The New York Times is reporting that 43 Contractors have been taken into custody. It appears that the contract that they had was for resupply, and that these guards covered the resupply contract, and were not a part of any American security contract.
At this point, none of the detained are believed to be American.
I think that this is a shot across the bow of all the contractors by the Iraqi army.
Finally, but given the degree to which the State Department has sabotaged this investigation from the beginning, I do not expect any indictments to come of it.
Update: We now have reports that the Gand Jury is investigating other Mercenaries Security Contractors in addition to Blackwater:
The Washington grand jury has issued subpoenas to several private security firms, including Blackwater, a legal source briefed on the probe said yesterday. Authorities are seeking company “after-action” reports and other documents that may shed light on specific incidents, he said.
The source, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the probe, declined to say which incidents have been targeted, but he said the investigation ranges well beyond Blackwater. Private security companies in Iraq “have been shooting a lot of people,” he said.
Emphasis mine.
I think that if there is ever a fair accounting of the actions of the mercs in Iraq, a lot of people are going to be called to account.
14 of the 17 deaths are deemed completely unjustified.
No big surprise there. But it appears that they will walk:
Prosecutors have yet to decide whether to seek indictments, and some officials have expressed pessimism that adequate criminal laws exist to enable them to charge any Blackwater employee with criminal wrongdoing. Spokesmen for the Justice Department and the F.B.I. declined to discuss the matter.
Impeach Dick Cheney today, impeach George W. Bush tomorrow,
According to reports he draft stateall immunities … shall be canceled.
I would not be at all surprised if this is the first law that the Iraqi parliament passes. I would be surprised if there are 5 Iraqis in the world who would oppose this law.
Iraq Plans to Confront Security Firms on Guns – New York Times
The Iraqi interior minister said Wednesday that he would authorize raids by his security forces on Western security firms to ensure that they were complying with tightened licensing requirements on guns and other weaponry, setting up the possibility of violent confrontations between the Iraqis and heavily armed Western guards.
…..
If anyone here does not think that this will result in all out warfare between the Iraqi security forces and the mercs, I want what you are smoking.
This has to be a something from the Secretariat of the BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.
However, this declaration is significant, if just because it places an official imprimatur on the term.
Hopefully, this will lead to more countries adopting the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.
What in the name of Sam Ervin’s backward law degree is going on here??
The only thing that I can think of is that some of them are freelancing as hitmen.
ABC News has the text of the Blackwater immunity deal:
I understand this statement is being given in furtherance of an official administrative inquiry,” and that, “I further understand that neither my statements nor any information or evidence gained by reason of my statements can be used against me in a criminal proceeding, except that if I knowingly and willfully provide false statements or information, I may be criminally prosecuted for that action under 18 United States Code, Section 1001.
While the State Department claims that this still allows for prosecution, the case clearly indicates otherwise, particularly in the DC Circuit Court, where this would almost certainly be heard.
Josh Marshall called on “a highly knowledgeable source“, and their assessment was that “Use Immunity”, pretty much eliminates the possibility of presecution:
Additionally, even if there was no authorization and the immunity was granted in error, the courts, particularly the DC Circuit, generally still treat it as if it were.
I call coverup.
Richard Griffin, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic securitya former Secret Service agent who was once in charge of Presidential security.
However, this policy has come right from the top, from the man who mad private contractors a part of the military, Dick Cheney. Expect more of the same.
Iraq has revoked L. Paul Bremer’s grant of immunity to contractors, and so now the contractors in Iraq are considering cutting and running.
This is a good thing. They do more harm than good, they cost too much, and mercenaries are just plain wrong.
Furthermore, this is an action that must have somewhere near 100% support by the Iraqi public, and it useful for the average citizen to see the central government doing something productive.
Well, it appears that Blackwater is both more crooked, and more stupid, than I had previously thought. They have been classifying their mercenaries as independent contractors for tax purposes.
The rules on this are pretty strict. To be an independent contract, you have to be indepndent, you have to set your own hours, place of works, not be subject to company supervisors, etc. Mercenaries don’t qualify. They are told when and where and with what to fight, and Blackwater supplied them with uniforms, flak jackets, weapons, etc.
These were not freelance illustrators.
Henry Waxman has noticed this discrepancy, and that this does not correspond to the standard practices of other firms, like Triple Canopy and Dyncorp, and further noticed that his testimony did not jibe with direction from the IRS.
They are looking at huge fines. It may not be as satisfying as getting them for being mercs and war criminals, but it worked to get Al Capone.
Here is the first part of Waxman’s letter to Blackwater, which implies tax evasion and perjury before congress:
I have received documents which suggest that Blackwater may have engaged in significant tax evasion. According to an IRS ruling in March 2007, Blackwater violated federal tax laws by treating an armed guard as an “independent contractor.” The implication of this ruling is that Blackwater may have avoided paying millions of dollars in Social Security, Medicare, unemployment, and related taxes for which it is legally responsible.
Unlike DynCorp and Triple Canopy, the two other major private military contractors providing security services to the State Department in lraq, Blackwater classifies its armed guards as independent contractors rather than as employees. Under federal tax laws, this classification has important ramifications. Businesses must pay Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes for their employees. They must also withhold federal income taxes on their salaries. By classifying its armed guards and other personnel as independent contractors instead of employees, Blackwater has apparently evaded withholding and paying these taxes.
When you testified before our Committee on October 2,2007, Congresswoman Norton asked you why Blackwater treats its security personnel as independent contractors, while your competitors treat their guards as employees. You responded that Blackwater treats its guards as contractors because you found “it is a model that works” and because your guards prefer the “flexibility” of an independent contractor relationship.
Since the hearing, I have learned that the IRS determined in March – six months prior to your testimony – that your classification of a security guard working in Afghanistan as an independent contractor was “without merit.” The IRS advised that “[y]ou are responsible for satisfying the employment tax reporting, filing, and payment obligations that result from this determination.” By its terms, the IRS ruling applied only to the individual security guard who protested his classification, but the IRS warned that its ruling “may be applicable to any other individuals engaged by the fum.” The logic of the ruling would appear to apply to your entire workforce in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is also evidence that Blackwater has tried to conceal the IRS ruling and the evasion of taxes from Congress and law enforcement officials. The IRS determination was issued in response to an inquiry by an individual security guard who questioned his classification as an independent contractor. In June, Blackwater required this employee to sign a nondisclosure agreement before it agreed to pay the back pay and other compensation that he was owed. The terms of this agreement explicitly prohibited the guard from disclosing any information about Blackwater to “any politician” or “public official.” The agreement further provided: “THE UTMOST PROTECTION AND NONDISCLOSURE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION IS OF CRITICAL IMPORTANCE AND IS THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.“
It is difficult to read the IRS ruling and the nondisclosure agreement and not question Blackwater’s intent and actions. When the IRS issued an alert in 2004 warning employers not to “incorrectly treat employees as independent contractors,” the IRS Commissioner described the “[f]ailure to pay employment taxes” as “stealing from the employees of the business” and said that “those who embrace these schemes face civil or criminal sanctions.” Yet it now appears that Blackwater used this illegal scheme to avoid millions of dollars in taxes and then prevented the security guard who discovered the tax evasion from contacting members of Congress or law enforcement officials.
I believe that Blackwater is completely boned.
It appears that the State Department will not be renewing their contract with Blackwater.
This would be good for everyone involved, except, of course for Blackwater, but they are a bunch of trigger happy mercenaries, screw them.
The United States Government strenuously objects to this characterization, but if the shoe fits….
Seriously, these folks are performing explicitly military tasks, and as such, they are mercenaries.
It’s nice that other folks are recognizing this.
There are a number of who think so.
The designation of lawful and unlawful combatants is set out in the Geneva Convention.Lawful combatants are nonmilitary personnel who operate under their military’s chain of command. Others may carry weapons in a war zone but may not use offensive force. Under the international agreements, they may only defend themselves.
The amount of force being used in Iraq by security firms like Blackwater has raised questions.
I would also add that under the UN convention on mercenaries (see my posts here and here), some of the activities, like protecting military supply convoys in a war zone are clearly illegal.
While the US hass not ratified the convention (Neither has the UK) the position of one of the many countries that has might very well be to treat these folks as common criminals, or worse.
Some readings Islamic law call for the prompt execution of mercenaries.
These guns for hire are not just a problem in Iraq, they are a problem in Afghanistan, where authorities are clamping down on unlicensed, incompetent, and excessively violent security contractors.
Two of the main problems are the US and UK, where many of these firms are based, and which have not signed the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, which is why all the companies we hear about are from the US and UK.
Contact your congressman about getting the us to ratify this convention.
Reports that Blackwater would be bodyguarding the FBI agents in Iraq are false. The agents will be protected Diplomatic Security Service.
No big surprise there. Even considering the dubious nature of mercenaries, Blackwater is clearly the worst of an already dubious brotherhood.
The State Department has instructed Blackwater not to cooperate with congressional investigators.
Absent a claim (which would be bogus) of executive privilege, this is a felony.
The State Department official, Kiazan Moneypenny, wrote Blackwater VP Fred Roitz to “advise” him of Blackwater’s obligations under the terms of State’s contract. Among them: “all documents and records (including photographs) generated during the performance of work under this contract shall be for the sole use of and become the exclusive property of the U.S. government.” These obligations, according to the contract, exist in perpetuity — not just until the contract expires. As a result, Moneypenny told Roitz to make “no disclosure of documents or information generated under [the contract] unless such disclosure has been authorized in writing by the Contract Officer.”
Miss Moneypenny (gotta love that name) mentions that she has communicated this previously.
Sounds like the notoriously closed-mouthed mercenaries are too talkative for the State Department.
They are drafting a law regulating mercenaries military contractors.
It’s a problem, it is viewed as a problem by all ethnic groups, it appears to be moving toward a resolution, and it’s not a sell out to US oil companies.
Well, it looks like the Iraqi government has a tape of Blackwater opening fire on civilians unprovoked.