Schakowsky Prepares Legislation to Ban Blackwater

[laststeamtrain]

Source: Rebel Reports

Schakowsky Prepares Legislation to Ban Blackwater

Schakowsky says Blackwater has “severely damaged the credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship with other governments”

By Jeremy Scahill

As multiple scandals involving Blackwater continue to emerge almost daily, Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is preparing to introduce legislation aimed at ending the US government’s relationship with Blackwater and other armed contracting companies. “In 2009, the U.S. government employed well over 20,000 armed private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there is every indication that these figures will continue to rise in 2010,” Schakowsky wrote in a “Dear Colleage” letter asking for support for her Stop Outsourcing Security (SOS) Act. “These men and women are not part of the U.S. military or government. They do not wear the uniform of the United States, though their behavior has, on numerous occasions, severely damaged the credibility and security of our military and harmed our relationship with other governments.”

Schakowsky originally introduced the bill in 2007, but it only won two co-sponsors in the Senate: Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. Ironically, Clinton—now Secretary of State— is currently the US official responsible for most of Blackwater’s contracts. “The legislation would prohibit the use of private contractors for military, security, law enforcement, intelligence, and armed rescue functions unless the President tells Congress why the military is unable to perform those functions,” according to Schakowsky. “It would also increase transparency over any remaining security contracts by increasing reporting requirements and giving Congress access to details about large contracts.”

Meanwhile, a national coalition of groups opposed to Blackwater have issued an open letter to Congress urging support for Schakowsky’s SOS Act and have called on Congress to investigate the US Justice Department’s handling of the criminal case against the Blackwater operatives alleged to have been responsible for the 2007 Nisour Square massacre. On New Year’s Eve, federal Judge Ricardo Urbina threw out the case alleging prosecutorial misconduct. “Considering all of the millions of tax payer dollars that have gone into funding Blackwater, as well as paying for all of the various investigations into their illegal and unethical activities, the citizens of the United States deserve to know the truth,” said Dan Kenney, co-coordinator of “No Private Armies.” Their letter to Congress and an accompanying petition can be found here.

Read more: http://rebelreports.com/post/332555848/schakowsky-prepares-legislation-to-ban-blackwater

[FiveGoodMen]

1. Hope it goes somewhere.

I know the White House will be against it.

[Hekate]

2. Jan Schakowsky has my gratitude. 5th Rec--off to the Greatest

1. Mercenaries should have no place alongside US military forces.
2. Outsourcing and privatizing vital functions like food, water, camp set up, and security should be outlawed. Period.

Hekate

[newspeak]

47. hear, hear!!!!

+1,000

[RaleighNCDUer]

56. On point 2 -

when contractors are filling that function, what are the SeaBees doing? Building temporary military camps and airfields was the whole purpose of their existence. If KBR is doing it, does that mean the SeaBees have been disbanded?

[Hekate]

63. Beats the heck out of me.I used to think military "took care of their own" by doing for themselves

... and it wasn't just a slogan for picking up the dead and wounded from the battlefield.

To me, it always meant that there was potentially a job for everyone who wanted to serve in the military forces, and that everyone shared in the tasks necessary to keep it running.

It also meant there would be accountability for a job poorly done -- something sorely lacking from the contractor/KBR system we now have.

The entire privatization and outsourcing thing has appalled me from the get-go.

Hekate

[lsewpershad]

3. When our Govt

has to "outsource" our military function to private corps we definitely know runs our Govt. Is there any doubt?

[Soylent Brice]

4. K&R

[Vidar]

5. K&R.

[fascisthunter]

6. glad to see someone try

[countmyvote4real]

7. Here's a link to the accompanying petition..

http://www.copswiki.org/w/bin/view/Common/OpenLetterToCongress

[Mari333]

8. knr, man, hope it goes somewhere

not holding my breath.

[pjt7]

9. I'd give anything to hear Clinton speak truthfuly about Blackwater

& too know what sway they hold over her.

[rpannier]

25. It's not as easy as the Sec of State saying they can no longer be used by the US Gov't

It's a policy issue that has to be supported by the President and (most likely) by Congress, as they provide the funds.

Maybe a better question would be "What sway they hold over the Presidency and the Legislature."

[bertman]

10. Not JUST Blackwater/Xe, but ALL of these contract mercenary outfits. Rec.

[Uncle Joe]

11. They're an ironic combination of being loose cannon/tapeworms, kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, laststeamtrain.:thumbsup:

[Mind_your_head]

12. Banning mercenaries

I'm all for it! :thumbsup:

K & R

[Plucketeer]

13. I'm proud to say I was a part of the REAL US Military service

The one where we washed and pressed OUR OWN clothes, had OUR OWN plumbers and cooks and security forces. Now all that's done by contractors and we pay WAY TOO MUCH for what the troops get. Crazy Bullshit! :crazy:

[EFerrari]

14. Unless there's language in there about CIA using them

I don't think this bill will do what it's intended to do.

[bemildred]

15. Sounds phoney to me.

You have to watch out for that "Bill of Attainder" issue anyway, but I'm sure the Executive will come with a reason to do this any time it wants to do this.

[DeSwiss]

26. Bingo

The Bill of Attainder issue that spurred a judge to toss-out legislation aimed at punishing ACORN by ending their legitimate contracts -- and with them having had no legal action nor adjudication against them, the same Constitutional protection "could" end up being used to protect Blackwater/Xe as well.

- Terrible comparison, I know. But there it is.

K&R

[quakerboy]

35. If they make it across the industry, it shouldnt be a problem

Bill of attainder comes in where you are singling someone out, whereas despite the title used, it sounds as though she is moving to restore inherent function to the US military and to begin to end the use of mercenaries as a whole.

I agree on your second point. Some administrations will come up with plenty of reasons. Assuming that this would even pass to begin with. But If it did, I would rather have this issue hemmed in as much as possible from any direction possible, as opposed to whatever it is right now.

[bemildred]

42. Right, you need a complete prohibition, no exceptions, no weaseling out in "emergencies".

That would be good.

[existentialist]

62. Bill of Attainder?

A Bill of Attainder would be a law passed to arrest and try someone for what they have already done.

That could be a problem if it attempts to create greater criminal liability then may have already existed for things already done.

If, however, it has only prospective application, then that is not a problem.

[bemildred]

66. Bill of Attainder:

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons" because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder#American_usage

[existentialist]

67. (I understand what a Bill of Attainder is)

[bemildred]

68. (So do I.) nt

[existentialist]

69. Yes you do.

Your definition of Bill of Attainder was probably more precise than one I would have given.

[bemildred]

70. That business with ACORN had it fresh in my mind. nt

[existentialist]

71. I didn't really follow the ACORN business all that closely.

I knew fairly early on that it was most a right wing smear operation. For my purposes that was about all I needed to know.

[bemildred]

73. Here is a decent summary of one side of the argument:

The Nation: ACORN's Vindication: Too Little, Too Late

On Christmas Eve, buried on page A24 of my edition of the New York Times, was this story: "The controversial community organizing group Acorn has not broken any laws in the last five years, according to a Congressional Research Service report released Tuesday evening."

Indeed, the CRS report—requested in September by House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank—finds no instances in which ACORN "violated the terms of federal funding in the last five years," and no instances of individuals allegedly registered to vote improperly by ACORN "attempting to vote at the polls."

Good to see that the New York Times ran the story. But the placement and the timing — after 18 months of screaming headlines and attacks vilifying the anti-poverty group — is reminiscent of the McCarthy era when individuals and organizations were ruined by allegations that ran as front page news, while later evidence that vindicated them was relegated to the back pages. There was little accountability for the false accusations, little redemption for those whose lives had been shattered.

---

"The court made the right decision in this case," Nadler wrote me in an e-mail. "I am gratified that my analysis of the punitive and blatantly unconstitutional bill of attainder has been vindicated by the judiciary."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122275494

[LiberalFighter]

16. Needed resources are diverted from military operations to private security?

That is totally wrong!

How much of Blackwater expenses could had been used to ensure that our troops received body armor vests that meet specs and vehicles that are armored appropriately. That troops have livable barracks when living on base.

[jmowreader]

17. Or at least barracks that are wired right

I just came back from the KBR careers website. (The Iraq jobs are under LOGCAP.) There are hundreds of jobs there, and very few of them could NOT be done by a soldier. In some cases they give the exact MOS they want you to have held in the military. Y'know, it occurs to me: if we can pay KBR $125,000 per year to send an Army-trained airload planner to Iraq, or we can pay $50,000 to put the exact same fucking guy in an Army Combat Uniform and send him to Iraq as a Soldier, wouldn't we be better off to just enlist someone?

[LiberalFighter]

41. Exactly.

Also, doesn't it make it difficult at times to re-enlist a soldier when they have a choice between making what they make in the service vs Blackwater? And what is the cost to train someone to fill the spot that was vacated in the process?

Blackwater gets an employee that has already been trained at no expense to them.

[jmowreader]

44. Yes, the Blackwater salary is a huge problem for retention

Training expense varies depending on what the soldier's MOS was. Some of the supply guys the contractors (not just Blackwater) happily scarf up are pretty cheap to train--ten to fifteen thousand. The truckers with two years experience KBR loves to hire cost about half that, but a lot of the drivers they hire were never military--which means either some civilian trucking line or the driver himself paid for that training.

And you're right about the contractors getting guys that have been trained at no expense to them, but isn't that the way all businesses work today? Check the classified ads: "need five years experience in this, that and the other thing." Come right in, sit down and start making us money.

[bvar22]

18. There are some things Public Money should NEVER be used for:

*ARMED Military/Security "Contractors"

*Private Police Forces

*Private Prisons

*Private Intelligence Agencies

In a Democratic Republic, ALL of the above SHOULD be directly accountable to The Public.

Since I consider Health Care a human right, I also feel that Public Money should NEVER go to a Private For Profit Health Insurance Corporation.

[ddorrell]

20. Welfare

Here in Indiana they tried to privatize the Welfare system. It was an unmitigated disaster.

[Lochloosa]

38. Welcome to DU ddorrell

:toast:

[defendandprotect]

19. Good move there . . When are we even going to address the additional costs of a privatized ...

military --

Leave alone the corruption and criminality of Blackwater!!

[earcandle]

21. Thanks! Hope you get it through!

[donheld]

22. Ms Schakowsky

:yourock:

[SaveOurDemocracy]

23. Good for her! K&R

[Mopar151]

24. Pinkertons, Baldwin-Felts "mine police"

And the "Ford Service Department" Advancing labor laws in the 30's largely put a stop to these goons-to-hire, as did newspaper photography.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

27. It's long overdue.

Good on Jan!

[DesertDiamond]

28. Please please please please please!!!! Blackwater ("Xe") is poison, toxic, a blight.

[im1013]

29. K&R!!!!!

[winyanstaz]

30. K & R...remember this guys name :)....he is going places...

I sure hope this goes someplace too. Blackwater is bad for America and other living things.

[Ozymanithrax]

31. A good idea but unlikly to work for several reaons...

It could be constured as a Bill of Atainder, banned by the Constitution...

Blackwater has changed its name once, and what is to keep it from morphing to something else to escape such a law.

It probably doesn't have a ghost of a chance of passing the Senate.

A better idea would be to ban the use of mercenaries and private security companies by the U.S. Government.

[jmowreader]

46. I think she's trying to ban the mercs, not just target Blackwater

Blackwater is the most visible merc outfit in the Middle East (mostly because it has the most thugs in it), but there are others--KBR and DynCorp come to mind. Since the prohibitions would get rid of those three companies, plus the intel functions of LockheedMartin and the other private spy shops, the bill doesn't really look like one of attainder. (OTOH the bill specifically targeting ACORN was definitely a bill of attainder. My Cousin Vinny could have gotten it overturned.)

[Ozymanithrax]

48. It is good ot see that they are trying to do it right.

If we must fight a war, we should be willing to send our own sons and daughters to be ground into hamburger meat.

[Mithreal]

32. Damn fine idea extended to all mercs.

[SeattleGirl]

33. I hope this goes through

Those assholes have no business working for the United States.

[valerief]

34. Kick!

:kick:

[Enthusiast]

36. This is why the PTB

must get rid of Democratic Party legislators.

[Hubert Flottz]

37. K&R

[mod mom]

39. No privatization of military or intelligence functions of the government!

[brewens]

40. How many of our troops have left the military to go to work for these contractors?

We give these guys their training and the first chance they get they leave to go to work for contractors. Then we get to pay how much more for them to do their old jobs?

[L. Coyote]

43. While we pay ten-fold after training them.

[avaistheone1]

45. Wall Street doesn't do God's work.

Schakowsky does.

O8)

[redqueen]

49. Very encouraging. I like this "No Private Armies" group. (nt)

[Union Yes]

50. Major K&R! nt

[JimWis]

51. K&R

[derby378]

52. Erik Prince, it's FARMVILLE for you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odBDAcOEKuI

(Thanks to redqueen and ChickMagic)

:rofl:

[tonekat]

53. Read Steve Fainaru's book "Big Boy Rules"

...for an inside Iraq perspective on mercenaries in general.

[Little Star]

54. k&r

[Auggie]

55. Yes!

[Oerdin]

57. It won't pass

But I'm glad someone is fighting the good fight even if in just a symbolic way.

[rd_kent]

58. [phone]! K&R

[varelse]

59. Good riddance

heh - and good luck.

[BrklynLiberal]

60. Certainly hope she succeeds..

[ieoeja]

61. Work around

I like the idea, but I'm not sure how many of Xe's guys in Iraq/Afghanistan are being paid by our government versus how many are being paid by private corporations.

If we are hiring security firms like Xe to provide security for unarmed civilian contractors, e.g. Halliburton, then we would just start including a security allowance in our contracts with Halliburton allowing them to hire Xe to provide security for their workers. It would stop our diplomatic staff from using them, or us using them as police, but it wouldn't get the bulk of them.

Even if we don't do that, Halliburton will just figure it into their future contracts then hire Xe as guards.

I don't think our military works with them that much. Heck, a bunch of Marines once engaged in a firefight against Blackwater.

[dysfunctional press]

64. shouldn't she be trying to ban 'Xe'...?

[Odin2005]

65. Mercenaries are a threat to Democracy.

[No Elephants]

72. This will go nowhere faster than that 2003 bill, HR 676, Nice of her to try, though.