Archive - Apr 5, 2008 - topic

Date
Type
Blackwater
The Associated Press

A Blackwater employee participates in a firefight near Najaf in 2004.

Featured Topic | Posted 32 weeks 3 days ago

Should Blackwater's contract in Iraq be renewed?

Amid investigations into fatal shootings of civilians and allegations of tax violations, Blackwater USA's multimillion-dollar contract to protect diplomats in Baghdad has been renewed, the State Department said Friday. The announcement came as U.S. officials said they'd charged another civilian contractor in a stabbing, the first time a contractor has faced charges in Iraq. Should the U.S. continue to use civilian contractors in Iraq?

Read More

Ben likes: Hot water for Blackwater

Mark Corallo/National Review

The men of Blackwater were true patriots, heroes who volunteered to go into harm’s way to protect the lives of American diplomats and elected officials, some of whom were attacking the very company that kept them safe overseas. Yet because the antiwar Left (most vocally supported by liberal Democrats in the House and Senate) wanted to score political points, they constantly accused Blackwater of being unaccountable and above the law. Nothing, I said, was further from the truth, and these so-called legislators should be ashamed of themselves for being ignorant of the statutes governing the conduct of security contractors overseas.

Blackwater is a great company that protects Americans in hostile environments. They haven’t lost a single one of the Americans in their care, despite suffering over 30 deaths and countless injuries. They are maligned daily for doing exactly what their government has asked them to do, and they do it better than anyone else in the business.

Read More

Joel likes: How not to use contractors

Michael Cohen/Democracy Arsenal

Part of the reason the Nisour Square incident created such a furor is because this was not the first time that Blackwater guards were accused of indiscriminately discharging their weapons against civilians. The Iraqi government has repeatedly complained about BW guards and yet here is the State Department blithely ignoring these complaints and rehiring these guys. It's sort of hard to believe that these guys are in the diplomacy business.

What is so aggravating about this is that many of folks who see benefit in using private contractors (or at least have accepted it as a reality of 21st century war fighting) have been for years calling for increased government oversight and enhanced accountability for  groups like Blackwater. In recent months, we've seen real progress on this front, particularly from the Pentagon, which has finally codified the application of the Uniform Code of Military Justice to PSCs. In addition, there is legislation on the Hill to create better legal frameworks for holding contractors accountable. And yet, here we have State thumbing its nose at these efforts and hiring the same bad actors who have given the industry, and practice, such a bad name.

Read More

How readers are voting

average
vote
Ship-based anti-ballistic missile
The Associated Press

Missile away!

Featured Topic | Posted 32 weeks 4 days ago

NATO endorses U.S. missile defense plan: Provocative or essential?

President Bush advanced his plans this week to build a controversial missile defense system in Eastern Europe by winning the unanimous backing of NATO allies and sealing a deal with the Czech Republic to build a radar facility for the system on its soil.

Read More

Ben likes: 'Nyet' To NATO

Investor's Business Daily

NATO endorses President Bush's plan for missile defense in Europe despite Russia's objections. A nervous Europe goes along. For Moscow, this is a case of deja vu all over again. If you saw the headline, "Russia to U.S.: Drop Missile Defense," you'd be forgiven if you thought someone had left a 1986 newspaper laying around. That's what former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev said to President Ronald Reagan when they met in Reykjavik, Iceland in October 1986. Gorbachev, like Putin today, demanded we drop SDI. Reagan refused.

Bush, even hampered by a Democratic Congress, is making missile defense a reality. We shudder at the prospect of a President Obama scrapping Reagan's dream in favor of his "aggressive personal diplomacy" with Tehran and Moscow. A President Obama would have supported the nuclear freeze and lost the Cold War.

A President McCain, however, would carry on Reagan's grand strategy in dealing with America's enemies -- we win, they lose. 

Read More

Joel likes: Shooting for the stars

Center for American Progress

These programs have grown increasingly obsolete since the end of the Cold War. Why? Because there is no imminent, new ballistic missile threat.

The threat from a North Korean or Iranian long-range missile is still largely hypothetical. These missiles still garner a large share of the attention from policy makers, even though they constitute only one -- and the most difficult -- way to deliver nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. 

Read More

How readers are voting

your vote
average
vote