Article

2007-09-21 Iraq

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2007-09-21 10:02|| || Front Page|| [11133 views ] Top
File under: Iraqi Insurgency

#1 Maliki has hired the Rev. Jesse Jackson as a consultant.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-09-21 11:08|| 2007-09-21 11:08|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm some concerned. I have no doubt that most of the Blackwater people and other contractors are good folks. But they need to be under rules that make clear what they can and can't do in Iraq, and average Iraqis have to feel that they're safe when Blackwater is around.

Otherwise this will undermine what we're trying to accomplish.

A suggestion: Blackwater should be issued a Letter of Marque (Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution). If they don't accept it their contract is cancelled. If they do, their employees in Iraq are subject to the Uniform Military Code of Justice. That provides them with substantially better legal protection than they have now, and ensures that they'll follow appropriate rules and procedures. The Code could have whatever new rules/sections required for contract employees.

Just a thought.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-09-21 11:33|| 2007-09-21 11:33|| Front Page Top

#3 Steve, there are rules. They were put in place under Bremer and ratified by the elected Iraqi government. Bottom line: contractors cannot be prosecuted in Iraq courts for actions that legally fall within their responsibilities. Can be prosecuted in Iraqi courts for all other actions: corruption, rape, murder unjustified by defending their charges etc.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-21 11:50|| 2007-09-21 11:50|| Front Page Top

#4 A suggestion: Blackwater should be issued a Letter of Marque (Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution). If they don't accept it their contract is cancelled. If they do, their employees in Iraq are subject to the Uniform Military Code of Justice. That provides them with substantially better legal protection than they have now, and ensures that they'll follow appropriate rules and procedures. The Code could have whatever new rules/sections required for contract employees.

The UCMJ will subject them to RUF/FOE and the mindless limitations placed on the average soldier in the ITO. The US State Department will never permit their people (or the IZ gov't counterparts) to be put to that type of risk. Think about it!

What pisses me is the unheralded effectiveness of these contractors, their continued willingness to come over here and be shot at on a daily basis, and their numerous sacrifices. Blackwater is just one of many. What you are seeing here is.... "future war." We should take note of it and accept it for what it is.

Posted by Besoeker 2007-09-21 11:54|| 2007-09-21 11:54|| Front Page Top

#5 The text of Order 17 is here. Key paragraphs:

(2) Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts, including licensing and registering employees, businesses and corporations; provided, however, that Contractors shall comply with such applicable licensing and registration laws and regulations if engaging in business or transactions in Iraq other than Contracts. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Order, Private Security Companies and their employees operating in Iraq must comply with all CPA Orders, Regulations, Memoranda, and any implementing instructions or regulations governing the existence and activities of Private Security Companies in Iraq, including registration and licensing of weapons and firearms.

3) Contractors shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by Contractors, or otherwise temporarily detaining any Contractors who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditious turnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State. In all such
circumstances, the appropriate senior representative of the Contractors Sending State in Iraq shall be notified.

Posted by lotp 2007-09-21 11:57|| 2007-09-21 11:57|| Front Page Top

#6 The original report of the incident in question, as posted at Rantburg, described the situation as a planned ambush using Iraqi Army and Iraqi Police against the Blackwater convoy. I haven't seen anything to convince me that report is untrue, although granted I'm not in any way qualified to judge such things.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-09-21 12:11|| 2007-09-21 12:11|| Front Page Top

#7 "If they do, their employees in Iraq are subject to the Uniform Military Code of Justice."

"Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws" is quite different then not beholden to any laws. They are still subject to US laws. In fact the Pentagon spokesman said yesterday contractors can even be subject to UMCJ.

Posted by DepotGuy 2007-09-21 12:17|| 2007-09-21 12:17|| Front Page Top

#8
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I >Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter:
(1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces, including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it.
(2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen.
(3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.
(5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force.
(6) Members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve.
(7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a sentence imposed by a court-martial.
(8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces.
(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.
(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.
(11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who
(1) submitted voluntarily to military authority;
(2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority;
(3) received military pay or allowances; and
(4) performed military duties;
is subject to this chapter until such persons active service has been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.
(d)
(1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of
(A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32);
(B) trial by court-martial; or
(C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15).
(2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was
(A) on active duty; or
(B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in Federal service.
(3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President.
(4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces.
(5) A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the Secretary concerned, may not
(A) be sentenced to confinement; or
(B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).
(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876b (d)(2) of this title (article 76b(d)(2)).

Posted by Procopius2k 2007-09-21 12:37|| 2007-09-21 12:37|| Front Page Top

#9 (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay.

This is why some of us don't comment as fully as we could about some of the stuff that comes up on Rantburg. I signed a document that said I wouldn't discuss "sources and methods" or other sensitive material for 70 years from the date of signing. I'm sure Old Spook, Pappy, Fred, and a few others have also signed such documents. Of course, Congress, the MSM, and certain CIA employees doesn't seem to be held to the same exacting standards.

Posted by Old Patriot">Old Patriot 2007-09-21 13:05|| http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/]">[http://oldpatriot.blogspot.com/] 2007-09-21 13:05|| Front Page Top

#10 "Of course, Congress, the MSM, and certain CIA employees doesn't seem to be held to the same exacting standards."

OP, think that you nailed it, but i might add, they don't hold THEMSELVES to those standards.
if you did a DNA exam, you would probably find they are missing the credibility gene.

Posted by USN, Ret. 2007-09-21 14:07|| 2007-09-21 14:07|| Front Page Top

#11 Why aren't there more gun-cams? Even a simple system that recorded stuff on each side of the vehicle they are in would have been a big help here. If a bullet is fired then just download the video from the cam as evidence of what Blackwater was up against. It would also help keep the rogues in check as well.

Posted by gorb 2007-09-21 16:19|| 2007-09-21 16:19|| Front Page Top

#12 gorb - answer = lawyers.

I tried to patent a CDMA gun cam in 1997. I would have turned on an alerted police or HQ or whatever when taken off safety.

Video would have been an option to the HQs.

HiRes photos would have been sent when fired showing what the gun was pointing at.

The corporate patent lawyers refused to consider it as I was told: "We can't afford to have our engineers and you testifying in every court in the world all the time as expert witnesses."

This kind of upset me as it would have been the perfect retirement package. An expert witness on something like this import typically gets $1000/per hour!

That was my plan.

Now 5 years later I see another division of that company had an engineer get world patent of the year for that idea. He quit the company and lives in Atlanta (according to USPTO). This upset me as it was my idea, he was an H2B from India and he got the meal ticket.

Posted by 3dc 2007-09-21 17:27|| 2007-09-21 17:27|| Front Page Top

#13 Gorb a very early and rough form of the rejected concept

(not what was proposed nor what somebody else later patented. Sort of a back of the napkin initial concept.)

The best laid plans of mice and....
3 of us were really hoping for that pro-witness meal ticket with the idea.

Oh and it was too much trouble for the firm. It would not have been a core biz in anyway and had too much room for negative litigation.

Posted by 3dc 2007-09-21 18:13|| 2007-09-21 18:13|| Front Page Top

#14 3dc, if you have any documents showing your concept as presented to management, with the subsequent dismissal of the idea, but same idea later picked up, you can own their asses. This is near perfect grounds for nullification of the patent (you were the inventor, the invention was later filed but not under your name) at least. You could 'persuade' the company to compensate you for the idea if it is of any value to them. Don't get too greedy, but get even. Companies pull this all the time, but it is so easy to bust them for it. Documentation is the key.

Or, just bust their patent if you don't like them.

Posted by Whiskey Mike 2007-09-21 19:01|| 2007-09-21 19:01|| Front Page Top

#15 A key player in the patent idea still works for the company and begged me not to. I owed him some favors.

There were funny things with patents in that company. 7 of us had a really big one pertaining to polarization. Tons of math, protocols etc...
The company's patent lawyers took their sweet time filing it. (about 3.5 years) In the process a Q guy beat us by 6 weeks spinning our ideas (or his separately conceived ones) into about 60 patents. (somebody in the corporate patent office must have leaked or delayed on purpose) In the meantime, unknown to the patent office or corporate, we did real world tests with prototypes in Tel Aviv and discovered that Semi-Trucks destroyed the usefulness of the idea. (timing, phase angles and all that) So that loss was painful to take but even more painful for Q as it didn't provide a large enough useful gain to cover the costs of all the patents they filed.

eh... wash..

Posted by 3dc 2007-09-21 19:52|| 2007-09-21 19:52|| Front Page Top

#16 I suspect that video cams are being used by Blackwater personnel, but the results haven't yet surfaced, and may not for years.
In a similar vein, a Missouri police officer was fired after he was caught on video tape taunting and threatening a man, sometimes shouting and using profanity. Two unusual elements of this were (1) the video was made by the man in question, not by the police officer, and (2) the stated cause of the firing was that the policeman had switched his dash cam off before the incident, thereby not following his department's performance standard.

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-09-21 22:54|| 2007-09-21 22:54|| Front Page Top

23:54 Zenster
23:52 JosephMendiola
23:50 Barbara Skolaut
23:50 JosephMendiola
23:49 Zenster
23:47 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:42 JosephMendiola
23:37 Zenster
23:31 trailing wife
23:29 3dc
23:22 Zenster
23:21 Anguper Hupomosing9418
23:17 trailing wife
23:11 Zenster
23:09 trailing wife
22:59 Zenster
22:55 Frank G
22:54 Anguper Hupomosing9418
22:44 SteveS
22:42 JosephMendiola
22:42 Frank G
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:36 SteveS