Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Blackwater renewed. NO BROADCAST MEDIA would spotlight or discuss opposing views.

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 (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:42 PM
Original message
Blackwater renewed. NO BROADCAST MEDIA would spotlight or discuss opposing views.
Edited on Wed Sep-02-09 12:43 PM by blm
Anyone see this discussed or even repeated by broadcast newsmedia?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/us/22intel.html?_r=2&hpw


U.S. Still Using Security Firm It Broke With


By MARK LANDLER and MARK MAZZETTI
Published: August 21, 2009

WASHINGTON — Despite publicly breaking with an American private security company in Iraq, the State Department continues to award the company, formerly known as Blackwater, more than $400 million in contracts to fly its diplomats around Iraq, guard them in Afghanistan, and train security forces in antiterrorism tactics at its remote camp in North Carolina.

The contracts, one of which runs until 2011, illustrate the extent to which the United States government remains reliant on private contractors like Blackwater, now known as Xe (pronounced zee) Services, to conduct some of its most sensitive operations and protect some of its most vital assets.

Disclosures that the Central Intelligence Agency had used the company, which most people still call Blackwater, to help with a covert program to assassinate leaders of Al Qaeda have touched off a storm in Washington, with lawmakers demanding to know why this kind of work is being outsourced. New details about Xe’s involvement in the covert program emerged Friday.
>>>>>>>>

The State Department continues to use Blackwater guards in Afghanistan, despite the company’s involvement in civilian shootings in Baghdad in 2007, and despite Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s pledge to “reduce our dependence on private security contractors.”

The department declined to discuss its ties with Blackwater publicly, but a senior department official said it would be costly for the government to terminate, without cause, the other contracts that are in place. A spokeswoman for Xe Services did not respond to messages requesting comment.
>>>>>>


This web of ties is drawing the attention and anger of lawmakers, including Senator John F. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

On Friday, Mr. Kerry wrote to the founder and chairman of Xe, Erik D. Prince, asking for details of his company’s dealings with the C.I.A. In the letter, a copy of which was supplied to The New York Times, Mr. Kerry expressed concern that contractors could have used their State Department assignments as a “cover to gather information for the targeted killing program.” Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A.’s director, canceled the program this year, in part because he learned the C.I.A. had used an outside company for the program, government officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity have said.
>>>>>>>

Mr. Kerry also plans to write to Mrs. Clinton to raise his concerns, said one of his aides.

In a meeting with department employees in February, Mrs. Clinton said, “I certainly am of the mind that we should, insofar as possible, reduce our dependence.” But she added, “Whether we can go all the way to banning, under current circumstances, seems unlikely.”

>>>>>>>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:44 PM
Response to Original message
1. Frankly, if Obama cared about this, he would have us stop using them.
He doesn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. No, he doesn't.
I can no longer believe a single word he says.

We've been had.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
orwell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I assume that goes for Hillary too...
...after all she is Secretary of State.

Is she breaking her promises as well?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. I haven't been focusing on Hillary.
But since she campaigned on doing the same stupid, corporatist, militarist bullshit that Obama's actually doing, I'm no fan of hers either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. I wish he did care more about this. Lawmakers on the right side of this issue will never get the
attention and the news networks know exactly how to program their political shows to avoid the discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 12:59 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hard to get the contractual details from the article, but it looks like options, not a new contract
Which makes it more understandable. If the Gov tried to cancel the contracts (T for C), it would be a slam dunk in court for Blackwater.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. I hate this, but before throwing stones
I think we may consider the possibility that there is no good alternative. I don't have enough information to know whether it is true or not. But I do know that the military is still stretched very thin (would you prefer some more $ to go to the disgusting Blackwater or have enlisted people stay over there even longer? I don't think the answer is very obvious). Also if they were to switch from Blackwater to another private contractor: A. it takes time I guess; and a related B. would they be any better?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nashville_brook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. yeah, where could we possibly find a security force on such short notice?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Inuca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Why didn't I think of that?
Did you read my post? It was rather short... I speculated on why the army may not necessarily be the best solution, at least in the short run. Granted, it's only speculation, but not an absurd one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
n2doc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. I would rather they come home, as Obama said would happen
But frankly, a strong leader can tell his people- "make it happen". FDR, Truman, Eisenhower all did such things. I refuse to believe that Xe is so unique that it cannot be replaced, at least by Army/National Guard. And if that puts undue strain on the troops, then that is an even better reason to reduce our presence there. 2011! 16 months away. And we will still be paying the bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCKit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Knowing what we do about Xe, do you really want them back on our soil?
We should be paying them to stay away.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #7
13. "the military is still stretched very thin"
I have an idea about why that is and what we could do about it...

Care to guess?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Tires Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-02-09 03:08 PM
Response to Original message
12. sadly, they are not that easy to get rid of...
merc firms are too entrenched politically at the pentagon, and there is way too much former military brass sitting on their boards of directors...
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) 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