Blackwater

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Nate

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2005
Messages
713
Reaction score
24
Location
Virginia
Anyone catch the Blackwater story and how those responsible would face Iraqi justice? Just wondering how everyone feels about this one...
 
I think I read somewhere that they fall under the FBI and Justice System for crimes. I doubt that the gov would hand over US citizens to another country.
 
Just more Bull**** to fuel the liberal media. They came under attack, one of their vehicle's was destroyed. What are they suppose to do sit there and do nothing? Its pretty bad when people have to worry about defending them selfs. Pretty easy for the enemy to remove guns from the dead and call them "civilians". I really hope nothing more comes of this, but im sure people in this country will be calling them baby killers and want them to be put in jail for the rest of their lives.
 
im just sick of the media bitching about everything they can come up with about the war. They act like war is supposed to be some kind of civilized scuffle between opposing groups.
 
Beer Beer Beer,......i love Beer!


ib4tl.......
 
Personally I think that every citizen should have to 'worry' about the potential consequences of defending themselves. It's a very serious thing, taking another person's life and even if you are 'in the right' you should have to answer for your decisions. This is, in my opinion, how justice is best served.

I, for instance, know full well that by keeping a firearm and standing willing to defend my family with deadly force that I may find myself the subject of a serious investigation, particularly if it turns out that the 'weapon' the home invader had was not a gun but a screwdriver or a wallet. I know that firing on someone means I will be subject to scrutiny. I have no problem with that.

If these guys were, in fact, firing legitimately at armed person who were attacking them and that the dead civilians were, in fact, armed combatants or unfortunate collateral damage then I doubt that The State Department's 'fair and transparent' investigation will find any wrongdoing.

If they were indiscriminately firing on Iraqi people in an overzealous reaction to a roadside bomb then they deserve punishment. In fact, if they are acting in such a cavalier fashion they are doing more harm than good to the mission of our troops and they probably need a beating on top of whatever sentence they get.

However, I doubt this is the case. Tier One security folks are not recruited for their brutality, capacity for violence or as combat fodder. They are recruited for their advanced understanding of physical security, application of appropriate force in difficult circumstances and their professionalism in adversity.

But I also know that sometimes people don't react the way they intend. 'Sympathetic fire' happens sometimes--- one guy discharges a weapon and suddenly everyone is shooting without really understanding why-- and it is possible that this group got hit with an IED and then over-reacted, causing local police and shopkeepers (both allowed to keep weapons for their own security) to fire back, thus escalating the situation further.

And investigation is warranted and appropriate, IMO.

Kob

/F the media on both sides
//'the media' doesn't have any 'side' but their own paycheck
///Distrust the 'press'-- they'll always side with the dramatic over the factual.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
Just more Bull**** to fuel the liberal media. They came under attack, one of their vehicle's was destroyed. What are they suppose to do sit there and do nothing? Its pretty bad when people have to worry about defending them selfs. Pretty easy for the enemy to remove guns from the dead and call them "civilians". I really hope nothing more comes of this, but im sure people in this country will be calling them baby killers and want them to be put in jail for the rest of their lives.

If they fired on armed people who were later made to look like civilians, they should not be charged. That does not mean we should assume they did or did not fire on civilians until the situation has been fully investigated.

We cannot bring peace, stability and democracy to Iraq by claiming we are above the law, and law requires accountability.
 
ib4tl.

Yeah, we can thank the liberal media for the rules of engagement that got most of Seal Team 10 killed in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are worried about traitorous press correspondents writing skewed perspectives where after they are brought up on charges. This causes second thoughts, hesitation, and death...for our Troops.

The liberal press kills our troops without having to fire a shot. The enemy in which they are complicit does that for them.
 
EdWort said:
ib4tl.

Yeah, we can thank the liberal media for the rules of engagement that got most of Seal Team 10 killed in Afghanistan. Our soldiers are worried about traitorous press correspondents writing skewed perspectives where after they are brought up on charges. This causes second thoughts, hesitation, and death...for our Troops.

The liberal press kills our troops without having to fire a shot. The enemy in which they are complicit does that for them.

Guess you read Lone Survivor?

trencher- I agree somewhat, but its not a black and white situation. An unarmed man with a cell phone giving orders can be just as dangerous if not more than the guy holding the AK. Problem is we are fighting an enemy that will shot at us one min and then the next claim to be a good Samaritan.
 
It is indeed a very complicated situation with no easy answers. The best approach is to let our impeccably-trained men on the ground make the best decisions they can and address any concerns afterward. Ignoring allegations of indiscriminate killings will give our soldiers the appearance of imperialist thugs who believe they can do no wrong.

The Iraqi government does not have the right to try these men, but they do have the right to voice their concerns and have them rationally considered and investigated.
 
Ryanh1801 said:
Just more Bull**** to fuel the liberal media. They came under attack, one of their vehicle's was destroyed. What are they suppose to do sit there and do nothing? Its pretty bad when people have to worry about defending them selfs. Pretty easy for the enemy to remove guns from the dead and call them "civilians". I really hope nothing more comes of this, but im sure people in this country will be calling them baby killers and want them to be put in jail for the rest of their lives.
I hear what you're saying, but they are all there illegally in the first place. Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.

I'm a civilian weapons expert for the Army and was only authorized a pistol when I was deployed.

Blackwater, in this case, are true mercenaries and illegal IAW US Law of War...therefore, if captured or killed the US can't (won't) do anything about it.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
I hear what you're saying, but they are all there illeagally in the first place. Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.

I'm a civilian weapons expert for the Army and was only authorized a pistol when I was deployed.

Blackwater, in this case, are true mercenaries and illegal IAW US Law of War...therefore, if captured or killed the US can't (won't) do anything about it.

How does one classify a Rifle as an offensive weapon and a pistol as a defensive weapon? Just wondering I have never heard that before. I mean carrying a pistol for protection in a war zone, is like taking a knife to a gun fight, you are not going to do much of any thing.
 
This is the biggest problem with military cutbacks. Now we have civilians doing the job that soldiers used to do (Granted they are highly trained and many Blackwater employees are ex-military). But, by putting non-military people in a war zone, who have to abide by different rules of engagement we are opening ourselves up to more of these situations.
 
JohnBarleycorn said:
Is that All press correspondents ? I need to be on the lookout for those murdering bastards

Nope, just the traitorous ones who have an agenda to make news rather than report it.
 
kornkob said:
I, for instance, know full well that by keeping a firearm and standing willing to defend my family with deadly force that I may find myself the subject of a serious investigation, particularly if it turns out that the 'weapon' the home invader had was not a gun but a screwdriver or a wallet.

The phrase "I would rather be judged by 12, then carried by 6." fits well.
 
McKBrew said:
This is the biggest problem with military cutbacks. Now we have civilians doing the job that soldiers used to do (Granted they are highly trained and many Blackwater employees are ex-military). But, by putting non-military people in a war zone, who have to abide by different rules of engagement we are opening ourselves up to more of these situations.

to work for blackwater, at least for a in country job you have to have military experience last I checked.
 
True. Most of these guys are Seals, Rangers, etc. that get out of the military and make a LOT more money doing the same thing. There are even pilots, doctors, etc. that work for Blackwater. This is basically a mercenary organization that not only supplements our special forces, but also does jobs that we may not necessarily want to be linked to....if you catch my drift ;)
 
Ryanh1801 said:
How does one classify a Rifle as an offensive weapon and a pistol as a defensive weapon? Just wondering I have never heard that before. I mean carrying a pistol for protection in a war zone, is like taking a knife to a gun fight, you are not going to do much of any thing.
It has to do with range. You are protecting yourself at close range (self-preservation). If you have a weapon that reaches out to touch somebody then you are part of an offensive and therefore, a combatant.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
Secondly, under the Geneva Convention civilians are not authorized to use OFFENSIVE weapons such as rifles and machine guns, only DEFENSIVE weapons like pistols.

I've never heard that before but typically I've foudn that most of the 'rules' attributed to the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, urban legends.

See: Can't shoot paratroopers, can't use hollow points and can't use a .50 on a human. All things attributed to the Geneva Convention that are, in fact, not found there at all.

I'd like to see the specifics of the Genereva convention regs that state that non-military are not allowed to carry rifles.
 
Here's the section on paratroopers, very confusing.

Art. 42 - Occupants of aircraft

1. No person parachuting from an aircraft in distress shall be made the object of attack during his descent.

2. Upon reaching the ground in territory controlled by an adverse Party, a person who has parachuted from an aircraft in distress shall be given an opportunity to surrender before being made the object of attack, unless it is apparent that he is engaging in a hostile act.

3. Airborne troops are not protected by this Article.

Here's the one section defining mercenary.

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

The convention doesn't really seem to speak of military or non-military. It speaks of combatant and civilians. Everyone is a civilian unless they are armed; whether it be slingshot, pistol, rifle, or thermonuclear weapon.
 
kornkob said:
I've never heard that before but typically I've foudn that most of the 'rules' attributed to the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, urban legends.

See: Can't shoot paratroopers, can't use hollow points and can't use a .50 on a human. All things attributed to the Geneva Convention that are, in fact, not found there at all.

I'd like to see the specifics of the Genereva convention regs that state that non-military are not allowed to carry rifles.
Yeah, I know what you mean about the legends, but in the end if you carry a weapon you are a combatant and a legal target for the enemy.
 
homebrewer_99 said:
Yeah, I know what you mean about the legends, but in the end if you carry a weapon you are a combatant and a legal target for the enemy.


True. But the geneva conventions don't specify what kinds of weapons near as I can tell and that's the thing that I'm curious about.

Given the quote (presumably accurate) on the term Mercenary, that makes me curious as well-- I wonder how armed but uninvolved persons are supposed to be treated. I imagine that the writers never took that into consideration, assuming instead that anyone armed nearby woudl either take sides or vacate.
 
kornkob said:
True. But the geneva conventions don't specify what kinds of weapons near as I can tell and that's the thing that I'm curious about.

Given the quote (presumably accurate) on the term Mercenary, that makes me curious as well-- I wonder how armed but uninvolved persons are supposed to be treated. I imagine that the writers never took that into consideration, assuming instead that anyone armed nearby woudl either take sides or vacate.
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut the Webster's definition is different from the Gov'ts.;)
 
kornkob said:
I've never heard that before but typically I've foudn that most of the 'rules' attributed to the Geneva Conventions are, in fact, urban legends.

See: Can't shoot paratroopers, can't use hollow points and can't use a .50 on a human. All things attributed to the Geneva Convention that are, in fact, not found there at all.

I'd like to see the specifics of the Genereva convention regs that state that non-military are not allowed to carry rifles.

Some of the items often attributed to the Geneva Conventions are actually in the Hague Convention. Not that we've fought a war "by the rules" in a while... at least where both sides fought "by the rules".
 
what does that 1bt4l mean? god i'm slow.

as for blackwater and mercs in general...

the use of mercenary forces does not bother me now, nor historically. the geneva convention does not bother me, nor does it being ignored/burned/used to whip someones arse bother me in the least.

war is pretty nasty business, and trying to govern it with 'rules' is just an attempt to justify the brutality.

shrugs
 
homebrewer_99 said:
I'd bet a dollar to a doughnut the Webster's definition is different from the Gov'ts.;)

Per my SO's english professor mom: Websters is the dictionary equivilent of wikipedia. They'll apparently define ANYTHING in any old way-- so long as it sells books.

Oxford English Dictionary is apparently far better.

(all 2nd hand knowledge-- not mine!)


But I see your point. However, words used in legal documents often-- nay, frequently, have a different meaning than the dictionary. Legal (and diplomatic) language is not English. Based on English, yes, but not English.
 
Before 1976 (I think), combatants were the actuall military forces taking part. They changed combatants to include "armed civilians participating in a hostile action". They do not define whether hostile action is offensive or defensive (unless I missed it, the entire thing is very tedious reading).

It's an interesting read for some parts, but ultimately it is a gentlemen's agreement. We won't torture your prisoners so you don't torture ours. However, guerrilla warfare really undermines the entire document since there isn't any central authority controlling the combatants. Fighting according to a set of rules that the other side doesn't even recognise is very frustrating. But that thinking can easily segway into a argument of the nature of good and evil, which I refuse to discuss without at least a half bottle of scotch in me.

And I just realized that this is running quickly off topic, I will restrain myself to discussing Blackwater instead of philosophical discussions better suited to drunk college kids.
 
What is Blackwater even DOING THERE....?

The President/owner of Blackwater is the heir of the Prince manufacturing of western Michigan, his sister is Betsy(?) Devos of Michigan Republican fame, and he is the Brother In Law of Dick(?) Devos, runner up for Gov. of MI, and connected to the Amway(Scamway) conglomerate.

Mr. Prince was an intern for Bush the senior, and after inheriting Dad's millions, set up a training facility in the carolinas, until there just happened to be a war that he could get even richer by contracting with his political cronies and using his well situated family members...

Why isn't OUR MILITARY defending our embassies and our dignitaries in a war zone?

'Cause there's a lot of money to be had.....!
 
The Geneva Convention (I-IV, Pc 1-2), has nothing to do with the use of weapons in a time of war, read through all four conventions and then the 2 protocols and you will find it deals primarily with the treatment of prisoners of war, wounded, sick and non combatants. The Hague Convention deals in the so called "Laws of War" however has not really been ratified since 1907. Read through accounts of every war fought anywhere since then and you will find that no-one has been following them. You'll have to read through all of the treaties signed since then to get a somewhat muddied view of what is right in a time of war.

The reality is that with the initial cold war draw down of forces, then the second subsequent hamstring the armed forces draw down has left the armed forces a shadow of what it was in numbers. During the '90's several job specialties were cut leaving a vacuum for civilian contractors to fill the gap. Blackwater just happen to spring up to fill this need.

The big issue is that for what ever reason, we have become a "media says so, so it must be true" society. Placing weight on what whatever news corporation, regardless of which side it leans to, says without knowing the facts of the matter, is exactly why the American outlook on the war in Iraq has changed dramatically. I guess I just believe that the media has twisted this whole episode into a more horrible thing then it already is. I mean just imagine if the media was on June 6th 1944 what is today? Do you really think that the civilian view of "the good war" would have been the same when they saw the "29,000 US soldiers killed, 106,000 wounded or missing, in 48 hours" headlines on the 7th? Don't get me wrong, I served for a little over ten years with the US Army (Infantry 11M, 11B '94-'04) and it makes my stomach churn every time I see the most current casualty list, I've lost friends, and guys I considered brothers in the last few years, not to mention the ones that are horribly scarred both mentally and physically.

Sorry I'm rambling, back to the topic, I really believe the media is presenting a skewed version of events, the insurgents claim civilian casualties every time they are engaged, does it happen, yes it does, do I believe that Blackwater randomly fired on some civilians, absolutely not.
 
Given some more recent information it may be possible that Black water is riding the trigger a lot harder than they should.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/black-days-for-.html

Blackwater this week continued its downward spiral, particularly as a report surfaced today that the company is "involved in a far higher rate of shootings while guarding American diplomats in Iraq than other security firms providing similar services to the State Department, according to Bush administration officials and industry officials."

The officials said that Blackwater’s incident rate was at least twice that recorded by employees of DynCorp International and Triple Canopy, the two other United States-based security firms that have been contracted by the State Department to provide security for diplomats and other senior civilians in Iraq.
 
I've stayed away from this thread, waiting for it to be locked - but it looks like it's remained pretty civil. Maybe there's hope for all of us beer making drunkards yet. :drunk:
 
Back
Top