Military may get control of contractors

[maddezmom]

Source: AP

Military may get control of contractors By ANNE FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
13 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to put all armed contractors operating in combat zones under military control, acting on a Pentagon recommendation that could run into resistance at the State Department.

The Senate this month included such a requirement in its 2008 defense authorization bill. Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters Wednesday he is confident the House will go along with the idea and include it in a final bill sent to President Bush.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was to testify Thursday about the subject before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

She has ordered new rules for the private guards who are hired to protect U.S. diplomats. They include increased monitoring and explicit rules on when and how they can use deadly force. The steps were recommended by a review panel that Rice created after a deadly Sept. 16 shooting involving Blackwater USA guards.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071025/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_blackwater

[EnviroBat]

1. This is FINALLY a good idea.

Although removing them completely and nullifying their organizations would be better. The State Department can suck it.

[goforit]

2. The question will be, will the Contractors be in control or the military?

What is written in stone is not neccessarily what is carried out.

And as Bush/Cheney has proven, "all laws can be broken"

[mallard]

4. Re: written in stone

I agree. This is a new way to send all future complaints off to the Pentagon, which doesn't even count dead Iraqis.

It's mostly a liability buffer, being presented instead as a step toward more accountability and thereby an outcome of more reponsible behavior on the part of our mercenary forces abroad.

Lipstick for the pig.

[14thColony]

6. The military will win this

There are plenty of more senior military officers who would love nothing more than to bring these guys to heel. They are not particularly well-liked by the officer corps, which generally views itself as dedicated to the profession of arms and not the pursuit of profits. Few generals are going to give a flying %$@*! what these guys want, like, or think once they have them under their command. Perhaps one of the few positive effects of our generals' usually rather healthy egos.

[Kagemusha]

8. Those senior officers don't give two cents about protecting diplomats.

So how are they going to provide oversight over a job they don't see as their job to do in the first place?

[Demeter]

10. WE HAVE NO DIPLOMATS!

We have bagmen, thugs, wheeler-dealers, conmen, and other assorted crooks in Iraq, but I am willing to bet you a nickel you won't find ONE diplomat worthy of the name in Iraq or any other place a Bush appointee is stationed.

The career diplomats retired, quit, refused assignments, for all I know they changed their citizenship, just to escape the horror of Iraq.

[14thColony]

12. I can't argue with that

I'm merely referring to people who carry black passports (apropos, eh?). Many are, I believe, latter-day carpet-baggers.

[saigon68]

14. WE HAVE "GANGSTER" CHENEY AND HIS BAND

Of War Criminals, Profiteers, Christian Thugs and Draft Dodgers

[14thColony]

11. Actually

The military already does a lot of escort and protection of civilian VIPs, at least in Afghanistan and I have no doubt in Iraq as well. I was on the receiving end of a lot of VIP tours at my camp in Kabul, and since these various dignitaries were guests of the US or Coalition forces, military security personnel drove and protected them. So no, we don't protect State people per se, but we do protect a lot of very similar people, to include actual diplomats depending on why and how they are there. If a general is given the mission AND the resources (a flock of over-paid mercenaries now under his thumb) he will do as directed.

[Kagemusha]

16. I'm responding to reports that Rumsfeld pulled all military support from State

in a fit of pique after State won out in terms of all non-military related policy in Iraq. In other words, it wasn't Rumsfeld's private fiefdom from that point onward, so he threw a tantrum with the nation's military. I imagine that doesn't affect Afghanistan, but my point is, in Iraq, the military "wants to fight the war", not protect diplomats, in Iraq. Gates hasn't been in charge very long. It's hard for me to understand how the military commanders on the ground are eager to take on the responsibility of this job.

Reading your words, I realize I might be insufficiently optimistic. I just feel like someone needs to smack some heads and get people on the same page.

[14thColony]

21. My God!

I think you're implying I come across as optimistic! I'll have to show this to the guys at work; they won't believe it otherwise.:)

I understand your point and completely agree with you that the commanders will not be excited to take on this mission, and certainly won't be eager about it. Just saying some I know would like to get these 'contractors' on a leash, and Blackwater in particular.

[yardwork]

3. We should never have allowed contractors to operate without military supervision.

This was a disastrous idea and should never have been allowed in the first place.

[14thColony]

13. I tend to be more absolutist

having had run-ins myself with Blackwater. I say no mercenaries in war zones at all. The US Army is always recruiting. If they want to go to war, they know where to go sign up.

[Kagemusha]

17. I agree completely that they shouldn't be needed or wanted.

And that's totally besides the ugly legal vacuum.

[yardwork]

24. You're right, of course.

[cyberpj]

5. NOW maybe the military can get their hands on decent amour and vehicles (by procurement at least).

And how will the military feel, taking "control" of guys who most likely make 2 to 3 times what they do?

[w4rma]

7. Extremely good. (nt)

[Plucketeer]

9. Cheer if you will

But I see this as one giant step towards a totally privatized military. SILLY??? This is from a regime that would love nothing better than to privatize EVERYTHING so as to better dip into the revenue trough! Accountability? Maybe. But I see it as greased glass hiway to the opposite.

[SKKY]

15. Well, since the majority of these guys are prior military...

...it would seem to make sense.

[Kagemusha]

19. Oh yeah! That reminds me. This move would end their US legal immunity.

I just realized. It's constitutionally dubious to try civilians (and look, I heard you all, I know, I know, but under the actual law, they are former military, not current military, and therefore civilians) under military law. There's laws saying that contractors attached to the military CAN be tried under military law, but there's a total black hole for civilians working under, say, the State Department.

So... putting them under military command and control immediately places them under the law I just described which allows prosecution under military law for various crimes. Of course, they'd be entitled to full rights to legal representation and a fair trial, which probably sounds awful darned good compared to what they'd expect under Iraqi law. Besides, there's not all that many US troops who get convicted for similar incidents.

I'm sure Gates has this in mind, now that I think about it. I don't know if the media's picked up on it properly yet.

[olddad56]

18. If it has to pass Congress, and Bush has to sign it, it won't happen.

[Kagemusha]

20. It's one part of the Executive Branch negotiating with another part.

Congress isn't involved at all...

[olddad56]

22. I hope you are correct..

The article reads as if congress is considering this.

[Kagemusha]

23. Glance at my post #19 on this thread... no new laws needed if this goes through.

I only had that occur to me within the last hour. I don't think the media's caught on.

[jgraz]

25. DRAFT THEM

If the folks at Halliburton, KBR and Blackwater want to help out their county so badly, they should have no problem with being properly inducted into the military.