If you didn't want them to kill anyone, why did you hire them and give them guns?

Calling them scum is insulting to single cell organisms.

Just call them Republicans or 'tea partiers' and be done with it. (Apologies to Alice and the White Rabbit.)

The last case against Blackwater employees was completely dismissed due to serious prosecutorial misconduct. Call them scum if you like, these are likely to have the same outcome. But some fucknut know-nothing can always come up with a silly headline.

But some fucknut know-nothing can always come up with an excuse to let them get away with it

#3 | Posted by SpokaneJim

Fixed It For You-No Charge!

Spokane is a shithole. Go fuck yourself, Jimmah.

Spokane is a shithole.

What a child. You don't have a rebuttal so you say, "your city sucks". You sound like that child in California, dullifidian. He's on drugs. What's your excuse?

The last case against Blackwater employees was completely dismissed due to serious prosecutorial misconduct.

Basically they admitted that they had slaughtered 17 innocent civilians in downtown Baghdad in front of dozens of witnesses but because they had received limited immunity from the State Department their testimony was inadmissable.

The trial was set for early 2010, but the charges were dismissed by District Judge Ricardo Urbina, as the prosecution had built its case by using statements given by the accused to state department investigators in violation of an agreement not to use them in a criminal case.[52][53]

The case against the five men fell apart because, after the shooting, the State Department ordered the guards to explain what happened. In exchange for those statements, the State Department promised the statements would not be used in a criminal case. Such limited immunity deals are common in police departments so officers involved in shootings cannot hold up internal investigations by refusing to cooperate.

The last case against Blackwater employees was completely dismissed due to serious prosecutorial misconduct. Call them scum if you like, these are likely to have the same outcome. But some fucknut know-nothing can always come up with a silly headline.
#3 | Posted by SpokaneJim at 2010-01-07 06:41 PM

Over 1.5 milliom Iraqi's have died since the United States invaded and no incarcerations for murder. There has to be accountability.

A couple of weeks ago someone was saying one million. You mean Obama is responsible for 500,000 deaths in Iraq in the last couple of weeks?

Wouldn't that be 'alleged scum'?

I wonder what the total tax payer covered bill was for their "service".

I suspect if we knew the Number --- the TeaBaggin "conservatives" here would never mention it.

Remember when America was still America and we had a military instead of a bunch of overpaid mercenaries. HOw can we still be using mercenaries instead of training more soldiers to do the same jobs???

The reason we hire alleged suspected scum like these is we don't pay our own military personnel enough to keep them from going to contractors.

#7 DETHSPUD!

If you think the Bush administration was the first one to use mercinaries you are sadly mistaken, also, Obama's State Department has refused to fire them because they were keeping them safe, I think 4 Blackwaters died and no State Departmenters did, I may come back with a site, but it is Friday and I just want to go home, fuck my girlfriend, and have a good dinner. Seriousness can wait until Monday.

"The reason we hire alleged suspected scum like these is we don't pay our own military personnel enough to keep them from going to contractors."

If we wern't hiring contractors there would be no where for them to go. This was just more cronyization done "to save money" like all the rest. It always ends up costing more but somewhere there is a crony getting filthy rich. With Blackwater it's Eric Prince.

I'm ok with military contractors doing things like guarding a VIP, transporting supplies, making food, building bases, that kind of shit.

But we need to keep them under a microscope, and also not use them as a fighting force. Or else we'll see more of this shit.

"I'm ok with military contractors doing things like guarding a VIP, transporting supplies, making food, building bases, that kind of shit."

Even if it costs three or more times as much as it would to have a soldier do the same thing?

Even if it costs three or more times as much as it would to have a soldier do the same thing?

#17 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 02:04 PM

Maybe a server farm would be better served by a group of IT professionals instead of a few marines with some tech training.

I'm sure there are plenty of situations where it can be appropriate. If not, I have no problem kicking them out of the business altogether, either.

Just saying, some things can be done by contractors but some things should be off limits, and they should be heavily regulated.

This is the Thread where the WingDings show their admiration for Soldiers of Fortune as if that's always been an acceptable American "value"!

And guilty of this crime or not, this group of individuals are rightfully identified as Scum.

Just more evidence to the extent that today's "conservative" has dragged down the values of America to the level normally found in the most despotic regions of the world (what they claim we need to police with our tax dollars).

"Maybe there aren't enough soldiers to go around.

Maybe a server farm would be better served by a group of IT professionals instead of a few marines with some tech training."

With unemployment so high I am quite sure they would have no problem with recruiting and why not start training the soldiers we need to do all of the jobs our military needs to do. When in war time soldiers can be retained even if they would prefer to leave the service, I don't think that is true with contractors. America would be more secure with a more complete, independent military. It would also save lots of $$$.

And guilty of this crime or not, this group of individuals are rightfully identified as Scum.

This is the thread where self-professed "liberals" like Redneckville conveniently ignore the "innocent before proven guilty" mantra they prattle on about whenever a case involves someone too poor to afford a lawyer.

Perhaps one of you WingDings can tell us how Blackwaters operation is any different than the Somali Pirates.

With unemployment so high I am quite sure they would have no problem with recruiting and why not start training the soldiers we need to do all of the jobs our military needs to do. When in war time soldiers can be retained even if they would prefer to leave the service, I don't think that is true with contractors. America would be more secure with a more complete, independent military. It would also save lots of $$$.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2010-01-08 02:32 PM

Here is one difference:

The US Taxpayer doesn't have to pay for the Somali Pirates paroll, or any of thier litigation

Perhaps RedNeckVille can tell us how he's any different than a bronze medalist in the Special Olympics.

Blackwater does a lot of training for our local law enforcement. Police departments all over the country send their officers here for training. It is starting to rank up their with training at Quantico. They fill a need and they are only funded by the taxpayer when they are hired to perform a service by our government.

For some reason my comment didn't post but this is directed at DANNI and a couple of others.

Unfortunately both recruited and retained numbers are capped by congress, I would love to see my beloved Seabee's (I am a former Navy man) out there building bases and infrastructure, unfortunately we need all available slots filled for either combat or close combat support roles (with some exceptions) with our soldiers.

But, if congress chooses to use contractors to do these things does it control them through the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) or by other means. If the alleged crimes took place, they need to be prosecuted; the question is where does that prosecution fall to. I am guessing congress did not look that far ahead and that is why some of the past charges have been dropped (no one has prosecutional authority) and why it will probably happen again, the politicians (on both sides of the isle) are not being even closely truthful with us.

If you don't convict these innocent until proven guilty Rambos, Iraq will never let us have any oil.

I guess they could get TSA security specialists to provide security

Sorry about the original headline making the front page. I fixed it, but my edit didn't get saved.

"the politicians (on both sides of the isle) are not being even closely truthful with us."

I suspect you are right and that there are people who own these contracting companies making some very large contributions. This is just more of teh same cronyization of government. It costs more and has less accountability.

"They fill a need and they are only funded by the taxpayer when they are hired to perform a service by our government."

But our government could provide the same services for less money. Most of the Blackwater people got their primary training from the military. We invest millions into military personnel who then leave the service to earn big bucks with Blackwater. I don't blame the people who do that but we provide Blackwater with the trained personnel for free. Then they charge us huge amounts to deploy the people we paid to train.

I wonder what other regimes in our Worlds History has used Hired Murders so openly and eagerly.

I think you will find that we are now in the company of some of the most abhorrent regimes and darkest times history has to offer.

And still you stupid anti-American fucks fall over all yourself defending what is truly indefensible. Regardless of reason, hiring hit-men that go into the world wearing an American Face is just bad business, in addition to being morally repugnant!

why not start training the soldiers we need to do all of the jobs our military needs to do.

Danni-why not RE-start training the soldiers we need to do all of the jobs our military needs to do.

Paying contractors 3-4 times the amount you pay to soldiers doing the same job only makes sense if you're a conservative because baby Jeebus told them only the private sector knows what it's doing.

You have to wonder how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would have cost had we used the traditional military without all those contractors.
I bet there are quite a few millionaires in this country who would be much poorer right now.
Profiteers???? I'd say yes. Truman would have prosecuted them.

Charles Taylor used soldier for hire, (children to boot) they murdered thousands so the "rights" spiritual leader Pat Robertson could build his "university".

Idi Amin used them too.

I'm pretty sure Mussolini did too!

They were also used by the Nazis in Croatia, where these hired guns systematically killed 750,000 Serbs, 60,000 Jews and 26,000 gypsies.

Nice contemporaries in Ideology you WingDings keep! But not at all surprising that your ideas align with these most disgusting of individuals!

The Mob has a history of using hit-men --- they also like to refer to them as "security" (just like you WingDings).

the mob comparison is a good one too, except the Teabaggin mob is too retarded to get orginized!

You have to wonder how much the Iraq and Afghanistan wars would have cost had we used the traditional military without all those contractors.

In this, Danni, we may agree. There are four contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan for every soldier. Seems like alot to me..

RedNeckVille,

Why don't you tell us why Obama hasn't stopped the use of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan? I'll eagerly await your unbiased, well thought out answer.

Hope and change is a nice slogan... not much more. On the day after the election, the pigs go back to the trough.

Hope and change is a nice slogan... not much more. On the day after the election, the pigs go back to the trough.

#40 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-01-08 04:27 PM

"Over 1.5 milliom Iraqi's have died since the United States invaded and no incarcerations for murder. There has to be accountability."

A couple of weeks ago someone was saying one million. You mean Obama is responsible for 500,000 deaths in Iraq in the last couple of weeks?
#9 | Posted by goatman at 2010-01-08 07:52 AM

To whatever extent he has been able to prevent further atrocities and taken those actions - NO. BushCo sent the United States on it's path for invasions, retracting those actions is impossible, but tactfully removing our presence and help reconstruct are very necessary. If anything the President is guilty of following his military leaderships plans for withdrawal. President Obama never invaded any nation - your brownshirt fuckwit has us in multiple invasions.

I don't agree with you that responsibility lay anywhere but with BushCo.

Also, notice the 1.3 million count is tallied and ends on 2007. There are more than 1.5 million dead.

Why the USA hires these over-priced egomaniac mercenaries is beyond me. This is the kind of BS you get when there is no military draft. The big question is WHO supervises these guys(Blackwater)?? They're not under the UCMJ or apparently local Iraq laws. There are probably 25 to 30 million kids between the ages of 18 to 25 in the USA. Why there is no draft in this war is beyond me. If we have indeed declared a world-wide war against terrorism lets do it right and have a draft.

"If we have indeed declared a world-wide war against terrorism lets do it right and have a draft."

You have the right idea but unfortunately if we had a draft we wouldn't have allowed Bush/Cheney to drag us into Iraq and that would not have allowed them to have the war Cheney planned at his secretive energy meetings pre-9-11. This country should never enter a war without a draft it's the only way to make Americans think twice before following the advice of leaders with secret agendas. When it is your own kids being sent overseas you think harder than when it is someone else's. Many of the big Bush supporters who praised his decision to invade Iraq would have had second thoughts if their own kids were going to be involved in that invasion.

Danni spouts nonsense, "You have the right idea but unfortunately if we had a draft we wouldn't have allowed Bush/Cheney to drag us into Iraq and that would not have allowed them to have the war Cheney planned at his secretive energy meetings pre-9-11."

See this? No effort to understand history, whatsoever!

Kennedy and Johnson expanded our role in South Vietnam USING THE DRAFT! It didnt' stop their conspiracy conducted under cover of "peace" to escalate Vietnam into a Democrat politician run war, ala Hitler's control of WWII German forces.

However, Danni wants you to believe anything she spouts from the left side of her collective mouth!

Besides that, further ignorance is piled on in shovefulls by indicating that a draft is a "good idea", when it was the Democrat party which forced the end of the previous Democrat draft (WWII, remember?) because it would help *END* political efforts to use the draft like Johnson and the other Democrat warmongers of the time!

Really creepy spin on history and all of it just another Big Lie attempt!

"This country should never enter a war without a draft it's the only way to make Americans think twice before following the advice of leaders with secret agendas."

Like Heinlein espoused, it should be a requirement of citizenship, and voting, to serve 3 years of state, or federal military service ... men and women ... but it won't stop slavish devotion to party allowing wars to be escalated with the complicity of a partisan congress ...

Shane says, "Why the USA hires these over-priced egomaniac mercenaries is beyond me."

That's another Democrat party effort to foster the private sector, and to end the influence of the military ... who don't vote for them (Dems) ...

The hatred for the military, at the end of the Democrat Vietnam war, was rampant in the party. They couldn't blame their party for the war, so they blamed the military and Republicans.

To "get even" at them, congress reduced the military's responsibilities to itself, and encouraged civilian businesses to takeover previously held military specialties; e.g., cooking, guard duties, intelligence gathering, medical/dental care, and many others.

All of the complaints about the military, done now by Democrats, are as a result of previous actions intented by them to reduce the military and to turn it over to civilian organizations; dependent on congressional financing ... the old congressional-business complex they used to call the military-industrial complex (when they controlled and didn't hate the military as a political platform).

Democrats are the radicals who are always the foundation of "change" you disparage, now, in Blackwater and, etc. ...

Danni spouts nonsense, "You have the right idea but unfortunately if we had a draft we wouldn't have allowed Bush/Cheney to drag us into Iraq and that would not have allowed them to have the war Cheney planned at his secretive energy meetings pre-9-11."

See this? No effort to understand history, whatsoever!
Kennedy and Johnson expanded our role in South Vietnam USING THE DRAFT! It didnt' stop their conspiracy conducted under cover of "peace" to escalate Vietnam into a Democrat politician run war, ala Hitler's control of WWII German forces.
However, Danni wants you to believe anything she spouts from the left side of her collective mouth!
Besides that, further ignorance is piled on in shovefulls by indicating that a draft is a "good idea", when it was the Democrat party which forced the end of the previous Democrat draft (WWII, remember?) because it would help *END* political efforts to use the draft like Johnson and the other Democrat warmongers of the time!
Really creepy spin on history and all of it just another Big Lie attempt!

What you are refusing to acknowledge is her understanding that we have been stigmatized by those immorally continued conflicts - she is 100% correct in that we would think twice and probably refuse to have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. If people knew this is what would have happened to date - they would have Bush IMPEACHED, imo.

"This country should never enter a war without a draft it's the only way to make Americans think twice before following the advice of leaders with secret agendas."

Like Heinlein espoused, it should be a requirement of citizenship, and voting, to serve 3 years of state, or federal military service ... men and women ... but it won't stop slavish devotion to party allowing wars to be escalated with the complicity of a partisan congress ...
#45 | Posted by tadowe at 2010-01-08 07:11 PM

Sure, but that also means that you don't throw them away, destroy their careers prior to warring - which is what BushCo did.. so they would privatize EVERYTHING intrinsic to intelligence. The Israeli thread explains how there is an Israeli in our government who is feeding false intelligence which our "communities" act upon. Sickening how easily your kind are led by corruption.

"They couldn't blame their party for the war, so they blamed the military and Republicans."

Tadowe, you are probably too young to remember the 1968 Democratic convention. There were riots in the streets in Chicago over the Vietnam. In those days many of the people would spit on the ground after they say Pres. Johnson. Most at that time thought it cost the Democrats the election.

When I was a Marine (seventies time frame) we did all our cooking in our chow halls, guard duty, and the Navy did all med and dental etc.

Red says, "What you are refusing to acknowledge is her understanding that we have been stigmatized by those immorally continued conflicts ..."

"We" were stigmatized by the actions of a Democrat president, with a complicit congress, and the draft provided an "endless" supply of cannon fodder at the point of the government's gun!

You f'ing morons ***always*** misdirect the facts to justify why you are marching to a one-sided political drumbeat!!!

Right NOW - you brainwashed idiots can see how a congress, in complicit agreement with the president can try to literally defy the constitution by issuing UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS ...

... but you moral cowards can't bring yourself to disagree with such actions ... you f'ing partisans continue to vote for the socialistic, dictatorial, at-the-point-of-a-gun government!!!

Now, here you are supporting a fellow socialist Democrat's urge to gain a never ending supply of troops (at gov gunpoint) to join the complicity ...

... what a disgusting thing is political partisanship practiced by progressive poltroons and stupid idiots ...

Democrat party wants the Draft and your ilk start whining for it and belittling anyone who might disagree with your blind obediend goosestepping complaints ....

Rather than actually address the points under debate, the ilk repeat themselves endlessly, "Sure, but that also means that you don't throw them away, destroy their careers prior to warring ..."

You'll ignore the facts: Democrat congress and Democrat president started Vietnam and continued it, and they had the draft.

Where were you and Danni? Not even born, probably, but you'll pretend you know, right?

You'll ignore the facts: THE WAR WASN'T STOPPED BECAUSE OF THE DRAFT!

Indeed, something else you'll ignore: Democrats ended the Draft BECAUSE THEY SAID IT ENCOURAGED THE WAR AND ITS ESCALATION!

Danni actually knows all of this, but lies anyway because it is the Democrats who want the draft B A C K !

You might just be a dummy dupe ... we'll see ...

Shane says, "Tadowe, you are probably too young to remember the 1968 Democratic convention. There were riots in the streets in Chicago over the Vietnam."

I had just returned from a tour in Vietnam, and saw a despicable mob of cowards try and manipulate reality to force-by-riot their political wills on the Democrat party. And, the Democrat party invited the mob's leaders to join them in forming the party's platform. Did it help them to allow mob violence to dictate their political future?

"In those days many of the people would spit on the ground after they say Pres. Johnson. Most at that time thought it cost the Democrats the election."

The nation voted for Nixon on his promise to end the war with peace. The people did not trust the Democrats to do so, because they observed the party's leader running the war, ala Adolph Hitler, and NOT winning a peace. That's what defeated the Democrats.

However, partisanship fosters intransigence and a defensive posture, so the Democrats were intent on shifting the blame for the war onto Republicans and supporting the idea that it would be best for America if the USA abandoned the South Vietnamese and permitted the imperialist North to impose a communist tyranny on a putatively free people.

That policy of defeat continues to this very day, and where only Democrat presidents are allowed to conduct supposedly 'illegal' wars ... while Republicans who fight our enemy are the NAZI ...

"When I was a Marine (seventies time frame) we did all our cooking in our chow halls, guard duty, and the Navy did all med and dental etc."

When did you abandon your oath to nation and constitution which allowed you to join a party which tries to cause defeat to gain votes ...?

Why would a Marine allow politics to change them into another member of the gang which holds party above nation and issues laws against the constitution ...?

Aren't you a bit ashamed at the defeat of your oath to country ...?

Shane disputes, "When I was a Marine (seventies time frame) we did all our cooking in our chow halls, guard duty, and the Navy did all med and dental etc."

The beginnings of the RIF began in '72 and continued through '75, as the Democrat congress slashed funding for the military - and finally ended all funding for defense of South Vietnam ... a cowardly abandonment of our ally to sure genocide ...

The effort to move to civilian (bureaucratic congressional business complex) replacement of military functions began at that time. Perhaps your ancedotal evidence was dated?

At any rate, now many of those functions are done by civilians; sometimes with military (skeleton) management, and sometimes with civilian leadership over military functions (intelligence as example).

The Navy is exempt from some such since they may be at sea, which civilians might not consider good working conditions, and which may exempt the Marine Corps, also. Indeed, the 'skeleton' crews are in place in most such functions, because they may have to go to war ... and which civilians are a bit too cowardly to perform under those circumstances. Not to say that some wouldn't ...

I think Special Forces units, and those of other services, are also exempt, since civilians won't work under such stressful and strenuous circumstances.

Only our volunteer heroes have that sort of bravery and love of nation which allows them to suffer willingly for it ... and which is lacking in a surprisingly large number of Americans ... who must be born into cowardice, like homosexuals claim to be ...

The reason we hire alleged suspected scum like these is we don't pay our own military personnel enough to keep them from going to contractors.
#13 | Posted by Corky

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Corky, did you really mean this or is this just a brain fart?

Care to reword?

Eddie wonders, "Corky, did you really mean this or is this just a brain fart?"

Democrats may hate Marines more than any other military service. It is the effort of Democrats to replace them at US Embassies, because it looks too militant to have men in uniform, scaring the 'people' ...

I laugh when I remember being sent to Vietnam, in full uniform and armed (unloaded), and how the public in Washington, D.C. virtually ran away in fear of our squad-sized group when we switched to civilian aircraft at Kennedy.

Now, the public insists on having lots of armed 'troops' around the airports ...

Lots of puling cowards in America who think their fears are justification to end freedom and liberty ... and maybe it is no wonder they end up being Democrats ...