Blackwater should be shut down and prosecuted

[gonzomax]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/03/news/edblack.php Heres one of many articles describing Blackwaters no -bid contracts. You can google them all night if you want to. It is not a secret. It does not suggest that your contracts in New Mexico are no-bid or that they have any thing to do with Blackwater.

[XT]

I’m sure this won’t help you gonzo, but in case there is anyone reading along who A) Isn’t completely beyond help, and B) actually understands what I DID write, here is a Wiki article on No Bid Contracts (and as a bonus I’m going to demonstrate the quoting feature and how it works with a link to illustrate the points I want the readers to get out of the link I’m including):

No-bid contract is a popular term for what is officially known as a “sole source contract.” A sole source contract implies that there is only one person or company that can provide the contractual services needed and that any attempt to obtain bids would only result in one person or company being available to meet the need. [1] It is awarded usually, but not always, by a government after soliciting and negotiating with only one firm (see 48 CFR § 2.101). These contracts can be negotiated much more quickly than a typical competitive contract but they are often fraught with suspicion that the company used illegal or immoral means to exclude competitors (usually cronyism or bribery). Nevertheless, U.S. law permits the government to award sole source contracts under specified circumstances (48 CFR Ch. 1, Part 6) but no-bid contracts are illegal under European Union commissioning law.[citation needed]

Urgency is often the rationale for sole source contracts, and cost uncertainty the rationale for cost-plus contracts. They permit the government to get contractors working as quickly as possible. While competitive contracts have been awarded in very short times, such speedy procurements are not easily done and are thus relatively unusual.

Legal reasons for sole source contracts include:

1. only one firm has a product that will meet the projects needs or only one firm can do the work;
2. the existence of an unusual and compelling urgency;
3. for purposes of industrial mobilization or expert services;
4. an international agreement;
5. sole source is authorized or required by law, e.g., socio-economic programs;
6. national security; and
7. the public interest.

Use of such authorities requires written justification and approval at specified levels. See 48 CFR Ch. 1, Subpart 6.3.

If one actually looks into Blackwater’s contracts one is going to find that they meet one of the reasons listed above for why they received their contract no-bid (just like the infamous Halliburton). If they don’t meet one of those criteria then they and the COTR who issued the contract can potentially be prosecuted. Since I don’t feel like grinding through the actual contracts I will simply say this…Obama is president now. That should mean these no-bid contracts will be voided, and if there was foul play involved than we should see some prosecutions, yes? I will hold my breath for them…to be sure.

If you actually follow the Wiki link under the section I quoted above there is a section (with links) that goes into criticism of the Bush administration with several links to controversial no-bid contracts. I would not be surprised if some of those were in fact shady to say the least. However, contrary to the left wing rantage that has gone on about this subject for the last 7+ years the Bush administration isn’t the only one to award no-bid contracts (and in fact the administration doesn’t actually award contracts at all, not directly), nor is this some kind of new thing. There ARE good reasons for no-bid contracts…and not just in New Mexico.

-XT

[gonzomax]

http://dpc.senate.gov/dpc-new2.cfm?doc_name=inv2 Iraq is the home of fleecing the tax payers. The no bid contracts are famous not just for who, got them but for what was delivered. This is not new. Prosecution is a joke. There has to be a will to do so. This admin has had little interest in oversight and prosecution.

[XT]

It’s not widely known yet…keep it too yourself ehe? But…Bush is out in a couple of weeks and there is a new sheriff in town named Barack Obama. I’m sure you haven’t heard of him but he’s a Democrat…that’s the party that currently also controls the House and Senate as well in case you missed that.

I know all of this is going to be coming at you rather fast (there has been a small Change™ while you weren’t paying attention)…but try and keep up with current events, ehe?

-XT

[Snowboarder_Bo]

New information: cite

Though drugs were not involved in the Blackwater shooting, the Justice Department is pondering the use of a law, passed at the height of the nation’s crack epidemic, to prosecute the guards. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 law calls for 30-year prison terms for using machine guns to commit violent crimes of any kind, whether drug-related or not.

[sailor]

@Sinaijon

If you are in a hostile area, and get involved in a gunfight, and take cover. Would you rather people be able to pinpoint exactly where you were every time you fire, or would you rather be able to keep your hiding spot?

Why do you think they shouldn’t they have them? Is it unfair or something?

If you are in a war area, not in any organized military, not wearing uniform, not subject to military chain of command, not subject to military law… well, you are the very personification of an “illegal combatatant” about which we have heard so much lately. The worst of the worst. Guantanamo is too good for you.

[mswas]

@sailor

If you are in a war area, not in any organized military, not wearing uniform, not subject to military chain of command, not subject to military law… well, you are the very personification of an “illegal combatatant” about which we have heard so much lately. The worst of the worst. Guantanamo is too good for you.

I see, it’s not ok to lock up Muslim Terrorists, but it’s too good for Western Mercenaries. :rolleyes:

[Grumman]

@sailor

If you are in a war area, not in any organized military, not wearing uniform, not subject to military chain of command, not subject to military law… well, you are the very personification of an “illegal combatatant” about which we have heard so much lately. The worst of the worst. Guantanamo is too good for you.

I think you missed some rather important attributes there, Sailor. If you’re going to suggest that locking people up without trial is “too good for them”, you might want to specify what you think they’re doing wrong.

[sailor]

@mswas

I see, it’s not ok to lock up Muslim Terrorists, but it’s too good for Western Mercenaries. :rolleyes:

You missed the intention of my post which was paraphrasing Bush’s government.

I believe they deserve a fair trial followed by years in Iraqi prisons.

[Skylark]

@BrainGlutton

Good question. In Iraq, they have immunity.

According to the new Status of Forces/Withdrawal Agreement the Iraqi Parliament approved on (US) Thanksgiving, civilian contractors will not have immunity.

@BrainGlutton

It’s just that I don’t recall seeing any Ugandans in news footage from Iraq.

They’re there. Very polite, cool top-notch guys.

[BrainGlutton]

While we’re at it, let’s prosecute KBR.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

I’m all in for an investigation into illegal shenanigans by KBR.

For now, tho, we can talk about the indictments of 5 Blackwater personnel.

Five Blackwater Guards To Face Massacre Charges Next Week

Five Blackwater guards have been told to surrender to the FBI by Monday to face federal manslaughter and assault charges connected to the shooting deaths of 17 civilians at an traffic circle in Iraq last year, ABC News has learned.

Other investigations focused on Blackwater and not just on individuals in their employ are still on-going.

[Snowboarder_Bo]

There’s also this:

Blackwater Machine Gun Found in Raid on Iraqi Insurgents

An M4 machine gun sent to Iraq by the Blackwater private security firm somehow disappeared from the company’s storage facility in Baghdad and was later discovered during a US military operation, apparently against suspected insurgents, people familiar with the situation have told ABC News.

Blackwater apparently had no idea the machine gun had gone missing and possibly ended up in the hands of insurgents fighting US troops, according to documents reviewed by ABC News.

In a statement, Blackwater said “equipment has been stolen by insurgents” in some instances, but that “every loss has been reported to the relevant U.S. authorities.”

But that was not the case with the M4, according to internal documents.

Blackwater’s inventory records showed no transfer of the weapon after it arrived in Baghdad, and it was listed as still in the weapons pool.

[Alessan]

@EJsGirl

ETA- my beef is with calling them “mercenaries.” Call 'em something else- assholes, if you like.

How about Condottieri? It actually means “contractor” in Italian.

[PastTense]

Bumping this older thread (justice is finally being done for some of these atrocities):

A US federal jury has found four Blackwater security guards guilty of killing 14 Iraqis in a square in Baghdad in 2007.

One former guard was found guilty of murder with three others guilty of voluntary manslaughter.

Iraq Blackwater: US jury convicts four of 2007 killings

Here is the Wikipedia article:

Nisour Square massacre