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.

 

Federal Judge Allows Blackwater To Open San Diego Facility

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 08:52 AM
link   
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
 



Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
How would their safety be taken properly into consideration if the city council was mislead into believing this was just a regular indoor range?

The city council alleges it was mislead. Apparently the judge found differently.


Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

And do they let you fire through the walls and roof where you shoot?


Silly question.




posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:01 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
In my mind there's a huge difference between using civilian software experts to train soldiers in the use of a particular company's systems and using a "civilian paramilitary contractor" (which shouldn't even be allowed to exist IMO)


This is the sum of your entire problem. You object to the very existence of Blackwater. You are biased and prejudiced. You would never be allowed to sit on a jury in a case involving them.

Unfortunately, your dislike is irrelevant. Blackwater is a legal entity. This is a case about their rights as a legal, private entity. You don't want to discuss that. Your objections belong in another thread.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
But, it's not a building. This isn't just an "indoor firing range". It's a group of thin-walled metal shipping containers combined to create a close-combat simulation. Bullets will go right through that stuff.

Prove it. Prove that this is just not hysteria and fear on your part. Show me the specs of the buildings.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why did they have to put that within San Diego city limits?


This is America, for your information. They did it because they could.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
In my mind there's a huge difference between using civilian software experts to train soldiers in the use of a particular company's systems and using a "civilian paramilitary contractor" (which shouldn't even be allowed to exist IMO)


This is the sum of your entire problem. You object to the very existence of Blackwater. You are biased and prejudiced. You would never be allowed to sit on a jury in a case involving them.


So what? I don't have to be impartial. As a concerned American, I have a right to voice an opinion that frankly, many, many other Americans share.

And, your statement is a complete and total deflection. You dodge my questions with meaningless rhetoric about my bias.


Unfortunately, your dislike is irrelevant. Blackwater is a legal entity. This is a case about their rights as a legal, private entity. You don't want to discuss that.


Yes, I absolutely do. But, ANY discussion of their "rights as a legal private entity" must, due to the nature of their business, include a discussion about the legitimacy of their intentions--and that requires a serious look at just how "legal" they are. We're not talking about a construction company here--we're talking about mercenaries, hired killers, who have acted as a proxy for US military forces abroad, have been implicated in incidents that would result in swift and brutal discipline had they been sworn members of the standing military, and have not been called to task for those incidents.

There is a pattern forming around Blackwater of using political influence to both evade accountability and to overstep the authority of local governments in getting what they want. The fact that they are a mercenary outfit, something many Americans believe to be inherently un-American, makes this decision even more controversial. If they were a software company I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they aren't, are they? My objections are 100% relevant in the context of this discussion or ANY discussion about Blackwater.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
But, it's not a building. This isn't just an "indoor firing range". It's a group of thin-walled metal shipping containers combined to create a close-combat simulation. Bullets will go right through that stuff.

Prove it. Prove that this is just not hysteria and fear on your part. Show me the specs of the buildings.


I don't have to show you squat. Read the article snippet again:


AP News
The city responded that the company misled officials about the nature of the center, which includes a multilevel mock ship built out of cargo containers, to avoid triggering a full review by the city planning commission and a possible City Council vote.

...

It said Blackwater's plan to use the warehouse for "paramilitary training" makes it different from other firing ranges. Sailors would move around the mock ship with firearms instead of remaining stationary, as at an indoor firing range.


Cargo containers are not bulletproof. If you've ever lived next to a railroad you'd know--they ship them by train all the time, and the metal forming their "skin" is pretty thin. Also, I would surmise that since this is to be used to close-combat simulation, the walls COULD NOT be bulletproof due to the danger of ricochets in close quarters. That's why such facilities, as seen often on TV such as "Future Weapons" in Discovery Channel, are built in the country to minimize civilian risk.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Why did they have to put that within San Diego city limits?


This is America, for your information. They did it because they could.

That's funny--I thought local governments had rights too, such as the right to deny individuals and companies from engaging in activities that pose a clear public risk.

Here in Chicago I can't own a gun. I cannot buy guns outside the city legally and bring them home. I also cannot build a firing range.

Chicago is in America.

Thus far, the Supreme Court has yet to issue a final verdict on whether my freedom to own a gun is outweighed by the city's need to protect its citizens from violence. Until they do so, and unless they decide Chicago's gun ban is un-Constitutional, the ban stands.

Yes, legal, private entities have rights.

But, they ALSO have regulations to follow, and some "rights" have been and can be restricted (thus far) if the exercise thereof puts the public at serious risk.

At least, that's what Bush tells us about warrantless wiretapping and the Patriot Act, and I know from your previous posts you support THAT.

So are the rights of legal, private entities (which technically ALL American citizens, as individuals, are) absolute, or aren't they?

[edit on 6/5/2008 by The Nighthawk]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
So what? I don't have to be impartial. As a concerned American, I have a right to voice an opinion that frankly, many, many other Americans share.


Well then, go make your little cardboard sign and protest in front of the facility.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
And, your statement is a complete and total deflection. You dodge my questions with meaningless rhetoric about my bias.


I don't care about your questions. They are irrelevant. You cannot seperate your emotions from reality. Talk to an analyst about your fears. If you want to discuss the issue at hand, then I'd be happy to.


Originally posted by The Nighthawk

Unfortunately, your dislike is irrelevant. Blackwater is a legal entity. This is a case about their rights as a legal, private entity. You don't want to discuss that.


Yes, I absolutely do. But, ANY discussion of their "rights as a legal private entity" must, due to the nature of their business, include a discussion about the legitimacy of their intentions--and that requires a serious look at just how "legal" they are. We're not talking about a construction company here--we're talking about mercenaries, hired killers, who have acted as a proxy for US military forces abroad, have been implicated in incidents that would result in swift and brutal discipline had they been sworn members of the standing military, and have not been called to task for those incidents.

There is a pattern forming around Blackwater of using political influence to both evade accountability and to overstep the authority of local governments in getting what they want. The fact that they are a mercenary outfit, something many Americans believe to be inherently un-American, makes this decision even more controversial. If they were a software company I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they aren't, are they? My objections are 100% relevant in the context of this discussion or ANY discussion about Blackwater.



Once again, your own bias is all you have as an objection. Anything you say about BW being "hired killers" can be applied to abortion clinics, which you support, no doubt.

Do you object to Wackenhut or Brinks?







Originally posted by The Nighthawk
But, it's not a building. This isn't just an "indoor firing range". It's a group of thin-walled metal shipping containers combined to create a close-combat simulation. Bullets will go right through that stuff.


Prove it. Prove that this is just not hysteria and fear on your part. Show me the specs of the buildings.


I don't have to show you squat. Read the article snippet again:



No you don't. You can just sit there and make hysterical claims and look like a fool.

It is obvious that you are either very naive or inexperienced. You cannot be this foolish. Can you?



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
Cargo containers are not bulletproof. If you've ever lived next to a railroad you'd know--they ship them by train all the time, and the metal forming their "skin" is pretty thin.


Really? Ever try to shoot through a coal car? I lived next to RR's most of my early life.

And I suspect that they are using sea containers. Some of those are reinforced with diamond plate. Put a bullet through that, go ahead.

Besides, the containers themselves need not be bulletproof. Only certain of the facility walls might be.

Regardless. I'm sure the engineers designed it adequately. You're not capable of discussing the subject anyway, since you don't have the specs.



Originally posted by The Nighthawk
That's funny--I thought local governments had rights too, such as the right to deny individuals and companies from engaging in activities that pose a clear public risk.

Of course they do. Prove that this project poses a clear public risk.

Read the article. The City Council is merely reacting to political pressure in the shadow of an upcoming election. That's all this is.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


There's no point debating with you. All you EVER do is deflect my questions and insult me. I've alerted the mods and you're on permanent ignore.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Private company or not, we don't want them here. Perhaps I'm generalizing but I personally don't want a "company" which can do anything without being able to be brought to justice. They killed Iraqi civilians and they can't be brought to court either here or in Iraq? That's too shady for me.
so, as a San Diegan I have the right to say, go build your stupid training center somewhere else Blackwater, I don't want you here.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 02:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Daedalus24
 



Originally posted by Daedalus24
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Private company or not, we don't want them here. Perhaps I'm generalizing but I personally don't want a "company" which can do anything without being able to be brought to justice. They killed Iraqi civilians and they can't be brought to court either here or in Iraq? That's too shady for me.
so, as a San Diegan I have the right to say, go build your stupid training center somewhere else Blackwater, I don't want you here.


Sure, you have the right to say *you* don't want them there. You don't speak for all San Diegans. The more important point is, if they obey the rules and regulations, you can't stop them.

And please, stop dramatizing and fabricating stories about Blackwater's supposed immunity from prosecution. You and others. State the case the way it really is: Blackwater as a corporation will probably face no charges, but Blackwater employees involved in the incident may still face criminal charges. The investigation continues.

That sounds reasonable to me.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Despite having their license revoked by the Iraqi government, and being banned from operating in the country all together, Blackwater USA is continuing operations in Baghdad and has refused to pull its operatives out of Iraq.

Even if San Diego rejects them from operating within the city, what makes anyone think they will comply?



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Come to San Diego and ask around, I think you'll find almost nobody here wants Blackwater, and this is hardly what I'd call an anit-military city - Berkely we definitely aren't.

Private armies should be banned. Doubly so when they have a political agenda, which Blackwater clearly does.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 10:59 PM
link   
All of you do realize that the Naval Special Warfare Center is located in Coronado, California not far from San Diego. I think that should answer why it is where it is. I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of Blackwater. I will say that the vast majority of Blackwater's employees are former military and law enforcement personel. These are men who are generally the best at what they do. By hiring these contractors it allows our military to shrink the size of our 'institutional " forces and allows us as a nation to have more boots on the ground as part of our "operational" forces.



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


Excellent point. The people do not want freedom, they want a scapegoat. And why take a closer look at our problems when we can just all cry about the military industrial complex and the "evil" companies like blackwater? Its just so much simpler to demonize. No need for thought, just accuse them of everything and rant about it.

So many people only want "freedom" when the use of that freedom agrees with their narrow, biased ideology and worldview.

FREEEEEDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMM.....but not for blackwater, George Bush, the conservatives, or anyone else I personally don't like.

The hypocrites on this board amaze me


[edit on 5-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Whether you want Blackwater or not...the gross attendance of operators are pooled from the spec forces community , not just the SEALS. They generally only hire seasoned spec ops operators to be a part. I know a few spec ops people and I can say without a shadown of a doubt that these caliber of men AND women DO NOT take their role as weapons lightly ,whether gov't owned or privately contracted. These people ARE NOT MERCS like you see in a game....have some of them overstepped thier bounds? yes...should they be punished...yes...but don't lump the entire community into a Blackwater Hoopteedoo.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Oh please, if Ted Turner or George Soros or some other wealthy leftish type were to start building a private military corporation, rightwingers would be screaming bloody murder, "treason!!" and the like.

But a private army, loyal to the far right, sounds perfect to you guys.

I wonder what will happen if the right gets trounced this election?

Is that what Blackwater is for?



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by xmotex
 


Mercs have been used since the days of Samurai. . These operators are usually used as security or operational support for HVT's. So becuase they are EX SPEC OPS MEMBERS, you are saying they are unadulterated murderers?...get your facts straight before you post. I am NOT playing the "lets honor our military card" here, but dammit man do some research OUTSIDE conspiracy websites.


[edit on 6-6-2008 by djvexd]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Let's see...they are a legal, private company. They have broken no laws.

Why shouldn't they be able to operate in San Diego?

Just because you don't like them is not reason enough to keep them out, now is it?

Actually, the city has a right to decide what businesses can and can't operate in their city limits. If Blackwater misrepresented its operations there, the city of San Diego has every right to deny them the contract. I don't see where the federal judge had the right to overrule that decision, unless it was politically motivated.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by scarlett1125
 


By that thought I can't see WHY the legislature can ban a legal enterprise from setting up a facility in a ZONED area, for OTHER than POLITICAL REASONS. Blackwater, especially as of late, has NOT MISREPRESNTED their presence there. It was meant as a training facility and was pitched as such.

[edit on 6-6-2008 by djvexd]



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by The Nighthawk
 


Not to get into it, but unless you served, then you really don't understand the nature or intention of the specific training we do. No offense.



posted on Jun, 6 2008 @ 03:16 AM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


I agree......who cares if they train in San Diego. Blackwater is a gov contractor.




top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join