Blackwater's Bu$ine$$

Blackwater's Bu$ine$$

www.truthout.org

Gunning down seventeen Iraqi civilians in an incident the military has labeled "criminal." Multiple Congressional investigations. A federal grand jury. Allegations of illegal arms smuggling. Wrongful death lawsuits brought by families of dead employees and US soldiers. A federal lawsuit alleging war crimes. Charges of steroid use by trigger-happy mercenaries. Allegations of "significant tax evasion." The US-installed government in Iraq labeling its forces "murderers." With a new scandal breaking practically every day, one would think Blackwater security would be on the ropes, facing a corporate meltdown or even a total wipeout. But it seems that business for the company has never been better, as it continues to pull in major federal contracts. And its public demeanor grows bolder and cockier by the day.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Erik Prince, BlackWater founder, information?
State Dept. Inspector-General bows out of Blackwater probe
Iraq: Blackwater staff will face criminal charges
The private army in our backyard, Blackwater USA, Tool of the Neocons's?

Rather than hiding out and hoping for the scandals to fade, the Bush Administration's preferred mercenary company has launched a major rebranding campaign, changing its name to Blackwater Worldwide.

You know, Blackwater is a true success story from a Wall St. point of view, so you cannot really blame them of taken advantage of seventeen accidentally killed natives.. .. or wait a minute..

Could it be a deliberate action to kick off a campaign to show it in all it's raw testorone power?

"We see the security market [in Iraq] diminishing," Prince told the Wall Street Journal in October.

Blackwater is ready to go worldwide with a wide range of services offered.

If I were a cold cynic war monger I'd definitely buy their shares.

Blackwater has not only made big money in Iraq (about $1 billion in State Department contracts); it has secured a reputation as a company that keeps US officials alive by any means necessary. The dirty open secret in Washington is that Blackwater has done its job in Iraq, even if it has done so by valuing the lives of Iraqis much lower than those of US VIPs. That badass image will serve it well as it expands globally.

www.truthout.org
(visit the link for the full news article)

tax dollars being used to finance a private army hmmmmmmm. right in front of everyone's eyes and no one is doing a thing about it.

they are sanctioned by the government so you know they are going to be able to snap up any cutting edge weaponry they want without any hassle(by passing any safety restrictions lol).

the US government have been financing other countries private armies for decades(and this has always come back to bite them in the butt). now they have their own lol, that is going international and will work for the highest bidder.

now these guys don't have to follow any rules cause there isn't gonna be any documentation of operations other than how much money was transferred where lol.

i can see a lot more media persons disappearances being blamed on insurgents while tagging along in theater to keep unwanted coverage of questionable ops to a minimum.

Blackwater's soldiers are just a new version of the Storm Troopers of days past.
Answer to noone, accomplish your order regardless of method.

As stated above no accountability through the channels other than $ spent, if that. Well trained hit squads, liquidation officers, and of course public recon. All nicely wrapped up in a blanket of immunity.

reply to post by howie0


What am I missing?

Since when am I responsible for paying a private company employee to ensure the safety of a private sector civilian?

Recently, while watching Bill Maher's show "Real Time", the subject of Blackwater came up. Tucker Carlson was on the panel and suggested that without Blackwater mercenaries, the New York Times Bureau would go unprotected, as well as other news agencies reporting on the situation in Iraq. Yeah…so…what's his point? I agree… it is imperative to protect news reporters in war zones.. But at whose expense? The taxpayers??? I think not…Last I checked, the New York Times wasn't a part of our form of government. Our government stands on principles such as freedom of the press and freedom of religion but it should not be paying for their protection. They are protected, in principle, under the constitution…Their existence, however, should be protected by their employer.

We live in a capitalistic society. Simple supply and demand economics are the foundation of our financial, religious and political freedoms. So, if the New York Times wants to report on the war, outside of military operations in which they would be protected by soldiers funded by taxpayers, then let them pay their own way. Let the New York Times decide if it's a good business decision. If , in order to pay for their reporter's protection, the New York Times has to raise the price of its paper, then raise prices. If their customers care about what they are reporting they will pay the going rate. If not, then I guess the New York Times should do a better job at finding out what their consumers want.

Now, I know what you are going to say. If we don't protect our private journalists, the government would go unchecked in its reporting of volatile war situations and events. Again, yeah, so what? If the people of this country REALLY care about what's going on, then they will be willing to make a conscious decision that involves a high financial price for unprejudiced truth, rather than the filtered, biased, relayed news, received through journalists protected by their government mandated tax dollars, at a cost of 50 cents - $1.50 per newspaper. If the media outlets had to protect their own employees it would be financially rewarding for the media to report the "real truth", rather than what their protector want's them to report .

The constitution of the United States does not guarantee different views or different reporting, it guarantees the possibility of different views or reporting. The economic laws of capitalism will determine the outcome. By protecting the journalists with taxpayers money, we ensure ourselves of a product with prejudice. Ever wonder why the press is so protective of the administration? "Don't bite the hand that feeds you", comes to mind. In this instance, the "hand" refers to the government. If the government is protecting the journalists so that they can do their job, why would the journalist or the editor of the newspaper in question report truly unbiased, unflattering images of the situation? They wouldn't. Instead, we routinely get watered down images of the truth.

This brings me to an ironic conclusion. The capitalistic approach to separation of government and free press, that I mentioned earlier, created this problem. Capitalism is our vice, but we, the consumers, are to blame. Our thirst for a better society, our thirst for a better life, our thirst for spiritual enlightenment has been quenched by success. We are spoiled little brats, getting fat, living off the success and wealth of our ancestors.

In our eyes, we reached the pinnacle of the civilization poll. In our eyes, we are #1. The only thing we forgot is that it is an opinion poll. There are many ways to live this life, there are many ways to make a society prosper, and there are many ways to reach enlightenment. The great philosopher Socrates once said, "an unevaluated life is not worth living.", yet we Americans represent a country whose choices of intellectual consumption, spirituality, and foreign policy reflects the moral compass of teenager who already knows everything, and whose unhappy having to live by the rules of the elders from which they came. We as consumers hold the skeleton key to the door of a morality. We vote constantly throughout our day. Take the time to evaluate your vices. Take the time to realize that with every decision you make, of every day of your life, you are casting your vote on what kind of world you want to live in.
REMEMBER…..

The world we live in was here long before us, and it will remain here long after we are gone. There is nothing wrong with admitting one's mortality, but there is everything wrong with failing to protect the immortality of human life as WE know it.


[edit: spaced paragraphs]

[edit on 24-1-2008 by 12m8keall2c]

Kudos! goodtogo,

..never seen such great debut post, many more applauds.

I like your analyse of our late capitalistic society.

And of course thank you for bringing this thread out of the darkness of the depth.

Let me take the opportunity to link another thread on a Blackwater incident.
2005 Use of Gas (for traffic control) by Blackwater Leaves Questions