It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Security Contractors in Iraq Under Scrutiny After Shootings

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
"These guys run loose in this country and do stupid stuff. There's no authority over them, so you can't come down on them hard when they escalate force," said Brig. Gen. Karl R. Horst, deputy commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, which is responsible for security in and around Baghdad. "They shoot people, and someone else has to deal with the aftermath. It happens all over the place."



Ismael, his older brother Bayez and their driver had just pulled into traffic behind a convoy of four Chevrolet Suburbans, which police believe belonged to an American security contractor stationed nearby. The back door of the last vehicle swung open, the brothers said in interviews, and a man wearing sunglasses and a tan flak jacket leaned out and leveled his rifle.

"I thought he was just trying to scare us, like they usually do, to keep us back. But then he fired," said Ismael, 20. His scalp was still marked by a bald patch and four-inch purple scar from a bullet that grazed his head and left him bleeding in the back seat of his Toyota Land Cruiser.

Private security companies pervade Iraq's dusty highways, their distinctive sport-utility vehicles packed with men waving rifles to clear traffic in their path. Theirs are among the most dangerous jobs in the country: escorting convoys, guarding dignitaries and protecting infrastructure from insurgent attacks. But their activities have drawn scrutiny both here and in Washington after allegations of indiscriminate shootings and other recklessness have given rise to charges of inadequate oversight.

Employees of private security firms are immune from prosecution in Iraq, under an order adopted into law last year by Iraq's interim government. The most severe punishment that can be applied to them is revocation of their license and dismissal from their job, U.S. officials said. Their heavy presence stems in large part from the Pentagon's attempts to keep troop numbers down by privatizing jobs that would once have been performed by American forces.

There are now at least 36 foreign security companies - most from the United States and Britain - and 16 Iraqi firms registered to operate here, according to the Interior Ministry, and as many as 50 more are believed to have set up shop illegally. Their total workforce is estimated at 25,000; many are military veterans, though levels of experience vary. As of December, contracts to provide security for U.S. government agencies and reconstruction firms in Iraq had surpassed $766 million, according to a recent Government Accountability Office report.

Source:
Washington Post

I wonder how many Incidents occoured involving these Private Security Contractors - in short Mercenaries.

Their actions give a bad name to the entire Coalition presence in Iraq, and with their "Above the Law" immunity, nobody can really charge them with anything. They are Untouchable and "Runnin' Loose".

Now its the time to ask ourselves - aren't they as Dangerous as the Insurgents that they are fighting against?

While many security companies perform military-style tasks, often on behalf of the U.S. government, they are not under the armed services' command. In response to a congressional request for more information on oversight of security contractors, the Pentagon said the military's relationship with them was "one of coordination, not control."

Not Control?

So is Pentagon trying to say that they are really Running Wild and doing whatever they want?

I remember CSC/DynCore also "Runnin' out of control" in Bosnia, doing some sex trafficking, gun smugling, raping and torture. That makes them Terrorists by the International Laws.

I wonder how many "terrorist" actions were actually performed by the Private Security Contractors in Iraq - and then blamed on Insurgents.

Check this:



The shooting of Ismael in Irbil came six weeks later. Police said the convoy of Suburbans quickly proceeded from the scene to a base operated by the U.S. Agency for International Development that is guarded by DynCorp International, an American firm.

An investigation by U.S. officials concluded that "the evidence clearly indicates the vehicle was fired on from the rear by an as yet unknown party and not from the front by the" security company, according to a July 15 report filed with Kurdish security officials.

The report offered "working theories" to explain the shooting, including the possibility that it resulted from an insurgent ambush in which the Ismaels' Land Cruiser was simply "in the wrong place at the wrong time," or an attempt to assassinate Bayez Ismael, a Kurdistan Democratic Party official.

Abdullah Ali, director of the Irbil security police, called the U.S. report "three pages of lies to try to cover up that their company was involved."

"We looked at all the evidence," he continued. "Witnesses only saw a shot from the front. And we found his hair and blood towards the back window, which supports that. We are 1 million percent sure."

In an e-mail response to questions, DynCorp spokesman Gregory Lagana pointed to the embassy investigation. "We have confirmed that our people in the Irbil area did not leave their compound that day," he wrote.

Interesting no?

The Local Iraqi DIRECTOR of Police claims and is One Million Percent Sure that DynCorp private security contractors shot and killed Ismael - but apprently they are Above the Laws and nobody is going to answer for those crimes. Instead they are publishing, three pages of lies to try to cover up that their company was involved."

And the Man that killed Ismael will Maybe get Fired, because that is the most severe punishment that he can receive in his so-called "line of duty".

Such Hypochrisy...




posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I got hand it to ya souljah. You always put the slightest bit of argument among the interesting threads you start. Do you start off your threads with the intent of hiding the little bit of info that will cause some discussion? Fair play to you if that is what you aim for.

I pulled this one out from the start.


I wonder how many Incidents occoured involving these Private Security Contractors - in short Mercenaries.


I have to ask this question because i think you put it there to start a debate


A private security contractor is just that. They are not mercenaries. You of all people, going by some of your previous posts should know that.



posted on Sep, 10 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I'm not too surprised at this. While I was there, Black Water had a few incidents inwhich it was unclear if they had done the right thing or not. I'm curious to see where this leads. I doubt there will be any for-sure answers about it.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I have to ask this question because i think you put it there to start a debate


A private security contractor is just that. They are not mercenaries. You of all people, going by some of your previous posts should know that.

You are very observant Eddie.


Let's check what a "Mercenary" is:



In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:

Art 47. Mercenaries

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.


It should be noted that many countries including the U.S. are not signatory to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77). So although it is the mostly widely accepted, it is not definitive.

Source:
en.wikipedia.org...

Private Contractor in a more Civil word for a Security Force that operates in Iraq and answers to nobody.

Let's check what Wikipedia says about Private Security Contractors:



Private military contractors or private military companies (PMCs) are companies that provide logistics, manpower, and other expenditures for a military force; when involved with logistics, companies may be described more generally as defense contractors. Contractors are civilians authorized to accompany a force in the field and, generally, cannot be the intentional object of military attack (1949 Geneva Conventions). Contractors cannot be engaged in direct support of military operations; otherwise, they may be targeted. Some critics consider private military contractors to be mercenaries legitimizing their trade behind the veil of a corporate entity.

Problem arises when talking about Control over these Contractors.

Remember the Preatorian Guard of Roman Empire?



In theory, private contracting creates competitive pressure to reduce costs, but in practice the bidding process can be so opaque and distorted by favoritism that it becomes an empty formality... The financial savings have turned out to be highly debatable. The costs and attendant risks are not. The government's monopoly of violence -- its role as the guarantor of civil peace and the rule of law -- has been diluted by the new arrangements.

He also argues that we should not take false security for the fact that these contractors have so far stayed obediently in their assigned roles, writing, "[T]he praetorian guard protected the Roman emperors for a long time before it started killing them."

If they don't follow orders in general, who is going to guarnatee that they are not going to start killing the very men that hired them?

Trust them not!



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Bikereddie
I have to ask this question because i think you put it there to start a debate


A private security contractor is just that. They are not mercenaries. You of all people, going by some of your previous posts should know that.

You are very observant Eddie.



Thanks for that





Some critics consider private military contractors to be mercenaries legitimizing their trade behind the veil of a corporate entity.


I think the words some critics says it all.

Anyways, lets not get into the mercenary thing again. We covered that one ages ago. Hell of a thread if i remember too.



posted on Sep, 11 2005 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Curious about something here. Anyone know how mercenaries work. By this I mean if mercenaries were turned loose carte blanche to do what they are trained to do. Anyone really know.
Then contrast this with how security companys work??? Kinda curious as to what the difference is???

I must have a different idea of a security company verses actual mercenaries trained to take over a country or area. I realize that both of them work for money. Even a nations soldiers work for money/pay.

I am mostly curious as to what the outcome would be if they turned mercenaries loose in these areas where they are having problems in Iraq. Anyone know????

Thanks,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join