courtesy to those of us who don't have an extensive database of others' opinions, you know ... say what you think before going the raw pirhana?

EDIT: I'd like to delete this post, but a minute is too long. I was confused with another thread (OC3 hasn't posted to this thread) and without the third party, my post makes no sense.

Let the debate resume ... the procedure nazi withdraws ... Iffrean, mate, just hold this gavel for a moment will ya?

Then the US government makes all kinds of hell for them financially. The IRS is one mean machine if you piss it off ;)

IRS is Britain, surely?

I think the point was that trained killers are harder to jail than gang-bangers.

Might not apply in Britain.

Very interesting, and very revealing. CH has 'previous' with OC3, and is so focussed on these unpicked bones as to ignore the thread subject entirely in their first post to the thread. "Hypocrit! You contradict yourself on X."

Corn2 calls that, and now CH wants to pursue 'previous' with C2.

Canuck Heaven, do you have a position of your own on private contractors? Could you, just as a courtesy to those of us who don't have an extensive database of others' opinions, you know ... say what you think before going the raw pirhana?

EDIT: I'd like to delete this post, but a minute is too long. I was confused with another thread (OC3 hasn't posted to this thread) and without the third party, my post makes no sense.

Let the debate resume ... the procedure nazi withdraws ... Iffrean, mate, just hold this gavel for a moment will ya?
An amusing little post. :)

Firstly, I don't have an extensive database......it is called a "search" feature and it is at the top of the page between "new posts" and "quick links". :)

Secondly, Bremer's Orders, in particular Order 17, are very relevant to this thread, due to the fact that foreign contractors in Iraq are immune from the Iraqi legal process.

Thirdly, it would appear that the only way to reign in these wayward contractors is to pass legislation by the "sending state", which is kinda sad to say the least.

Lastly, Corny and I debated this thorny issue over 2 and 1/2 years ago, and it appears that I was indeed correct on my observations regarding these nasty little Orders that were "promulgated" by Paul Bremer back in 2004.

An amusing little post. :)

My posts are often amusing. Call them "little" in peril of spam! I could, if called apon, express far simpler thoughts in far more words.

Firstly, I don't have an extensive database......it is called a "search" feature and it is at the top of the page between "new posts" and "quick links". :)

Secondly, Bremer's Orders, in particular Order 17, are very relevant to this thread, due to the fact that foreign contractors in Iraq are immune from the Iraqi legal process.

Thirdly, it would appear that the only way to reign in these wayward contractors is to pass legislation by the "sending state", which is kinda sad to say the least.

Lastly, Corny and I debated this thorny issue over 2 and 1/2 years ago, and it appears that I was indeed correct on my observations regarding these nasty little Orders that were "promulgated" by Paul Bremer back in 2004.

That helps. Just think of the audience a bit, is all I'm saying.

I'm not even clear about what the OP is about, so when you come in swinging about some debate two years ago, without restating your current position (I am very tolerant of others changing their position, btw) I've just got to think: who the fuck are they talking to? Not me. Not NSG.

Of course you can debate Corny on any subject you like. Corny is a big tough poster and I'm not here to take a punch for him. I just want some kind of clue about what you're debating about? Surely I am not expected to search both of your posting histories to see the debating point?

the problem isn't so much fixed price warriors, as their lack of accountability.

leave it to politics to close barn doors after the horses are gone and try to make this sound like an heroic thing to do.

it IS a step in something like the right general direction. a little late. maybe better then never. and perhapse a bit clumsy, as a cat with many heads has some slight tendency to be.

but yes i applaud any step in what seems like it might be the right general direction.

=^^=
.../\...

Huzzah. Not that this will mean anything much, as a) it'll probably get vetoed and b) this doesn't mean that they'll get much of a trial over it.

I wonder what's the point of having a parliament if all it does can be vetoed by the president.
The US presidency was given too much power - maybe in XVIII century was still a good idea to make a republic on the lines of the british constitutional monarchy, only without a king, but now it's time for a change, I think.

I wonder what's the point of having a parliament if all it does can be vetoed by the president.
The US presidency was given too much power - maybe in XVIII century was still a good idea to make a republic on the lines of the british constitutional monarchy, only without a king, but now it's time for a change, I think.

The idea is that every branch of the US government can override something that the other branch/branches are doing(except for the Dick Cheney branch). At least, I think that's the idea.


And on topic: Took long enough.

Yes, but while the parliament's decisions can be vetoed by the president as a normal act of his office, the president's decisions cannot be vetoed by the parliament,

Yes they can. If a bill is passed with a 2/3 majority, it can't be vetoed.

The idea is that every branch of the US government can override something that the other branch/branches are doing(except for the Dick Cheney branch). At least, I think that's the idea.


Yes, but while the parliament's decisions can be vetoed by the president as a normal act of his office, the president's decisions cannot be vetoed by the parliament, unless through a complex impeachment procedure, iirc, and this means taking the judiciary route - hence, you have to prove that the president committed a crime.
This means that the president overpowers the parliament - there is a lack of balance.

A step in the right direction. If you can gaol US military personnel for mowing down people with bullets, you should be able to apply that to these mercenaries as well.


Aha, but thats under US military law. Here the proposal is to make Blackwater answerable to US civil law with the same standard of evidence required. The FBI would have to fly out there and treat it as they would a "domestic" crime scene. Theres "one or two problems" I can envisage with that scenario, to put it mildly...Its giving the appearance of jurisidiiction where in practice, none can exist......

Secondly, it further insults the Iraqis by keeping them out of the process of handling killings of their own people......

IRS is Britain, surely?

I think the point was that trained killers are harder to jail than gang-bangers.

Might not apply in Britain.

IRS = Internal Revenue Services (or I think that's what it stands for anyway. Any Americans can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

It's basically just the tax office.

IRS = Internal Revenue Services (or I think that's what it stands for anyway. Any Americans can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

It's basically just the tax office.

Yep. IRS is the Internal Revenue Service.

I wonder what's the point of having a parliament if all it does can be vetoed by the president.

And the legislative branch can override the veto of the President. Of course, the Judicial Branch can tell the Congress that one of their laws is unconstitutional.

Yes they can. If a bill is passed with a 2/3 majority, it can't be vetoed.

Actually...that's not 100% true. 2/3rds can pass it but if the President vetoes it, how many of those 2/3rds would support overriding it?

Yes, but while the parliament's decisions can be vetoed by the president as a normal act of his office, the president's decisions cannot be vetoed by the parliament, unless through a complex impeachment procedure, iirc, and this means taking the judiciary route - hence, you have to prove that the president committed a crime.
This means that the president overpowers the parliament - there is a lack of balance.

This post is 100% wrong. Any act can be vetoed and then have said veto can be overriden by the Congress.

Aha, but thats under US military law. Here the proposal is to make Blackwater answerable to US civil law with the same standard of evidence required. The FBI would have to fly out there and treat it as they would a "domestic" crime scene. Theres "one or two problems" I can envisage with that scenario, to put it mildly...Its giving the appearance of jurisidiiction where in practice, none can exist......

Secondly, it further insults the Iraqis by keeping them out of the process of handling killings of their own people......

Actualy the FBI is over there in cooperation with the Iraqi government. The article even states that.

Actualy the FBI is over there in cooperation with the Iraqi government. The article even states that.


Its over there looking into the incident now. How many weeks later is that? Are they going to establish a presence there permanently to be on hand for future incidents?

What does it say when the foriegners can prosecute you, but you can't prosecute them?

Unfortunately, as I recall, the PMCs already implicated in crimes overseas wouldn't be able to be tried for them. This would only work pro actively.

I think it's called an ex post facto law, or something like that. But I expect TCT or Art to correct me shortly.

I'm betting on a veto.


Any bets?
I wouldn't be surprised if they threaten one. They'll argue that this leaves the 'contractors' in an unsafe position.

This post is 100% wrong. Any act can be vetoed and then have said veto can be overriden by the Congress.

Really? I stand corrected. However, doesn't look like the Congress is overriding a lot of things lately, does it?

Really? I stand corrected. However, doesn't look like the Congress is overriding a lot of things lately, does it?

No but then...how many bills has the Bush administration vetoed?

Breaking News >> Rice Orders Overhaul of Security Practices for U.S. Diplomats in Iraq

Very very interesting. Looks like it takes a crime to get the US Government off of its fat ass and do something.

Actually...that's not 100% true. 2/3rds can pass it but if the President vetoes it, how many of those 2/3rds would support overriding it?

Meh, I don't know much about how your government works.

Meh, I don't know much about how your government works.

Generally speaking, it doesn't.