…and this is a 
One of the many disgraceful acts of brigandage our country committed in Iraq was the hiring of mercenary thugs through a company called Blackwater. Unwilling to risk the political fallout from openly discussing and recruiting the number of soldiers necessary to actually carry out their grand plans for invading another country, the previous administration instead threw buckets of money at Halliburton-KBR and outsourced the military to profit-seeking, murderous killers-for-hire who did more to harm than help the war effort. As we ought to have expected, the Blackwater unsavoriness is getting even uglier.
A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince "views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe," and that Prince's companies "encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life."
These bastards fit right in with the Bush administration, didn't they? These monsters need to be shut down now, and I hope the Obama administration has the steel to do it.
Briefed on the substance of these allegations by The Nation, Congressman Dennis Kucinich replied, "If these allegations are true, Blackwater has been a criminal enterprise defrauding taxpayers and murdering innocent civilians." Kucinich is on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and has been investigating Prince and Blackwater since 2004.
"Blackwater is a law unto itself, both internationally and domestically. The question is why they operated with impunity. In addition to Blackwater, we should be questioning their patrons in the previous administration who funded and employed this organization. Blackwater wouldn't exist without federal patronage; these allegations should be thoroughly investigated," Kucinich said.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: strangebrew | August 5, 2009 8:16 AM
So'kay twas for jebus!
Posted by: MadScientist | August 5, 2009 8:17 AM
Unfortunately that is all consistent with claims from military officials that the military is being overrun by bible thumpers. There are long-standing claims (going back almost 20 years) that the xian fanatics want to bring about wars between the Arabs and Jews which those loons believe will lead to the 'rapture'. The dubious invasion of Iraq, military units being discovered to be breaking the law and trying to spread their own religion while on tour, and many other things sure give a lot of credence to the fundamentalist rapture plan. Stupidity has never been more dangerous.
Posted by: llewelly | August 5, 2009 8:21 AM
They do not. As Greenwald and Ed Brayton have written about many times on their blogs, Obama has defended the bush positions on state secrets, on torture of detainees, and other related topics. Short of a major public outcry, expect Obama to defend Blackwater.
We all want to believe the Republicans are a failed party. But they have successfully manipulated us into electing a president, who on many very important topics, is every bit as conservative as G.W. Bush .Posted by: paul Macgowan | August 5, 2009 8:31 AM
Our former Australian Prime minister has the nickname "bonsai" ... (little bush). I hope that they get the evidence to lock those B@$t@%#s away. And I hope Obama has he balls to push this though the courts.
Maybe it time the US recognized the international war crime court ?
Posted by: GilbertNSullivan
|
August 5, 2009 8:33 AM
Well... apart from the healthcare thing. And the determination to put science back in the White House (Collins' appointment notwithstanding). And the removal of federal funding from abstinence-only sex education programmes.Yes he's made some baffling and disappointing decisions over same sex marriage and prosecuting the previous administration for their crimes, but he is nothing like as bad as Bush,.
Posted by: Brock | August 5, 2009 8:35 AM
Yeah, I agree with llewelly - Obama has not impressed me when it comes to torture or surveillance. As a Clevelander, it hurts even more when people ignore Kucinich, who (to my knowledge) has a pretty consistently spoken out against murder and collusion and tried to hold our own elected officials accountable.
Posted by: Jack Mitcham | August 5, 2009 8:36 AM
It's times like this that I wish there really was a hell so these people could fry in it.
Posted by: Mike | August 5, 2009 8:36 AM
PZ, I look forward to your post in 2-3 years after this has been swept under the rug informing us that no one past a primary investigation commity even gave this report the time of day.
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 8:37 AM
That article made my gut sink. I am appalled... and I am rarely appalled.
I guess:
(incompetent leadership) + (war) => The perfect storm
Oh, and I shouldn't forget the step immediately before that:
(incompetent leadership) => war (sometimes)
To #3>
What did you expect the American public to do? Vote for McCain? By saying republicans "manipulated" us into voting for Obama, are you are blaming the Republicans for bipartisan politics? I guess I don't know what to say to that - except maybe, where's the evidence for such a claim?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 8:42 AM
A friend of my family's daughter is married to a SEAL that served with Prince and worked at Blackwater. I've heard nothing but scary things about Prince and his delusions of Christian crusadership.
Posted by: FishyFred | August 5, 2009 8:48 AM
I don't know. Obama might draw the line before defending someone who murdered people for turning state's evidence.
In addition to being a Christian crusader, Erik Prince evidently fancies himself Al Capone, Jr.
Posted by: MyaR | August 5, 2009 8:48 AM
My brother was special forces in Iraq. They were scared of the Blackwater guys.
Posted by: Scott from Oregon | August 5, 2009 8:51 AM
Hey. I have an idea. Let's give the governing body that hired these goons MORE MONEY AND POWER so that they can hire these knuckledraggers for other wars using their war machines bought and paid for because y'all think you need "a strong central government"...
You, PZ, have no wiggle room here. You support the apparatus, you support the mindset, and you support the funding (and also the method of funding), then you complain bitterly about the results.
That's about as dumb as giving booze and keys to a teen-aged boy and then being resentful of him crashing your car.
You PZ, are part of the problem.
The mind simply continues to boggle...
Posted by: cervantes
|
August 5, 2009 8:52 AM
It is particularly telling the President Cheney, who is not a Christian, was more than happy to make common cause with these maniacs in his quest for world domination. If they had ended up realizing their dream of global hegemony, I suppose they would have had to fight it out between themselves over whether they would establish Christian of Straussian dominion. It would have been interesting . . .
Posted by: druidbros | August 5, 2009 8:54 AM
This story makes me think of Margret Atwood's book, 'The Handmaid's Tale'. Very scary.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 8:56 AM
Well you all know that Price's father co-founded the Family Research Council with Gary Bauer, right?
Posted by: Stwriley | August 5, 2009 8:59 AM
Prince and Blackwater (now called Xe, which is pronounced "z") have been known to have close ties with radical Christian Dominionists for some time. It's hardly surprising that they would do the things these two ex-mercenaries are claiming: they believe that they are on a "mission from god" and all else is justified. Like all Dominionists, they take the OT stories to heart and have no problem committing any act that will "defeat god's enemies".
What's always struck me as strange is that non-Dominionist Republicans could have gone along with the affront to our constitutional system that mercenaries represent. It seems that they've conveniently forgotten the words of Thomas Jefferson (the Founder they usually love to quote):
Mercenaries are not a part of the American tradition, they are an expedient that we rejected at the very foundation of our nation in favor of all military force being regularly constituted armed forces under the jurisdiction of elected civilian authority. The rise of such as Prince and Xe would have our Founders screaming in protest.
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 9:03 AM
To Scott from Oregon (#13)>
You are seeing things in black and white.
I don't know about other liberals, for I myself am for government funding those things, like compassionate endeavors, or science, that corporations generally will not. I don't think this has anything to do with increasing the power of central government, and I actually believe to the contrary that there should be more accountability in government.
The Bush/Cheney administration sought more power of the executive branch, and in many cases less checks and balances. Rumsfeld pretty much steamrolled over anyone in the pentagon who didn't agree with him, and people were resigning left and right, giving the administration even more clout.
The administration of the past 8 years gave central government more power than it aught to have. The administration the 8 years before that did not.
Your inability to see the situation for what it is - that boggles my mind. You would rather make gross generalizations, and pixelize the issues, as it were.
Posted by: Wowbagger, OM | August 5, 2009 9:04 AM
You will know they are Christians by their
lovemurderous thuggery-for-hire.Posted by: CalGeorge | August 5, 2009 9:06 AM
"I hope the Obama administration has the steel to do it."
Dream on.
Posted by: Ploon | August 5, 2009 9:07 AM
Scott, you moron, giving the government more power and money does not mean it has to turn around and give it to private parties. That was the repubs' twist. How about financing the regular armed forces with that money? This just proves that runaway privatisation ("leave it to the markets") doesn't work in areas where the government should take its responsibility. See also healthcare.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 5, 2009 9:07 AM
Its funny.
I saw this sort of thing coming in 2006 when I urged people on the Think Progress boards to vote Green if their representatives were "Blue dogs".
I argued that if the Democrats weren't held to account by their base on this sort of thing THEN, then they would not feel any pressure to do anything about it NOW.
They jumped down my throat on it, and basically said that I was concern trolling. And hey, I give as good as I get so I am not complaining.
But here is the thing, I was right. I was absolutely right. Unless America's liberal population, is willing to ditch the two party paradigm and fire BOTH parties if BOTH fail to perform, then it will continue to get leaders who ignore their mandates.
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
August 5, 2009 9:10 AM
Brock,
You're a Clevelander? Hey! I'm an Alaskan transplanted to Cleveland! Cool.
Yeah. I liked Kucinich even before I moved to Ohio. He was one of the few politicians that seemed to have a decent morality, and the guts to stand up for that morality. I started with the view that he was a flake (as that's how he's protrayed in the media), but the more I followed him and listened to him, the more I realized he was one of the few rational, intelligent people in congress.
I'm not surprised by his words on this. I just wish he could get more congressmen to support him, and maybe force this administration to grow the set of change we were promised.
Posted by: R | August 5, 2009 9:11 AM
@ JosherK
You appear to be new, so a word of advice is in order to help preserve your sanity. Don't engage ScottfromOregon, or any of the other Libertarian Kooks that pop up on occasion. You won't get anywhere, and the whole thread will devolve into people beating their heads on an unmoveable wall.
There are occasional Libertarian posters that have some good arguments. Don't expect to see them often.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | August 5, 2009 9:17 AM
The thing about being a voice from the fringe,
Like Congressman Dennis Kucinich,
You're free to say strong things that make people cringe:
"Just shut up and eat your damned spinach."
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 9:18 AM
To Bruce #22>
I strongly agree... but HOW do you propose we make this happen? And if it were to happen, would it fracture liberal political power? I think the main problem is that conservatives really outnumber liberals, but that a lot of them were willing to come left-center during this past election because of the evident lack of intelligence in the republican candidates. If we were to have three parties instead of two, we would wind up with a conservative president, just as happened in 2000 (even though I like Ralph Nader and appreciate his efforts).
I think it all comes down to grassroots recruitment of conservatives to liberal ideals. If we can't do this, we can't move forward. I would really like to see this happen, but I'm pessimistic. It seems hard to remove the suckling conservative baby from the pacifier of his errant ideals.
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 5, 2009 9:19 AM
"There are occasional Libertarian posters that have some good arguments. Don't expect to see them often."
Libertarian is a good word in Europe. It equates to a form of socialism. Here, it's a haven for free market nuts.
Posted by: Cosmic Teapot | August 5, 2009 9:23 AM
llewelly @ 3
They did? If they have that kind of power, wouldn't it have benefited them to manipulate you to elect a Republican?
_____________<;,><_____________
And Scott's here to hijack the thread, too. Super.
All we need now is Walton.
Seriously, this is a nasty story about a religious nut who allegedly murders (or is responsible for the murders of) innocent people and all you want to do is push your political agendas.
Truly the mind boggles.
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 9:25 AM
They? SF as a collective body isn't "scared of Blackwater." Blackwater "operators" (I hate giving them that title) aren't scary; they're annoying. They tend to be rather unprofessional cowboys, which goes against everything SF tries to stand for. There really isn't room for that kind of bullshit down range (although it would be an issue with "Big Army" even if there were no Blackwater). Sadly, Blackwater does have some guys with prior team time on their rolls; I don't know--maybe it's something in the water with that company.
As an aside (curious), which unit does your brother serve with?
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 9:25 AM
@ R (#24)>
Yep, I'm new - and thanks for the advice... more information is always a good thing :-)
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 5, 2009 9:30 AM
Stwriley,
Never been much of an obstacle to the folks at the PNAC, or the Bush II admin, or other neo-conservatives.
Even the ones that are very much not of the rapture mindset might be very happy to go along with apocalypticism in the securing of power. In a way, they're terribly shrewd. They may think the rapture's as evidence-free as us atheists: all the more reason to seek power. Rapture doesn't happen, oh, woops, gee, whodathunk? Oh, well, at least there's the destabilization and collapse in a resource-rich area of the world leaving a power vacuum into which we stepped! Gimme an "H!" Gimme an "E!" Gimme a "G!" Gimme a "E!" Gimme an "M!" Gimme an "O!" Gimme an "N!" Gimme a "Y!" What's that spell?
To say nothing of the confidence the neocons might have felt if they did secure power and the apocalypticists were still around and all bent out of shape because the rapture didn't happen. When having to fight it out with "their own" I'm sure they would've felt they'd come out victorious.
I wonder if the hired guns weren't also included in the event that the admin at the time (or its later incarnation post-admin) needed a kind of Dolchstoßlegende, a la, "Sure, some bad things happened, but not by the U.S. military! If only we'd been allowed to do this with an expanded military! We were betrayed by [insert scapegoat here: liberals, journalists, homosexuals, communists (still popular, still evidently just slavering outside the door waiting to pounce), immigrants, labor organizers, non-privatized interests, hippies, etc., etc.]!"
But I may be overthinking it, and wearing my tinfoil hat too tight again.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 9:32 AM
Hello?
Didn't you have any history in school?
Ever since the 17th century, one of the most important hallmarks of the Rule of Law has been that the state (and in a democracy that means ultimately the parliament) has the monopoly on violence. You are not allowed to wage your own private war or vendetta; you are not allowed to run around and kill people you think are so evil they've deserved it.
What the Busheviki have done is to violate this bedrock principle. They outsourced violence to a gang of mercenaries that was not under the control of Congress. <headdesk> If that's not unconstitutional (I don't know if it is), it's the most embarrassing loophole in the whole US Constitution...
That you can't grasp that is what boggles my mind.
Posted by: felixthecat | August 5, 2009 9:38 AM
Please! Can we not all just look forward, and not back? It is what Obama would want us to do.
Posted by: llewelly | August 5, 2009 9:39 AM
JosherK | August 5, 2009 8:37 AM:
This is precisely my point. We have a president who defends torturers, yet the alternative would likely have been worse.
On issues like torture, and state secrets, the Democrats have clearly followed the Republican lead. Probably there are at least a few important Democrats, who, rather than being manipulated, are every bit as unscrupulous as Bush, Cheney, et al . But I think the majority of Democrats required some amount of manipulation. Perhaps I'm mistaken, and the majority of leading Democrats genuinely prefer to defend torturers, and the right of presidents to refuse arbitrary cases to go to trial. (This seems much more likely now than it did a few months ago.)
I will grant that the only evidence that I have is in what Obama has done, what he has failed to do (that is, what he promised but did not do), and what the goals of the Republican party are.
I would very much prefer to believe that the Republican party is nearly powerless. But to all appearances, Obama and other leading Democrats appear to be listening to the Republican rhetoric about the need to "interrogate" "terrorists" , and also, their rhetoric about the need for strong executive power.
Posted by: AF Comm Guy | August 5, 2009 9:39 AM
See, this is where the Branch Davidians went wrong. They stocked up on weapons illegally in order to have a big fight with the government. Instead they should have done like Blackwater and gotten government contracts as mercenaries in order to stock up on weapons.
There's plenty of delusional idiots out there who want to usher in the apocalypse but most of them don't have the connections or the organizational skills to do much. The thing I find scary about Erik Prince isn't that he's a christian fanatic with guns. What scares me is that he is very good at organizing and getting money to further his ends. If it weren't for these abilities, he would just be another annoying fundie standing on the corner spouting off about the end of the world.
Posted by: littlejohn | August 5, 2009 9:45 AM
At the risk of bringing up a bit of unpleasantness, isn't this a pretty good argument for reinstating the draft? We wouldn't have to be paying outlandish recruiting bonuses, we wouldn't have to lower our standards to the point that we're signing dropouts and felons, and we wouldn't need mercenaries.
Yeah, I know, there would be campus protests. Maybe that would be a good thing. Politicians might not start wars their own kids might have to fight.
Just thinkin' out loud here...
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 9:48 AM
@ felixthecat [#33]>
I sure hope you're being sarcastic...
I remember during a debate Joe Biden said "Look, past is prelude."
i.e. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
I think Obama is afraid that, if he says anything else, he'll look as idiotic as the Republicans during the Lewinsky scandal. It's a political move, and I doubt he believes for a moment that the previous administration shouldn't be judged for its dubious actions, and I even think he's counting on it being judged, and that he was elected precisely because of that.
It's just that he doesn't want his administration to lead the attack, out of a very prudent fear of backlash.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 9:49 AM
(So I finally guessed right and the "Sign in to comment on this entry" thing is optional. Can't the SciBorg overlords ever express themselves clearly?!?)
Where in Europe??? I've never even encountered the word outside of a US context. Parties that are vaguely comparable to the US Libertarians always call themselves "liberal".
If the Reptilian Party nominates Palin in 2012, all you have to do is to wait, because it's clear what would happen next: the Reptiles would implode and self-destruct, you'd be left with one-party rule, and then the Democratic Party (which is too big a tent for surviving the conditions of one-party rule for any extended time) would split down its middle (which is, by fortunate coincidence, the middle), giving you the two-party system back. And there was much rejoicing.
Getting, in the long run, out of the two-party system would require a major overhaul of the Constitution: it would require separating the jobs of "head of state" and "head of government". Considering how difficult it is to amend the Big C, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 5, 2009 9:51 AM
I would think hiring mercenaries is precisely what a free-market conservative or Libertarian would support. It seems that they would abhor a "bloated and inefficient" government-run military and would prefer to let the free market decide how to best defend the nation. Therefore it boggles my mind that Scott somehow blames the use of mercenaries on supporters of a strong central government.
If you want to be a good Libertarian, make sure you apply their anti-government, pro-market ideals consistently. Blackwater should be a Libertarian wet-dream.
Posted by: senecasam | August 5, 2009 9:52 AM
To learn more about the Xtian/Dominionist infiltration of the military, check out Mikey Weinstein's Military Religious Freedom Foundation at www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org
Posted by: KI | August 5, 2009 9:52 AM
226
That election was stolen, quit blaming Ralph Nader, if the votes had been counted (and the brownshirts arrested, the ballots reasonably designed, black people not disenfranchised, etc., etc.) Gore would have won.
Posted by: Mu | August 5, 2009 9:52 AM
I doubt that anything will come from it, not because there isn't any dirt, but because the dirt would hit all the way to the top of the previous administration. And Obama cannot go after Bush for war crimes and get reelected. Too many would see Bush in Den Hague as a worse crime to American pride than what Bush did to get there.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
August 5, 2009 9:53 AM
Littlejohn, are you past draft age? Have you ever been in the draft pool during a war? I have, and wish it on nobody.
Posted by: KI | August 5, 2009 9:57 AM
Arrrgh, @26, not "226".
Posted by: llewelly | August 5, 2009 9:58 AM
JosherK | August 5, 2009 9:03 AM:
This is true, and this is very important. Yet today, Obama and other leading Democrats are defending many of the Bush positions on that greatly expanded executive power. A possible explanation the party's change of heart is that they are afraid of being seen as "too liberal". Another explanation is fear of "pay back". These two things are only a concern due to Republican rhetoric.
Posted by: Bruce Gorton | August 5, 2009 10:00 AM
In the end the only thing you can do is vote for who you want, pay attention down-ticket and take the gamble on the third party - if enough people start doing that the third party starts becoming viable.
Keep a Democrat as president, just in case a veto is needed, and support those Democrats who are liberal, but start moving against the blue dogs in the Senate and Congress. Cut the party politics and start voting for individuals.
What liberal power? The Republican Party has been completely and thoroughly discredited. It has been shown to be corrupt, filled with hypocrites, and incredibly stupid.
Yet what is happening with that healthcare bill? What is happening in Iraq? What is happening with Gitmo? What is happening with torture?
Posted by: CalGeorge | August 5, 2009 10:01 AM
"Where in Europe???"
In this YouTube clip, Chomsky talks about the way the word libertarian means one thing on America and something entirely different everywhere else in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugq86q9KyPE
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 10:03 AM
Where in Europe??? I've never even encountered the word outside of a US context. Parties that are vaguely comparable to the US Libertarians always call themselves "liberal".
David Marjanović, OM
"Libertarian socialist" or sometimes just "libertarian" used to be regularly used in Europe for the anti-authoritarian left - including, but not limited to, anarchists. The "libertarians" we are plagued by here just stole the word, when "propertarian" was unclaimed, and would have been much more accurate. I suspect this was a deliberately deceptive move, to try and claim anti-authoritarianism for the right.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 5, 2009 10:04 AM
Some people have mentioned Obama's failure to send investigators after Bush era war criminals. What I don't get is how come he has any say in the matter. Doesn't the United States have a constitution, which guarantees equality before the law? I.e. isn't it completely outside a president's power to say that the powerful are above prosecution?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 10:05 AM
Forgot to mention: "Xe" reminds me of the name of the first mercenary corporation, Executive Outcomes, which was based in apartheid-era South Africa and participated in lots of African wars. Then came "Steel Foundation", which AFAIK fought in Bosnia, and then "Blackwater".
"Need"?
What you need to do is to get out of Iraq. (If you're afraid of the consequences, get the UN in and pay for it. Certainly cheaper than Blackwater.)
Has there ever been a draft that people with connections haven't been able to evade?
If you have a good argument for a draft (outside of emergency situations maybe), bring it on. I've never seen one.
Posted by: Jin | August 5, 2009 10:17 AM
Reminds me of the latest season of 24, to be honest.
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 5, 2009 10:18 AM
"Libertario", in Portuguese, usually means "left anarchist" and I think the same is true in Spanish (and of "Libertaire" in French). I've seen some followers of American style "libertarianism" use the neologism "libertariano"
Also, in Britain there is a history of Labourites of an (relatively) non-authoritarian stripe (Robin Cook for example) being described as "libertarian socialists" despite sitting within mainstream social democracy. This can be a bit confusing because British Randroid, pro-tyranny of the Nietshean supermen, types DO typically also style themselves "libertarian". "Liberal" in Britain usually means "pro-civil liberties"; it is considered a good thing by (mainstream) left and right. "Illiberal" is considered insulting (even to the obviously illiberal)
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | August 5, 2009 10:20 AM
Umm... Hmm... Well... Just give me a minute here... Well, it would guarantee the ousting of any congressperson batshit enough to actually support draft reinstatement. Pure political suicide, especially during a war. That could be seen as a plus, though hardly good enough to justify such an atrocious program being reinstated.
Posted by: Nils Ross | August 5, 2009 10:20 AM
An assertion requires evidence. Likewise, an accusation requires proof. These accusations may well be true. They may also be exaggerated or untrue. Hopefully it will go to court and the facts will be established. But frothing at the mouth before the facts have been established legally isn't how rational people should act.
Posted by: Alyson Miers | August 5, 2009 10:21 AM
At the risk of bringing up a bit of unpleasantness, isn't this a pretty good argument for reinstating the draft?
It's a pretty good argument for a foreign policy built around preventing war as much as possible.
Posted by: CadicusTheDamned | August 5, 2009 10:25 AM
A buddy of mine worked for BlackWater. He's in Iraq now working for another mercenary company, some British outfit. He's also a very outspoken atheist.
I understand the outrage and Prince is a complete loon, but the actual operators have a very difficult job. Also, it's not like Muslims are peaceful and fun loving folks that just want to get along with us. I put them on par with Christian fundamentalists with the added feature of occasionally exploding when not decapitating civilians. If we could shift our energy consumption to something other than petroleum, we would have no reason to interact with the Arabic world whatsoever. They are very nasty folks. My brother was stationed in Saudi Arabia and saw a woman pushed off a tower and onto spikes for alleged adultery.
Accepting evolution as the fact that it is leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are aggressive social primates that have always fought each other for the world's limited resources. The religious factor seems to me to be more of a rationalization than anything for our inherent greed and nastiness as a species.
However pissed and outraged you want to get about it, we Americans (liberals included) certainly enjoy the lavish lifestyles that sixty plus years of global military dominance and exploitation of the Third World has afforded us.
If it makes any of you feel better, the whole house of cards is about ready fall down. The Chinese are discovering that our treasury bonds best use is toilet paper and they are going to start getting extremely pissed, I suspect.
Posted by: Ryan Egesdahl
|
August 5, 2009 10:26 AM
Not to seem like someone defending Blackwater or even the previous administration, but shouldn't we wait for the evidence before demonizing people? All we have here are allegations. It would be tempting to believe them simply because of how well they fit, but I don't want things to just fit. I want the allegations to be true before I go after these people (horrible as they were even before this). I need to be convinced by the evidence and not merely by how I feel about what someone has said about people I already don't care for.
Posted by: steve | August 5, 2009 10:30 AM
Why not immediately run out and join the military ? If it's OK for someone else it's double OK for you.
Lets take the group of people that have nothing to do with our present day problems, i.e. those who have just received the right to vote, and stick it to 'em.
The revenge of the old on the young.
Posted by: JasonTD | August 5, 2009 10:30 AM
llewelly,It just boggles my mind the lengths some people will go to pin all things evil on Republicans. Obama is defending executive prerogatives because he's the executive now. He is now personally responsible for the safety of every American. No doubt that changes his perspective from what it was before he was sworn in. Presidents will always struggle against congress to maintain their power because they want it (or feel they need it) in order to implement their agenda. When they go too far, it is up to the Supreme Court to rein them in. It's how our system is supposed to work.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 5, 2009 10:33 AM
-At the risk of bringing up a bit of unpleasantness, isn't this a pretty good argument for reinstating the draft? -
No
You hired mercenaries !!!! haha america is so fucking dumb.
Posted by: Sgt. Obvious | August 5, 2009 10:33 AM
Speaking as a member of the young, I hate that expression. Revenge for what, exactly? Seems more like senseless aggression to me.
Posted by: RobertDW | August 5, 2009 10:40 AM
The other possibility with Obama, etal, is that they are keeping the secrecy on because, having seen what went on, they are afraid to let it get revealed en masse exactly how bad it got. To be honest, while it would be really nice to see the people responsible strung up by their thumbs, the last thing American politics needs right now is to fall even further into partisan brawling with mobs on both sides howling for blood.
It's even possible that Obama and co have made the calculated decision that there is little point taking the people concerned to trial - it would get before the Supreme Court very quickly, which is still stacked with the justices who helped put Bush in back in 2000. Let's face it - if Rummy and Cheney were charged, there's a good chance the courts either wouldn't convict, or would convict only to have it overturned on appeal.
Posted by: steve | August 5, 2009 10:43 AM
Speaking as a member of the not so young (well past draft age), it doesn't make any sense to me either.
But having seen the US draft at work during the Vietnam era, it sure looked like the ones who fucked up (the old) were not the ones who ended up dieing in Indo-China (the young).
I'm sure the motivations were many and complex, but the word "revenge" is an effective rhetorical device.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 10:46 AM
I understand the outrage and Prince is a complete loon, but the actual operators have a very difficult job. CadicusTheDamned
So did the Gestapo - but from the rest of your comment, I gather you'd rather approve of them too.
Accepting evolution as the fact that it is leads to the inevitable conclusion that we are aggressive social primates that have always fought each other for the world's limited resources.
A deeply ignorant comment. Certainly aggression is one part of our behavioural repertoire. So are cooperation and altruism, and how these can evolve and persist is now reasonably well understood. Part of the answer is enlightened self-interest - and if we continue to fight each other, with ever more powerful weapons, we're all done for.
The religious factor seems to me to be more of a rationalization than anything for our inherent greed and nastiness as a species.
I'm certainly willing to accept that you are inherently greedy and nasty, but you should not make unfounded generalisations.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 5, 2009 10:48 AM
Josh:
I wonder if we don't have two different values for scared of at work here:
scared of —> "Jebus Crisp, those fuckers are crazy; there's no telling what grief their wingnuttery might bring down on us!"
or
scared of —> "Those fuckers are strong and well trained, and I'm afraid they might kill me if I cross them!"
I doubt many in SF are scared of Blackwater (or pretty much anyone else, for that matter) in the latter sense; do you have any insight to share as to whether they're scared of Blackwater in the former sense?
Posted by: Matt Heath | August 5, 2009 10:55 AM
Either this is irrelevant or it's meant as mitigation of BlackWater etc's guilt for committing atrocities. Assuming the latter, WTF!? It's OK to kill people who happen to be born into an unpleasant culture? In any case this (as written) is plainly false. Islam has a lot of nastiness stored in it but most Muslims I've met have indeed just wanted to live their lives. Well, unless of course some of us actual care about our fellow human beings and think that it's rather a good thing to support those in Arab countries struggling against the oppression they suffer from their own leaders and elders just for the sake of making their lives better. But that would mean thinking that people in the third world matter as much westerners, and I guess that's crazy commie talk. Well, she was probably a Muslim so, by your reasoning, it doesn't matter. If by "evolution as the fact it is" you mean "the most unsupportable, maximalist version of evo-psych" then yes.Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 10:58 AM
A draft,or obligatory time in the military(with option to opt out on religious/moral grounds) is fine if you are pretty sure that your military personnel is not ever going to see any real combat, like in Germany say, since someone's got to maintain the tanks and whatever equipment, but I think for countries that see frequent military action like the US the draft is not a fair option, because you end up sending kids off to potentially die in some remote backwater place.
The other option is not to send drafted personnel off into warzones.
As to Blackwater, they seem to have gained quite some notoriety before these allegations surfaced, so it is in a way understandable that people give them credibility.
Posted by: JosherK | August 5, 2009 10:58 AM
@ KI (#44)>
I don't blame Nader. I blame the unfortunate reality of bipartisan politics.
Like I said in the very post you're citing, I like Nader.
Stop accusing people of blaming where blaming is not being done :-)
Posted by: Arnsholt | August 5, 2009 11:00 AM
@50: I find the Norwegian draft system to be reasonably sane (disclaimer: I am a Norwegian =). The rank and file of (what is left of) our armed forces are mostly drafted, and these people are not sent abroad. I'm not sure if it's de-facto or de-jure, but at any rate, I'm pretty sure that only enlisted personnel is sent on assignments abroad, which on the whole seems like a pretty sane approach to me.
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 11:00 AM
I gotta say, Bill, I love your comments. You have raised yet another excellent point.
I think that the fairly common view of BW "operators" as unprofessional "cowboys" could indeed be congruent with your first value of scared. Loose cannons are bad, and this would include Cowboys for Christ.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:02 AM
I'm terrified of the idea of a 13 year old kid with little supervision and access to the keys of his fathers F-250.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 5, 2009 11:03 AM
The best thing I've ever seen was the photo from Iraq showing the burned bodies of Blackwater thugs hanging from a bridge.
That picture gave me a lot of hope.
Posted by: HDX | August 5, 2009 11:07 AM
Blackwater was given no bid contracts by the government. This is not necessarily something a Libertarian wants. In fact many Libertarians opposed the Iraq war (not all though).
If you go to the website of Libertarian think tank CATO institute and search for Iraq war and look for articles for or against the Iraq war in the title, here are the ones from the first page:
Iraq: The Wrong War
Iraq: Wrong Place, Wrong Time, Wrong War
One Last Time: The Case Against a War With Iraq
Faulty Justifications for War with Iraq
There is nothing positive.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 11:09 AM
Looks like the German-speaking area is unique in lacking an equivalent to "libertarian".
I've removed the unnecessary parts. Sure, they'd have increased his margin, but merely counting all valid ballots in Florida – under any definition of "valid" that is legal in Florida – means that Gore won.
Translation: Jail to the thief in 2013. Early 2013.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 11:10 AM
@ 56,
Bush/Cheney and the morally bancrupt mob that supported them were also fond of generalizations like this one.
Most Muslims just want to live their lives peacefully like you and me, and tossing them in with the radical brainwashed(and male) minority that is ready to be violent and "throw women from towers onto spikes", is not helping.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 5, 2009 11:14 AM
Capital Dan,
That's a pretty sick and brutal line of reasoning, being happy to see the evidence of people being tortured and killed. And hope? Hope for what? Chaos, near civil war, and unimaginable death and suffering for the general public in Iraq?
Posted by: wasd | August 5, 2009 11:17 AM
Wow, I suddenly have a lot more respect for blackwater, it turns out the had the kind of employees with the moral courage to testify against someone who knocks off witnesses!
I am sorry. I am sure working for blackwater cant be easy, and the arms smuggling sounds consistent with earlier reports and plausible. The religious stuff sounds bad but also sounds like someone making more out of something that is skin deep in order to win sympathy. (I mean what mercenary cares about this stuff? How would someone who cares about this end up in blackwater?) But the hearsay about assassinations just sounds way too vague. I mean one anonymous former mercenary heard nothing specific from other anonymous former mercenaries? Another guy was threatened over the phone. Now that would not be my first step in killing a witness.
I cant imagine someone who actually knows facts about witnesses getting killed testifying. That either takes principles you don`t expect to see in a mercenary let in on these things or idiocy too strong for even a cowboy mercenary repeating rumors he actually believes.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:17 AM
at a loss for words
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 11:17 AM
Be careful with that. Famously, German self-defence now begins at the Hindukush. A couple of soldiers got a state burial last week.
I don't know if they send draftees to Afghanistan, though. In fact, haven't they already abolished it? (Abolishing it seems to be a Europe-wide trend since the late 1990s, what with the Cold War having ended and stuff. Only Austria is staring in the face of the coldest war of all time, even though the direction of gaze has to stay secret for security reasons... well, I digress.)
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | August 5, 2009 11:18 AM
And that's all I needed to read to know that you have no idea what you are talking about.
ALL muslims != fundamentalists
Posted by: El Guerrero del Interfaz | August 5, 2009 11:19 AM
In Europe libertarian is generally a synomym of anarchist.
Not the comic round bomb carrying caricature but the followers of Bakunin, Kropoktin and similar. Like the historical Andalusian "jornaleros", Swiss watchmakers and such.
As someone else said, the USAmerican version is a perversion and hijacking of the term.
Posted by: Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac | August 5, 2009 11:20 AM
Damn, Meant to quote that in the last post.
Posted by: rtp10 | August 5, 2009 11:21 AM
Unacceptable. These guys have to be held accountable.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | August 5, 2009 11:22 AM
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
What did I just write about the violence monopoly?
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 5, 2009 11:23 AM
I said it gave me hope. I don't believe I said it made me happy.
You're an idiot if you think that the death of mercenaries is going to culminate in any sort of civil war. Are you under some grand delusion that Blackwater is our actual peace-keeping military force? Is that what you're getting at?
Posted by: Medina64 | August 5, 2009 11:23 AM
OK, I graduated from college in '68 and was immediately drafted. Luckily I was able to enlist in the AF and was never forced to kill or be killed. I think we should reinstate the draft for the following reasons:
1. It is a check on the system. All the folks who thought going into Iraq was a good idea would have thought twice if they or one of their kids was going to have to go do the fighting.
2. It ensures that some people who ordinarily would not get involved with the military are exposed to it. The military is neither all good nor all bad, people need to know that. They also need to be exposed to the type of person who makes the military a career - that might temper some of the awe people have for retired military officers, especially ones like Powell or, at some point in the future, Petraeous.
3. We should eliminate as much as possible the use of mercenaries and other contractors who perform duties that GIs used to perform – including security, KP, maintenance, etc. All US forces in a combat area need to operate under the UCMJ or its equivalent.
4. Diversification of skills, talents, and outlooks – especially in the enlisted ranks. When I was in the Air Force, close to 30% of the enlisted folks had college degrees. The guy on our base that handled the Officer Efficiency Reports (job evaluation forms) had a PhD in English and had been put in that position by the Wing Commander because most of the officers couldn’t write well. Now we are allowing guys up to 42 to enlist because we can’t get enough people. You do not want the military to become any more of a haven than it already is for lazy dumbasses.
5. Weird movements such as the whacked out Christian or the white supremacist stuff that is happening now would have a much harder time taking hold and having an effect.
6. Contractors are mostly corporations with profits to make. If their business is war they will tend to push for things that support war. That is not a judgment; it is statement of the way things work. We need to eliminate, as much as possible, the profit motive as a reason for war – Ike was right, we need to be concerned with the growth of the military industrial complex and work to minimize its impact. I believe it is imperative to eliminate organizations like Blackwater from the MIC.
7. Lastly, a person who is required/forced to serve their country may spend a little more time and effort deciding exactly how he wants that country to operate. This is not a bad thing.
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 11:24 AM
Let me add to that: it's because of this aspect of that first value:
And I am thinking of "grief" in the sense of to the mission, not to the public perception of SF (the public's perception is already inaccurate and they're not going to ever hear about 95% of the missions anyway). Every BW "antic" can have the effect of painting all Americans in body armor with the same brush. Since kicking in doors and shooting people is usually a small part (or an avoided part or just the first step) of most SF missions, establishing a good rapport with those in the host nation is critical. Perceptions that any and all Americans in theatre are likely to be brutal thugs harms mission posture.
Posted by: 386sx | August 5, 2009 11:25 AM
I like Dennis Kucinich because during the elections he or whoever was running his youtube channel went around all day "sub for subbing" people.
Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2009 11:26 AM
David M @ 79,
To be honest, I dont know, I think the policy is not to.
Realize we are involved in NATO missions,but I think they are career personnel only,similar to Norway.
Capital Dan,
what was with that latest post @ 72? I have trouble believing that was really urs.
Posted by: Scrabcake | August 5, 2009 11:27 AM
Oh wow. Can you imagine the shitstorm if the obama administration decided to go after these guys?
OBAMA PERSECUTES PATRIOTIC SOLDIERS!
Men who are willing to die for their country are treated like traitors! Veterans prosecuted for patriotism! America no longer safe for veterans! Vietnam, part II: Spitting on the brave men and women who risked their lives for us in Iraq! SOCIALIST! FASCIST! COMMIE! HIPPIE!
Nevermind that the blackwater guys aren't enlisted men. Truth doesn't really matter as we've seen with healthcare.
Posted by: Knockgoats | August 5, 2009 11:29 AM
The best thing I've ever seen was the photo from Iraq showing the burned bodies of Blackwater thugs hanging from a bridge.
That picture gave me a lot of hope. - Capital Dan
Ugh.
Posted by: Capital Dan
|
August 5, 2009 11:32 AM
No. It was mine. I think the point I'm driving at (aside from screaming anger that America would ally itself with an entity such as Blackwater in the first place) is that the death of their thugs should give them fear that even though they are (or were) accountable to no one in the legal sense since getting something of a free pass from the Bush Administration, they are still not truly bulletproof. And, maybe --just maybe-- they might see that they are in way over their heads.
I'm angry at Blackwater for any number of reasons: Iraq, New Orleans, etc. America does not need a Gestapo.
Anyway, I do apologize if I've offended anyone.
Posted by: Scrabcake | August 5, 2009 11:32 AM
#86.
Agreed. We should reinstate the draft. Maybe if peoples' kids are involved it will force them to give a crap what they're doing in Washington.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2009 11:41 AM
Agreed, though AFAIK their presence in NOLA was because they were hired by private companies. Now these may have included companies on the Administrations buddy list and I'm not suggesting that having a military style security force for hire is necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: Richard Eis | August 5, 2009 11:42 AM
-Agreed. We should reinstate the draft. Maybe if peoples' kids are involved it will force them to give a crap what they're doing in Washington.-
No, they will just do some advertising about how patriotic it is to do your duty, and the lemmings will happily send their little lemmings off to war. Anybody against the draft will be called commie's etc...
You will however suddenly have an army that matches your zeal for starting wars. Great.
Posted by: foxfire | August 5, 2009 11:45 AM
Check out Keith Olbermann interviewing the guy who broke the story. Scary stuff!
Posted by: KI | August 5, 2009 11:46 AM
JosherK@68
Sorry, knee-jerk reaction on my part (I voted Nader/LaDuke in 2000 and am fucking sick and tired of being blamed for Al Gore's surrender to the fascists).
Posted by: Ray Moscow | August 5, 2009 11:49 AM
If Obama cared 10% as much about justice as some of hoped he would, or had half the balls of the average guy, he would be pushing prosecution of these guys and their former bosses in the Dubya administration.
It's time to start turning the heat up on Obama. We didn't elect him ONLY because he was not quite a bad as McCain -- we also expect him to start fixing some of this shit.
Posted by: inkadu | August 5, 2009 11:55 AM
Until people stop buying Coke & Pepsi, my special brand of unpopular Green Cola will never get endcap space.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 5, 2009 11:55 AM
Capital Dan,
No, you did not say that explicitly. You did, however, say that "The best thing I've ever seen was the photo from Iraq showing the burned bodies of Blackwater thugs hanging from a bridge." I would assume that the best thing you've ever seen makes you happy. If that is not what you meant, then I believe you, although your language certainly suggested it.
No, and I probably was unclear about what I was getting to. Around the time of the first battle of Fallujah it was becoming very clear that the mission was not accomplished after all, and that we were entering a quagmire. The appropriate reaction to seeing the news of how Fallujah was turning into a giant mess was "oh shit," not hope.
The four men killed in Fallujah who give you hope, although maybe not happiness, when you look at pictures of their mutilated bodies were out protecting a food catering convoy, not bayoneting babies. I agree that Blackwater/Xe is a reprehensible organization, but the people out doing the work are not necessarily monsters. That's probably why their widows sued Blackwater.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/contractors/highrisk.html
Posted by: firemancarl | August 5, 2009 11:58 AM
Here is the news paper from Va Beach/Norfolk. There are a lot of article about Xe ne Blackwater.
http://hamptonroads.com/2009/08/suit-exworkers-accuse-blackwater-founder-murder
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 5, 2009 12:07 PM
It's precisely because he has said those things that the press ignores him. The press doesn't want to rock the boat either.
Posted by: Martin | August 5, 2009 12:07 PM
So when the government calls on an army of professionals to kill when ordered to, this is good.
Except when that army is called Xe. Then it's completely different.
Posted by: Acronym Jim | August 5, 2009 12:09 PM
Revenge for not staying off my lawn!
Posted by: dean | August 5, 2009 12:16 PM
"An assertion requires evidence. Likewise, an accusation requires proof"
Agreed. I have no problem believing Prince's hatred of Muslims, however. Living near, and working in, the Holland/Grand Rapids area, for 25 years, has provided a great deal of evidence for the racism (and, in the case of hating muslims, bigotry) found in the Prince family (as well as the primary son of the family that owns Amway).
Giving the okay for his mercenaries to kill civilians? I can easily see that. Murder of employees? I need more proof to make that step.
Posted by: truthspeaker | August 5, 2009 12:19 PM
They were protecting a food catering convoy that was supplying an occupying army in a country where they didn't belong. Unlike the people in that occupying army, the people in Blackwater volunteered to be part of the occupation.
Posted by: Cay | August 5, 2009 12:22 PM
No matter how hideous the beliefs of Prince, we don't know if these allegations are true. If we don't treat new information with appropriate skepticism we're pretty much the same as them - long-form birth certificate, anyone?
Posted by: Anon. | August 5, 2009 12:23 PM
"eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,"
Add in Xtianity, Judaism, Hinduism, ..... and there's something that can only make the world a better place. But education, not murder, is the method that brings success, as history has taught us many times before.
Posted by: Muzz | August 5, 2009 12:30 PM
No choice quotes from Machiavelli yet?
Posted by: uberlieder | August 5, 2009 12:38 PM
Blackwater and the PMCs like it (triple canopy, KBR, Halliburton, etc etc) are doing a job that the American army needs to perform, or at least hire out to well supervised firms that have very specific ROE and oversight. America's army can't afford to provide security for every single non Iraqi that visits Iraq to help rebuild it, but we can't let PMCs run amok. See the video of an armed convoy going "turkey shooting" or whatever it was that they called in on an Iraqi army. However, mercenaries like these can be a major benefit in some cases. See Sierra Leone in the 90s when a UN security force was absolutely useless, but a mission from Executive Outcomes was able to destroy the RUF rebels and protect the legit government at very low cost and with no atrocities committed. With a lot of oversight, mercenaries used in this manner could easily benefit the world and overcome a lot of the global stagnation that results around responding to atrocities. Mercenaries are not all bad, but the way that they have been used in Iraq is the worst way, and only hurt America.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 5, 2009 12:42 PM
Sgt. Obvious posted (#61 I think*):
Revenge for what? Oh, I dunno, ever heard that crap young people call music? And their terrible dress sense. Those goofy hair styles, like someone dropped a haystack on their head (then lacquered it on with 'product'), and.... Hey you! Get off my lawn! You damned hooligans! [Dingo trails off into muttering until he falls into a light doze] :)
Don't worry Sarge if Obama's manages to drag health-care in the US into the 20th century, you'll get your revenge - you get to kill and eat the old. (Or that's what our 'friends' in the Religious Right Retards say anyway) - DJ
"And I would have got away with it too, if it weren't for you pesky kids!"
_________
*senior moment
Posted by: Bronze Dog | August 5, 2009 12:49 PM
AF Comm Guy:
I was creeped out before, but somehow, this particular chunk of text puts my fears into sharper focus.
David Marj:
My inner cynic says you're too optimistic, but my inner idealist prays to Ammy that it happens.
I'll start doing a bit of that more often, now. Was giving him a chance to get settled, but now I starting to think that was me being too generous. He's dipping below my expectations of an average president.
Posted by: natural cynic | August 5, 2009 12:52 PM
A question that has not been addressed is why we Americans are spending as much as the rest of the world on our military. As Madeline Albright once said "Why do we have such a big military if we don't use it". So often we seem to be seeking out trouble and what better way to make a big pile of shit from a little pile of shit than to get involved militarily. If we had a smaller military and limited objectives, we wouldn't be in such messes.
Now the conundrum: if we reduce the size of the military and given the extent of corporate power, little wars will be fought by an expanded corporate mercenary contractors to maintain international business power over local situations. How do you keep Exxon/Mobil and other energy giants or international conglomerates from hiring their private armies?
To the question of reinstating the draft:
There is always a lag time between when wars start and when the young really start to get involved in protesting it. There was a significant lag time in the Vietnam War before a small group of draft resisters and war opponents gained enough strength to become a large political force. It took less time in the Civil War for the desertions and draft riots occurred, but at the beginning, there were only few on both sides that were not eager for combat. So, no, having a draft really does not give those in power reason to pause, until it's too late.
Even the hint of a necessity of a draft means that you accept the idea of an overly large military. Cutting down n the size would be the best thing for recruiting an adequate number for some diversity by selecting out the nuts.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 5, 2009 1:02 PM
Josh:
I absolutely accept your "friendly amendment" (@87) to my earlier comment. And BTW, thanks for the kind words.
Ray Moscow (@98):
I think you're conveniently ignoring the magnitude of the backlog of shit that needs fixin'. And, for that matter, the number of people who are invested in the shit, and desperately oppose fixin' it. The large majorities in the House and Senate do not mean that there are no opponents in the field; just take a quick look at what's happening in the Dems' town hall meetings on healthcare recently.
Bush and his henchmen (or maybe it was Cheney and his henchmen, including Bush) fucked this country (and by extension, the world) relentlessly for 8 years, but because Obama doesn't have it all tidied up already in just over 6 months, suddenly he doesn't "care[..] 10% as much about justice as some of [us] hoped he would"?? Take a breath, dude; "waiting is."
Also, as reluctant as I am to jump into the whole third-party deal, I'll just make one comment:
To move the government to the left, you must vote for the most liberal candidate who can win; only those who actually win office get to govern. For all the frustrations — and believe me, I share them — about the Blue Dog Dems, if you replace them with conservative Republicans, the bills they're obstructing wouldn't even be getting debated in the first place.
When the Greens, or any other liberal alternative party, do the work required to actually have a chance to win seats, then supporting them over moderate Dems will be a worthwhile strategy; in the meantime, not so much. A coalition majority of Dems and even-more-liberal third-party members of Congress would be an improvement over what we have; a Congress in which Blue Dog seats were instead held by even-more-conservative Republicans would definitely not be.
Posted by: MyaR | August 5, 2009 1:03 PM
A clarification of my "scared of Blackwater" statement, and to Josh at #29 -- what I meant was that, on an individual basis, they perceived the BW guys as not so much "cowboys" as sociopaths. As in, don't ever deal with them without backup.
My brother's now National Guard. He's a PA.
Posted by: DingoJack | August 5, 2009 1:05 PM
All this talk of drafts reminds me:
Posted by: Josh | August 5, 2009 1:18 PM
Ahhh, okay. Thanks.
Bill*, to me that still looks to support your "first value," yes?
Ahhh...so he was probably a medic when he was in group. Very nice.
*Oh, and I was adding to my comment. No attempt was made to modify yours. Not that I think you would be unpleased if I had, given what you wrote in #114, but just for the sake of the record.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | August 5, 2009 1:18 PM
DingoJack FTW!!
Nothing deflates those who glorify war (or, for that matter, those who think poetry doesn't matter) better than a dose of Wilfred Owen. It bears repeating, at least in part:
Posted by: Desert Son, OM
|
August 5, 2009 1:24 PM
On the changing of the political landscape:
I think it's possible, but very long-term, as in if it started in earnest right now, today, no one who frequents this site would be alive to see it come to fruition, where fruition is defined as political viability and influence in broad national government.
So, how do parties other than Democrat and Republican get to the point of influence that the Democratic and Republican parties now hold? I think it's a combination of things. One part is waning influence on the part of the parties in power. Another part is local development for the other parties. Greens (to take just one example) need to start off on city councils and county appointments and so forth. Then they need longevity. It's not just a matter of getting the position, but doing the job and holding office effectively to demonstrate viability so that voters continue to support Green candidates in local offices. With enough long-term local infusion of Green candidates, larger offices can be sought at the state level. Eventually, if the movement is broad enough, and has enough staying power, you can start to invest national offices with Greens. Even then the party still isn't strong enough to shift power from the Democrats or Republicans, in my opinion. Greens would then need to demonstrate continued efficacy over the long term, such that the nation at large would buy into their primacy.
I think it's possible, but it's not the kind of thing that will happen in one election cycle. I think it's the kind of thing that will take decades, maybe more. If it's going to happen, it needs to start local, and it needs to be organized enough and viable enough to last a long time. That doesn't necessarily mean gobs of money (though that certainly helps), but it does mean a population that pays attention, and therein may be some difficulty (not that the whole population doesn't pay attention, mind).
Of course, I'm no de Tocqueville; that's all purest speculation.
No kings,
Robert
Posted by: DingoJack | August 5, 2009 1:26 PM
He was a man who knew*.
One of my favorites. Makes you sad and anry at the same time.
- 'Foxtrot Tango Alpha!', DJ
________
*Funny how young men who won't fight are 'cowards' or 'traitors' and the old men who encourge these young men in their stance. are old soldiers
Posted by: Josh Lewis | August 5, 2009 1:53 PM
I loathe Blackwater's corporate culture way more than the next guy but after reading the article I must point out that this is a WEAK legal case.
This is two middle managers who heard from other employees that Blackwater had a witnesses killed.
I am not a lawyer but there is something very clear and easy to ascertain here: If you heard it from another employee it is hearsay. It is inadmissible. Unless there is something else this is case going to be closed.
If there is any actual evidence witness tampering the feds need to take it up. This sounds like an unwinable but incendiary civil case.
Posted by: ursa major | August 5, 2009 2:23 PM
I sent faxes to the offices of "my representatives" about Blackwater/Xe. Unfortunately that worthy group consist of Scott, Isaacson and Chambliss. One blue dog and 2 who are too evil to be acceptable to Cthulhu.
Posted by: windy | August 5, 2009 2:27 PM
Anyone who thinks that the Obama administration doesn't care about accountability, you are clearly mistaken!
"Clinton Calls for Accountability in Kenya"
That's it, the US has jumped the goddamn shark.
Posted by: Matt B | August 5, 2009 2:49 PM
All of this from one REPORT of a sworn statement?? As an attorney, I've seen a lot of things said in "sworn" materials that are meaningless, false,etc. The original story doesn't even suggest there was an affidavit so that the declarant stated these things "under oath." In this context, its possible that this was just some kind of pleading, "sworn" by the attorney who filed it, not necessarily "sworn" by the one making the declaration. And an attorney can file something based on "reasonable information and belief." I'm not defending Blackwater, but this is pretty scant evidence to condemn them or anyone.
Posted by: CadicusTheDamned | August 5, 2009 3:03 PM
@#66
I notice that you didn't comment on this part of my little early morning rant:
"However pissed and outraged you want to get about it, we Americans (liberals included) certainly enjoy the lavish lifestyles that sixty plus years of global military dominance and exploitation of the Third World has afforded us."
That's rather telling.
"If by "evolution as the fact it is" you mean "the most unsupportable, maximalist version of evo-psych" then yes."
Unsupportable? Really? Crack a history book. I think there's plenty of examples of how horrible people of any creed or color will treat one another.
(As an aside note: What I love is that everybody is quick to bring up the Holocaust, but everybody forgets the Japanese in Manchuria. After all, who cares about that? They were Asians.)
I really love how Christians can be criticized all day and night here, but the equally ridiculous superstitions of Islam gets all kinds of defense.
"But, but, the Muslims were brainwashed into believing those things since birth!"
Yeah, so were the Christians. That doesn't make either of them less ridiculous or less viable as targets of criticism. And, yes, I do think education is the best way to rectify the situation, but I really don't think the oligarchy of either the U.S. or the Middle East is interested in an educated populace. Japan and Western Europe seem to have accomplished it, so it's not an impossibility.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | August 5, 2009 3:07 PM
Um...innocent until proven guilty, anyone? If there is evidence of wrongdoing, let it speak for itself. Can't we hold off on statements like "These bastards fit right in with the Bush administration, didn't they?" until we let the events play out in court? I know we all think the allegations are true, but let's be reasonable and wait until they are substantiated. It serves the opposition for us to assume immediately Prince et al are guilty. We come off just as bad as they do. Let's do the reasonable thing and wait for the outcome.
Posted by: Arnold T Pants | August 5, 2009 4:12 PM
Truthspeaker,
I'm not suggesting for a minute that we should have gone into Iraq in the first place. I just don't buy that every person that works for Blackwater is some kind of evil monster that deserves to die a horrible death. Furthermore, your comment about Blackwater employees volunteering to be part of the occupation could be extended to anybody that joined the Army or Marine Corps after it was clear that no WMDs would be found. How far are you willing to extend that guilt by association? Much farther than I am, evidently.
Posted by: JBlilie | August 5, 2009 4:17 PM
I'm just very glad that Obama (and not McCain) was elected last fall and some sunlight is being shown into this crap.
Posted by: Paul The Burptist | August 5, 2009 4:22 PM
Wasn't this an episode of 24 with Keifer Sutherland saving the day?
Posted by: Katkinkate | August 5, 2009 4:23 PM
Mercenaries have always been a problem. If you have to hire them for a job, you have to keep tight control of them, because mercenaries have a long history of getting out of control and causing trouble.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 4:25 PM
Thanks for your concern Michael the little boot. I was under the impression this was a blog and not a court of law. You are now free to return to polish Prince/Cheney/Bush's boots.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 4:39 PM
So who's going to coin the fatwa envy law? Godwin: Nazis/Atheism; so ? :Criticism/Muslims/fatwa. Myers law? Gotts law? Marjanovićs law? It's up for grabs, folks. (I think)Posted by: cadicusthedamned | August 5, 2009 4:58 PM
E.V.,
I take it you don't really have a decent rebuttal. It shows.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 5, 2009 5:17 PM
Damned Cad #56
Oh shiiit, we're in trouble now !
Posted by: Bostonian | August 5, 2009 5:27 PM
I wasn't aware Islam had many defenders around here. Last time I checked, it was a religion. But E.V. has a good idea - call it Myers' Law: you know Christians have run out of arguments when they ask why you don't criticize Islam.
Posted by: articulett | August 5, 2009 5:47 PM
I think it's selection bias that makes Christians notice when their own magical sky daddy is slammed as opposed to the one named Allah.
But I just want to assure all theists that I disbelieve in all invisible undetectable entities equally-- whether you call them gods, demons, devils, Allah, Xenu, sprites, angels, Thetans, or hobgoblins. I mock them all and find all believers in such things equally childish and delusional.
I think such beliefs make people incredibly arrogant and ignorant while they imagine themselves humble and "in on" special secrets.
Posted by: Rolan le Gargéac | August 5, 2009 5:51 PM
Rorschach #67
That's your future, baby.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 6:16 PM
What?
*snortgiggle*
Goddamn but you're an ignorant troll!
We're laughing at you because we've heard this specific brand of bullshit from frothing spittle-flecked pious xians like you during Crackergate.
Your argument really isn't that we don't criticize Islam -(we do brother, we do) it's that in your heart of hearts you fucking wish you could declare a fatwa just like the muslims & get medieval on all our blasphemous asses. You're seething with your delusional ideology and you fucking want blood when someone points out your ideology is ethically bankrupt and your source for it all is an ancient tribalism myth recorded during the fucking bronze age. But those pussy secular governments just won't let you pull out the stake and pyre. SO Cadicusthedamned the black hearted, go pedal your insipid brand of fatwa envy elsewhere.
Posted by: E.V. | August 5, 2009 6:19 PM
pedal/peddle *dammit*
Posted by: RM | August 5, 2009 8:06 PM
I think Machiavelli's advice against mercenaries in The Prince is always worth keeping in mind. It's not a perfect comparison since they are paid far more money today in relative terms than in his time and used in a somewhat different fashion, but it's what occurs to me whenever I think about where the continued use of these groups could lead.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself | August 5, 2009 8:14 PM
The problem with mercenaries compared to soldiers is that mercenaries aren't accountable to anyone except their bosses. If a soldier commits a war crime, he or she can be court-martialed. If a Blackwater type mercenary commits a war crime and gets caught, his boss will chew him out for being dumb enough to get caught.
Posted by: DCW | August 5, 2009 8:17 PM
Mad Scientist in Post #2 said>>>There are long-standing claims (going back almost 20 years) that the xian fanatics want to bring about wars between the Arabs and Jews which those loons believe will lead to the 'rapture'."
I have seen this claim before and while I agree there may be very small sects of Christianity that conform to that and thus you guys pick them out-I submit that conservative christians-who would generally believe most strongly in the end times prophecies of the bible are also those most opposed to the policies that they see as bringing it closer.
One such example is the move to a one-world government that is a staple of end times prophecies. Conservative Christians are probably the voting block that is most opposed to transferring national sovereignty to the UN and other unelected supra-national bodies.
I submit that minor examples of small odd sects that could be cited by Mad Scientist are a very minor exception to the voting habits and political beliefs of most conservative christians.
Posted by: Brian M | August 5, 2009 8:45 PM
I'll start doing a bit of that more often, now. Was giving him a chance to get settled, but now I starting to think that was me being too generous. He's dipping below my expectations of an average president.
I'm sure President Obama and the various interests who funded his elevtion campaign are just quaking in their boots. Anonymous liberal posters on the Internet are "Not Going to Take It Any More." They are going to "Call him to account" Posting on KOS or joining a demonstration (chortle) won't do it. The system makes too much money and too much power for those who can play the game. Chalmers Johnson has it nailed...the American imperial machine is too calcified, yet serves its manipulators too well to be reformed. You are deluding yourselves. Me, myself, I am going to WRITE A LETTER TO MY CONGRESSMAN. And, maybe a LETTER TO THE EDITOR. That will show them.
The only thing that is going to stop the machine is the very fact that the machine is basically financially and materially bankrupt. Sucks to be us.
Posted by: windy | August 5, 2009 9:35 PM
I still prefer them to the "Oh What Do You Expect It's Only Been X Months" crowd, even if both may be equally useless.
Apparently there has been a 23% increase in private security contractors in Iraq and 29% in Afghanistan recently under Obama.
Posted by: ERIC B | August 5, 2009 10:00 PM
If these allegations are true, and from the multitude of reports to support the claims they must be true, then these people deserve to be euthanized. Isn't that what we do to rabid animals?
I find the constant revelations of more and more corruption of the last administration, their dependence on the bible for every choice, and the distortion of so many facts to be horrendous. However, I have a feeling that nothing will ever happen to these folks. Haliburton, KBR, Bush Administration....they all deserve to be prosecuted for fraud, war crimes, murder, and downright despicable actions. We are a country run by people who do not have the balls to hold those in POWER to the same standards the rest of us middle Americans are held to.
Posted by: Stwriley | August 5, 2009 10:07 PM
KI @ 97
Surrender? That's no more valid than the claim that Nader caused Bush's "victory". Al himself answered this quite definitively in an interview on Fresh Air a few years ago. His response when asked about this by Terry Gross was to make the point that he fought it all the way to a Supreme Court decision and
I think that pretty convincingly answers the "surrender" charge.
Posted by: Michael the little boot | August 5, 2009 10:50 PM
E.V. - Wow. You have a "jump-to-conclusions" problem. I don't go near any boots but mine. I was advocating the reasonable position, not something as simplistic as you mentioned in your knee-jerk post. I also stated while we "all" - you know, that word which means "every one of us, including me" - believe Prince is guilty, we should hold off on passing judgement until it's been pronounced. Innocent until proven guilty doesn't just have to be a black-and-white, court of law thing. It can be an ideal. You know, one of those human things we atheists treasure.
Oops. Didn't mean to assume you were an atheist or anything.
Posted by: Autumn | August 6, 2009 1:00 AM
Well, at least the Bush administration gave us, however unintentionally, the proper terms for dealing with "civilian" outfits like Blackwater, et al.
They are "enemy combatants", and as such, are not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The only other word that describes them is "terrorists".
In either case, I say fuck 'em.
Posted by: ChrisPer | August 6, 2009 4:50 AM
Wow, came over here looking for rational anti-creationist ammo, and instead I find a bunch of unsupported lunatic claims about Bushitler and his eeeeevil minions. You Amerikkkans are crazy!
Posted by: Greg. Tingey | August 6, 2009 5:18 AM
WARNING
Erik Prince is largely a front-man.
Balckwater/Xe are financed and supported by other, very shadowy private individuals both inside and outside the USA.
It is known (I can't say from where - confidential source) that there are such in both the UK and Italy.
As an example: - and NOT, just for once, involved in this can of worms - have you ever heard of Nicholas van Hoogstraten?
As I said he is NOT invovled in this one, but he is a good exemplar of the sort of really nasty pieces of work on the loose.
Prince is a convenient cats-paw, because of his looney xtian beliefs.
The real operators are in it for the money, and only the money.
Posted by: KI | August 6, 2009 8:00 AM
@146
Letting a bunch of Republican operatives shut down the Florida recount with stormtrooper tactics wasn't surrender? Letting Scalia and Thomas (who both had children working in the Bush campaign) vote without recusing themselves for a conflict of interest wasn't surrender? Letting the Republicans get away with lawlessness and criminal behavior is "the law of the land"?
Then violent revolution it is, if that is our only option, as there is no rule of law.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 6, 2009 8:09 AM
You must be unfamiliar with this new fangled service we now have on web pages called "Search".
Posted by: ambulocetus | August 6, 2009 9:35 PM
I'm a tough guy. I used to live out on the streets. I study Martial Arts. I'm not ashamed to say that "Dulce et Decorum est" brought a tear to my eye.
Posted by: Keith Douglas | August 11, 2009 7:41 PM
There's some evidence (which I don't have at hand - I think it might have been on Democracy Now!) that Blackwater/whatever it is called now will stay in Iraq even if the US military pulls out, because it isn't technically part of that. Horrendous, if true. Though, even without that, this company clearly is up to no good.