Unless you are very committed to every action of the late Bush administration, the idea that something foul could emerge from the Iraq war will scarcely come as a surprise, but if you have followed the course of the war closely, then it must also be noted that the simple political party narratives that classify Bush and the Republicans as being for the war, and the Democrats as being against it, are too simple. Bush and Co. wanted the war, and the Republicans backed him up, but most of the Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war, and they have continued to provide crucial backing for a conflict that otherwise would have been brought to a halt. This sort of complexity is not limited to the start of the war. It is simple enough to say that Blackwater is a brutal organization, but is the simple party-line characterization of The Nation accurate?
Let's take a closer look at the Blackwater allegations. The main thrust of the allegations, unsurprisingly (the company is being sued by Iraqis for wrongful death) is that Blackwater recklessly shot down innocent Iraqis. The new affidavits add a lot more however. According to these assertions, Erik Prince, the founder of Blackwater;
- Views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic Faith around the globe (John Doe #2 ).
- Is a gunrunner, smuggling illegal weapons into Iraq to sell.
- Had his men use "illegal" weapons on Iraqis, against the will of the US government who hired him (John Doe #2 ).
- Threatened to kill Americans who told on him(John Doe #1 and #2 ).
- Actually did kill Americans who told on him.
If all these things are true, as depicted, then Erik Price and Blackwater are monsters, right! Let's take a closer look at the evidence as described.
If all these things are true, as depicted, then Erik Price and Blackwater are monsters, right! Let's take a closer look at the evidence as described.
The Christian Crusader accusation.
It is possible that the accusation against Prince is true as depicted; he is purportedly very religious, and a Christian, but if he is a religious warrior, there is a big problem with the examples as laid out.
This is not necessarily a desirable thing of course, but virtually all combatants in a war quickly resort to nicknames for the enemy. Allied forces in World Wars One and Two would use such terms as,‘Jerry’ and ‘Fritz’ for example, but the use of purportedly common names for the enemy is generally regarded as MORE offensive than other nicknames in Iraq or Afghanistan, because of the fact that Iraqis and Afghans who are on "our" side are equally likely to possess these same names.
The grammatically dubious sobriquet 'Hajii' is fairly comparable to the terms 'Boche' or ‘Heinie' however, and it is difficult to say that calling someone a ‘Kraut or a ‘Hun’ is a vast improvement on "Raghead". The use of any of these terms is extraordinarily common in their respective wars, and means very little; least of all indicating a religious fanatic.
In fact, the "Crusader" terminology reflects uncomplimentary IRAQI and Afghan slang as much as it does American propensities of any sort. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly religiously motivated ones, tend to use the "Crusader" term to describe Americans, and as is common, those called by a term adopt it as a gesture of defiance. The term "Yankee" was not used in a complimenary manner by the British and Tories in the Revolutionary war, by Southerners in the Civil War (and indeed ever afterward), or by South Americans and Mexicans, but many a "Yankee" refuses to flinch at the term.
More specific evidence of 'Crusader' terminology's uncomplimentary origins may be found in common embroidered morale patches worn by soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The "Pork-eating Crusader" patch for example, bears witness both to the the "Crusader" terminology, and the cultural distaste for pigs found in Iraq. Since pork consumption is religiously unclean throughout the region, many a Westerner's meal seems repulsive to most locals. There is no great surprise in this; few in North America would look at a person sitting down to dog meat (sometimes consumed in Korea) or for that matter horse (consumed in Western nations like Belgium) as if the meal didn't matter, or was only a personal preference without hygienic implications, but the backlash-motivated embrace of the negative terminology is so common that any accusations of actual religious warfare need serious proof of a sort not found in that affidavit.
more common defiant patches
Next there is the matter of "illegal weapons". The affidavit of John Doe #1 accuses a Blackwater contractor of shooting at a car with an M249, generally known as a SAW, for squad automatic weapon.
This, the affidavit claims, is an "illegal" weapon, because all shots fired on behalf of the State Department are "to be fired with a M4
or a pistol." Similarly affidavit #2 claims that Prince gave his men "unauthorized" grenades and grenade launchers. What is the significance of these accusations? Well Blackwater is not a mercenary group paid to attack Iraqis. Blackwater is paid to guard State Department diplomats and officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Now it is easy to make a case that bodyguards should normally use light weapons that are unlikely to harm innocent people. The M249 is a light machine gun, and fully automatic (pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing a string of shots until you let go of the trigger or run out of ammunition), thus being a heavier and more hazardous weapon (to those downrange) than say, a pistol. Grenades are naturally somewhat indiscriminate. The accusation is thus that Blackwater was using excessive force, and so the lawsuit alleges, should pay for it.
Take a closer look, and the matter is less clear however. The "authorized" M4 comes in several versions. Some of these are "semi-automatic" meaning that every time the trigger is pulled, the gun fires one shot. Civilians can own guns like this in some nations, and advocates of gun control often play on the term semi-automatic to suggest that the weapon is particularly dangerous.
In fact, this is nothing special, and the old Webley revolver seen in the picture above essentially behaves in the same way, although the term "double action" is used to describe it, instead of "semi-automatic". With either system, when you pull the trigger, one shot is fired. The Webley was in use throughout the British empire from the 1880's, and a modern semi-automatic rifle or pistol still behaves in essentially the same way.
Blackwater was not assigned semi-automatic rifles however, but rather was given "selective fire" or "fully-automatic" M-4s. There is a switch on the side of the rifle that allows you to select how many shots will be fired when the trigger is pulled, either one, three (on some versions) or continuous fire until the ammunition runs out (the type used by Blackwater and many militaries). The M4 in other words, can act like a machine-gun. This is a true "assault-rifle" and contrary to some propagandistic abuse of the terminology in North America, this sort of rifle has never been generally permitted to civilians in the US.
There are a couple of differences between what is usually called an assault rifle and what is usually called a machine gun. The first is that a machine gun usually has a barrel that can be changed quickly, when it overheats. This allows a machine gun that has enough ammunition and some spare parts to fire more or less indefinately. The second is that a machine gun often, but by no means always uses a larger bullet than an assault rifle. If a machine gun and an assault rifle both use the same size (this is usually referred to as caliber) of ammunition, and both are fired on their fully automatic setting (rat-a-tat-tat) the machine gun will usually be much more accurate because the machine gun is bigger, heavier, and less thrown about by recoil.
The M249 and the M4 both use the same ammunition, 5.56 mm NATO (second from the right in the picture above). Both weapons would be fired on the full-auto setting in the convoy-protection/ car-chase situations that Blackwater is being criticized for. If Blackwater was using a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun (firing the largest cartridge on the far left), and using it against orders, it would be easy to say that this was a comparatively excessive use of force. The .50 caliber can fire through most anything that you see on a normal city block, and as .50 caliber bullets are difficult to stop, you are likely to end up firing through the block, whatever your intentions.
The complaint however, is that instead of using a light gun that will bounce about and scatter shots around the neighborhood, Blackwater used a gun with enough weight to put the same bullets where they are pointed. So if not a procedural excess, is the matter a procedural violation? Well supposedly the State Department didn't authorize the machine gun. Is this true?
There are many security companies around the globe who use ex-policemen and the like, as bodyguards. The State Department did not choose one of these comparatively low-profile companies however, but instead decided to go with a company that sells the services of Navy SEALs, and special forces soldiers.
Based on their experiences guarding the State Department employees, Blackwater decided to design and build a vehicle appropriate for their job. Look at this vehicle and decide whether the client that wants it would prefer to rely on concealment, or firepower. There is a ringmount on top of this vehicle for a machine gun (up to .50 caliber). Surely the State Department could not know about such a company using a machine gun!
Blackwater has also been operating "armed helicopters", as hired by the US government in Iraq. Here is a standard file photo of one of the Blackwater helicopters.
Lo and behold, cradled in the arms of the man in the rear seat, a machine gun! These Blackwater helicopters are one of the more common sights in Baghdad, (and they fly low). Some secret eh? But lets say that somehow the State Department failed to recognize a machine gun. How many people would fail to recognize a GRENADE? Who exactly would fail to notice if the guy next to them was USING grenades?
The "illegal" weapons accusations continue.
So what is illegal ammunition anyway? Well according to the Hague convention of 1899 militaries are forbidden to do things like drop explosives from balloons, use poison gas, and use bullets that flatten easily in the human body, i.e. "dum-dum" bullets. If a bullet expands or breaks up when it hits flesh, this creates a more severe wound. Hunters use bullets of this type to kill the animals that they shoot quickly, and prevent them from suffering, but a hunter is supposed to shoot only if he or she has a 'clean shot' and will be certain to kill the animal, rather than mangle it. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the target can shoot back, soldiers are less particular about blazing away. Bullets of this sort are thus forbidden in warfare to reduce the number of mutilating wounds.
Such rules are not applied to all situations however. Most police for example, specifically use expanding ammunition of this type. This is partly because police are only supposed to use their guns to protect someone (meaning that it is important to inflict a wound on the targeted person or animal which will incapacitate them as quickly as possible) and also because such a bullet is less likely to "overpenetrate". If a policeman must shoot someone to protect life, then this means that other people are likely to be nearby. If a bullet shoots through a "bad guy" or shoots through walls easily, then innocent people are likely to be injured.
Hostage rescue and anti-terrorist teams are likely to use bullets that not only expand, but which break into small pieces (frangible ammunition) because all of the police concerns with rapid incapacitation and shoot-through are more severe. A bullet can pass through a hostage-taker and hit a hostage, a terrorist could trigger a bomb if not stopped right away, and a bullet that goes through walls can depressurize an airplane.
LeMas bullets are a variation of the frangible bullet type. The LeMas bullet is supposed to penetrate very hard material like armor plate well, but turn to powder when it hits something comparatively soft, like a person, wood or wallboard. Whether the LeMas ammunition actually performs as advertised is quite controversial, and the nature of that performance is equally controversial, albeit with a different crowd, (the LeMas "blended-metal" ammunition supposedly can reduce a significant chunk of the targeted person to mush) . There is no question however but that this is not legal ammunition for the military to use in conventional warfare.
The problem is that Blackwater was not hired to invade Iraq, and kill their soldiers, but was hired to protect American diplomats there from suicide bombers and the like. Though the terminology is widely accepted internationally, it is factually dubious to describe all of the Iraqi insurgents as terrorists not subject to the laws of war. It is fairly difficult to say that police or anti-terrorist ammunition may not be used to stop a suicide bomber from driving a car bomb into a diplomat however, and this is precisely the problem that Blackwater faced. If it performed as promised, the LeMas ammunition should penetrate a truck or car bomber's vehicle and stop him before he would be able to complete his attack. Stray bullets would potentially be less damaging to civilians in their homes however, insofar as the special ammunition does not penetrate wood and wallboard.
Did the government know about this ammunition, or know about Blackwater using it. Well for years Blackwater invited military journalists and special forces troops, and government secret agents of all types to their training ranges for yearly trials of the latest special equipment on the market. Here is one of a number of articles about the LeMas ammunition in the Armed Forces Journal as part of their yearly coverage of the "Shootout at Blackwater". To put it one way, with publicity like this, I have a "bridge investment" for the person who thinks that the LeMas ammunition was "unauthorized".
The illegal weapons allegations continue, but they still sound odd to the knowledgeable.
Firstly, what the heck is a " sawed-off semi-automatic machine gun with silencer". A machine gun is by definition fully automatic, not semi-automatic. If a machine gun is semi-automatic, it fires one shot for every time that you pull the trigger, just like the old revolver mentioned earlier, and such a gun is legal to own in the US. If it is "sawed-off" then legally it is a short-barreled rifle, and requires a permit, but is not necessarily unlawful. A silencer also requires a permit in the US, although not in many other parts of the world. Clearly there are some questions regarding the factual accuracy of the affidavit, particularly given that Blackwater has the very special sort of government authorization to possess most any gun. To return to the poorly-described mystery weapon however, most likely this accusation actually refers to a short-barreled submachine gun with a silencer like this MP-5.
Submachine guns fire pistol bullets, but are more controllable and accurate than a pistol, plus they have the ability to fire fully automatically, like a machine gun.
The affidavit claims however, that Prince is smuggling SEMI-AUTOMATIC submachine guns into Iraq to SELL. Now there are a couple of big problems with this story. First, semi-auto submachine guns are an inferior weapon in the arms trade. The very same MP-5 above is generally held to be the best submachine gun in the world...... in its fully automatic version.
In any case even if Iraqis were not bothered by the lack of full-auto capabilities, the MP-5 is not some American exclusive. The gun is designed and manufactured in Germany, but the maker has licensed manufacture to, amongst other nations, Iran, Pakistan, Mexico, Sudan, and Turkey. It would be easier to smuggle weapons from the vast majority of these nations than the US, and the product would be superior to the semi-auto only version permitted to US civilians.
Maybe it is the silencer that is key? You can walk into a store in a number of European nations and buy a silencer without a license, very much unlike the US, because the silencer is regarded as a device to cut down on nuisance noise and protect hearing. American silencers are also very expensive for what its worth.
Moreover, if Prince was selling American weapons illicitly on the black market in Iraq, then US soldiers would likely encounter some, capture them, and trace the serial numbers. Would Prince be stupid enough to risk going to a 'very special' sort of jail for "assistance to terrorists"? In a world full of superior and cheaper weapons, would this sort of scheme actually be practical?
There are several more likely explanations.
1. The affidavit is completely inaccurate.
2. The affidavit is falsely suggesting that Prince is involved in the "arms trade" when in fact he was sending his (legally acquired) weapons to his employees for their bodyguard work. The US government is aware of this even if the Iraqi government hasn't formally approved.
3. Prince and Blackwater are transporting weapons for the CIA or another US government agency.
At this point, it is worth taking a look at the quality of John Doe #2's affidavit, and The Nation's reporting on it. John Doe #2 does not confine himself to claims that Erik Prince is a religious warrior, war criminal, and arms smuggler; no there is SEX, not just violence.
Now wife-swapping would seem to be a poor fit for a maniacally religious crusader. I am not foolish enough to say that such hypocrisy is out of the question, or even less likely however. To continue:
Now according to the scenario as laid out by John Doe #2, our villain Mr. Prince is not a participant in a "wife-swapping sex-ring" but asked for a report on one that is disrupting his business.
In other words, this supposed "sex-ring", by definition a bunch of swingers more or less opposed to sexual jealousy, in fact is so quarrelsome, that they attract the hostile attention of their notoriously religious boss.
Ask yourself, which seems more realistic, a real "wife-swapping sex-ring", or a handful of office affairs and related quarrels that trigger both a report for the blue-nose boss, and lurid rumors spread by a certain type of rumormonger.
Now ABC news was happy to mention these salacious accusations. This has the whiff of tabloid journalism about it, but frankly, the full coverage also means that the viewer or reader is likely to take all the accusations with a grain or two of salt.
By contrast, The Nation is happy to report on every accusation of violence, but fails to mention the gossipy (note that the supposed "wife-swapping sex-ring" is quite irrelevant to either shootings in Iraq or blameworthy behavior from Erik Prince) tone of the affidavit. You notice if you read both affidavits, but many people will not. What The Nation does mention is worth calling attention to and takes on new significance however.
The overall public concern, and blame, focussed on Blackwater are not necessarily in proportion to the reality of Iraq however. Affidavit #1 emphasizes, for the needs of the court case, the fact that after blazing away at some supposed threat (likely a dubiously defined threat, but a threat) that the Blackwater personnel did not stop to see if someone was wounded and needed medical attention.
Does anyone really suppose that the State Department officials, or anyone else in the US government for that matter, would want to stop and check in this scenario however, given that the whole goal of the convoy was to escape the (commonly repeated) roadside bombs, suicide car bombs, RPG attacks and machine gun strafing that characterizes the Iraq occupation. The US military does not stop its convoys under these circumstances; why should Blackwater, with a dedicated VIP protection role? For that matter, imagine that you, the reader, in whatever competency you possess, were sent to Iraq as a consultant. If you had bodyguards who fired at a perceived attacker, would you want the vehicle to stop and "check out" the situation, rather than carry you immediately to safety?
This sounds very callous, and uncaring of the safety of Iraqis of course, but any other way of thinking about it denies the reality of occupation. To put it a different way, try and devise a plan whereby a foreign nation may occupy your own, and do so despite the efforts of tens of thousands of your countrymen who are willing to risk their own, and their family's deaths. Now take that plan, and modify it, so that the foreign occupation forces take the sort of risks that you would be willing to take as an occupier, rather than the occupied. Does your new occupation plan sound brutal?
So much of the criticism and finger pointing around Blackwater and similar groups pretends that working officially for the government is indicative of some vast distinction in the quality of the personnel involved. While it is worth noting that the Blackwater employees are virtually all ex-soldiers (usually ELITE ex-soldiers), I am willing to presuppose for the purposes of argument, that private contractors might be more brutal than government officials in a given role.
Look at what the role of the Blackwater contractors really is however. They are bodyguards. The military is trying to suppress people fighting against foreign occupation. Which role is more brutal?
Bank guards in most nations around the globe are, I believe often armed, and normally private employees, and it is probably likely that they will have less restraint than a decent policeman of a given nation. How often do you hear about bank guard brutality however? If the area is lawless enough that you do hear about bank guard brutality, does anyone suppose that the police are better? It is a lot easier to protect a few discrete people, places or objects, than it is to control a hostile nation. A lot of additional brutality follows the need or desire to control and change the behavior of a population.
Certainly the Blackwater guards can be described as trigger happy, but they are not the only ones. Here in an official report two years back, the military acknowledges a full year of civilian shootings; more than one a day. These are the shootings that were acknowledged. Most all of those Blackwater contractors were in the military before. Does anyone think that they only started covering up shootings AFTER they became bodyguards?
PZ Myers posts about the Blackwater 'goon squad' and 'killers for hire'. Andrew Sullivan points darkly to the mindset behind Blackwater. Blackwater may be a goon squad, but I can find you a very large unit that is a hell of a lot worse. They may work for the government, but the mindset of these "patriotic" goevernment workers is a LOT worse than that of Erik Prince, at least when you adjust for the likely hyperbole and rumormongering of John Doe #2. Read these two articles and tell me about how scary mercenaries are.
If the history of the 20'th (and many other) century can tell us anything, it is that people working for the government, and people purportedly working for the good of the public are capable of killing people on a scale that private gain does not justify.
If the history of the past ten or so years tells us anything, it is that a good deal of the public in the English speaking world is quite willing to tolerate trigger happy behavior in government officials with a lot less provocation than the car bombs, RPGs, and IEDs of Baghdad.
Etc., etc., etc.................
Prince "intentionally deployed certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy knowing and wanting these men to take every available opportunity to murder Iraqis". The specific example, "Many of these men used call-signs based on the Knights of the Templar, the warriors who fought the crusades." Executives would "openly speak of going to Iraq to lay Hajiis out on cardboard". "Mr. Prince's employees consistently used racist and derogatory terms for Iraqis and other Arabs such as 'ragheads' and 'Hajiis'.(John Doe#2 )
It is possible that the accusation against Prince is true as depicted; he is purportedly very religious, and a Christian, but if he is a religious warrior, there is a big problem with the examples as laid out.
This is not necessarily a desirable thing of course, but virtually all combatants in a war quickly resort to nicknames for the enemy. Allied forces in World Wars One and Two would use such terms as,‘Jerry’ and ‘Fritz’ for example, but the use of purportedly common names for the enemy is generally regarded as MORE offensive than other nicknames in Iraq or Afghanistan, because of the fact that Iraqis and Afghans who are on "our" side are equally likely to possess these same names.
The grammatically dubious sobriquet 'Hajii' is fairly comparable to the terms 'Boche' or ‘Heinie' however, and it is difficult to say that calling someone a ‘Kraut or a ‘Hun’ is a vast improvement on "Raghead". The use of any of these terms is extraordinarily common in their respective wars, and means very little; least of all indicating a religious fanatic.
In fact, the "Crusader" terminology reflects uncomplimentary IRAQI and Afghan slang as much as it does American propensities of any sort. Insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan, particularly religiously motivated ones, tend to use the "Crusader" term to describe Americans, and as is common, those called by a term adopt it as a gesture of defiance. The term "Yankee" was not used in a complimenary manner by the British and Tories in the Revolutionary war, by Southerners in the Civil War (and indeed ever afterward), or by South Americans and Mexicans, but many a "Yankee" refuses to flinch at the term.
Flatteringly ferocious terms like "Devil Dogs"(to describe the US Marines) supposedly had an enemy origin, and it is not much of a surprise that the similarly ferocious 'Crusader' terminology would stick. In fact, the next generation of US artillery was to be termed the "Crusader" (the system has been canceled for technical/expense reasons).
XM2001 Crusader
XM2001 CrusaderMore specific evidence of 'Crusader' terminology's uncomplimentary origins may be found in common embroidered morale patches worn by soldiers and contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.
more common defiant patches
There is another big reason that the Knights Templar are likely to be referenced besides religious fanaticism. To the dismay of the literary world and film buffs alike, Dan Browns horrible "Da Vinci Code" books and films, which reference the Knights Templar extensively, are very popular. "Literary" or film references to any and all ferocious warriors in material of this sort, up to, and including "The Terminator" or factions in the "Star Wars" movies are very common in the military. The comic-inspired film "300" for example, has triggered a rash of Spartan themed patches and slogans.
Next there is the matter of "illegal weapons". The affidavit of John Doe #1 accuses a Blackwater contractor of shooting at a car with an M249, generally known as a SAW, for squad automatic weapon.
This, the affidavit claims, is an "illegal" weapon, because all shots fired on behalf of the State Department are "to be fired with a M4
or a pistol." Similarly affidavit #2 claims that Prince gave his men "unauthorized" grenades and grenade launchers. What is the significance of these accusations? Well Blackwater is not a mercenary group paid to attack Iraqis. Blackwater is paid to guard State Department diplomats and officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority. Now it is easy to make a case that bodyguards should normally use light weapons that are unlikely to harm innocent people. The M249 is a light machine gun, and fully automatic (pull the trigger and the gun keeps firing a string of shots until you let go of the trigger or run out of ammunition), thus being a heavier and more hazardous weapon (to those downrange) than say, a pistol. Grenades are naturally somewhat indiscriminate. The accusation is thus that Blackwater was using excessive force, and so the lawsuit alleges, should pay for it.
Take a closer look, and the matter is less clear however. The "authorized" M4 comes in several versions. Some of these are "semi-automatic" meaning that every time the trigger is pulled, the gun fires one shot. Civilians can own guns like this in some nations, and advocates of gun control often play on the term semi-automatic to suggest that the weapon is particularly dangerous.
In fact, this is nothing special, and the old Webley revolver seen in the picture above essentially behaves in the same way, although the term "double action" is used to describe it, instead of "semi-automatic". With either system, when you pull the trigger, one shot is fired. The Webley was in use throughout the British empire from the 1880's, and a modern semi-automatic rifle or pistol still behaves in essentially the same way.Blackwater was not assigned semi-automatic rifles however, but rather was given "selective fire" or "fully-automatic" M-4s. There is a switch on the side of the rifle that allows you to select how many shots will be fired when the trigger is pulled, either one, three (on some versions) or continuous fire until the ammunition runs out (the type used by Blackwater and many militaries). The M4 in other words, can act like a machine-gun. This is a true "assault-rifle" and contrary to some propagandistic abuse of the terminology in North America, this sort of rifle has never been generally permitted to civilians in the US.
There are a couple of differences between what is usually called an assault rifle and what is usually called a machine gun. The first is that a machine gun usually has a barrel that can be changed quickly, when it overheats. This allows a machine gun that has enough ammunition and some spare parts to fire more or less indefinately. The second is that a machine gun often, but by no means always uses a larger bullet than an assault rifle. If a machine gun and an assault rifle both use the same size (this is usually referred to as caliber) of ammunition, and both are fired on their fully automatic setting (rat-a-tat-tat) the machine gun will usually be much more accurate because the machine gun is bigger, heavier, and less thrown about by recoil.
The M249 and the M4 both use the same ammunition, 5.56 mm NATO (second from the right in the picture above). Both weapons would be fired on the full-auto setting in the convoy-protection/ car-chase situations that Blackwater is being criticized for. If Blackwater was using a .50 caliber (12.7 mm) machine gun (firing the largest cartridge on the far left), and using it against orders, it would be easy to say that this was a comparatively excessive use of force. The .50 caliber can fire through most anything that you see on a normal city block, and as .50 caliber bullets are difficult to stop, you are likely to end up firing through the block, whatever your intentions.The complaint however, is that instead of using a light gun that will bounce about and scatter shots around the neighborhood, Blackwater used a gun with enough weight to put the same bullets where they are pointed. So if not a procedural excess, is the matter a procedural violation? Well supposedly the State Department didn't authorize the machine gun. Is this true?
There are many security companies around the globe who use ex-policemen and the like, as bodyguards. The State Department did not choose one of these comparatively low-profile companies however, but instead decided to go with a company that sells the services of Navy SEALs, and special forces soldiers.
Based on their experiences guarding the State Department employees, Blackwater decided to design and build a vehicle appropriate for their job. Look at this vehicle and decide whether the client that wants it would prefer to rely on concealment, or firepower. There is a ringmount on top of this vehicle for a machine gun (up to .50 caliber). Surely the State Department could not know about such a company using a machine gun!Blackwater has also been operating "armed helicopters", as hired by the US government in Iraq. Here is a standard file photo of one of the Blackwater helicopters.
Lo and behold, cradled in the arms of the man in the rear seat, a machine gun! These Blackwater helicopters are one of the more common sights in Baghdad, (and they fly low). Some secret eh? But lets say that somehow the State Department failed to recognize a machine gun. How many people would fail to recognize a GRENADE? Who exactly would fail to notice if the guy next to them was USING grenades?
The "illegal" weapons accusations continue.
"Mr. Prince obtained illegal ammunition from an American company named LeMas. This company sold ammunition designed to explode after penetrating within the human body. Mr. Prince's employees repeatedly used this illegal ammunition in Iraq to inflict maximum damage on Iraqis."
So what is illegal ammunition anyway? Well according to the Hague convention of 1899 militaries are forbidden to do things like drop explosives from balloons, use poison gas, and use bullets that flatten easily in the human body, i.e. "dum-dum" bullets. If a bullet expands or breaks up when it hits flesh, this creates a more severe wound. Hunters use bullets of this type to kill the animals that they shoot quickly, and prevent them from suffering, but a hunter is supposed to shoot only if he or she has a 'clean shot' and will be certain to kill the animal, rather than mangle it. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the target can shoot back, soldiers are less particular about blazing away. Bullets of this sort are thus forbidden in warfare to reduce the number of mutilating wounds.
Such rules are not applied to all situations however. Most police for example, specifically use expanding ammunition of this type. This is partly because police are only supposed to use their guns to protect someone (meaning that it is important to inflict a wound on the targeted person or animal which will incapacitate them as quickly as possible) and also because such a bullet is less likely to "overpenetrate". If a policeman must shoot someone to protect life, then this means that other people are likely to be nearby. If a bullet shoots through a "bad guy" or shoots through walls easily, then innocent people are likely to be injured.
Hostage rescue and anti-terrorist teams are likely to use bullets that not only expand, but which break into small pieces (frangible ammunition) because all of the police concerns with rapid incapacitation and shoot-through are more severe. A bullet can pass through a hostage-taker and hit a hostage, a terrorist could trigger a bomb if not stopped right away, and a bullet that goes through walls can depressurize an airplane.
LeMas bullets are a variation of the frangible bullet type. The LeMas bullet is supposed to penetrate very hard material like armor plate well, but turn to powder when it hits something comparatively soft, like a person, wood or wallboard. Whether the LeMas ammunition actually performs as advertised is quite controversial, and the nature of that performance is equally controversial, albeit with a different crowd, (the LeMas "blended-metal" ammunition supposedly can reduce a significant chunk of the targeted person to mush) . There is no question however but that this is not legal ammunition for the military to use in conventional warfare.
The problem is that Blackwater was not hired to invade Iraq, and kill their soldiers, but was hired to protect American diplomats there from suicide bombers and the like. Though the terminology is widely accepted internationally, it is factually dubious to describe all of the Iraqi insurgents as terrorists not subject to the laws of war. It is fairly difficult to say that police or anti-terrorist ammunition may not be used to stop a suicide bomber from driving a car bomb into a diplomat however, and this is precisely the problem that Blackwater faced. If it performed as promised, the LeMas ammunition should penetrate a truck or car bomber's vehicle and stop him before he would be able to complete his attack. Stray bullets would potentially be less damaging to civilians in their homes however, insofar as the special ammunition does not penetrate wood and wallboard.
Did the government know about this ammunition, or know about Blackwater using it. Well for years Blackwater invited military journalists and special forces troops, and government secret agents of all types to their training ranges for yearly trials of the latest special equipment on the market. Here is one of a number of articles about the LeMas ammunition in the Armed Forces Journal as part of their yearly coverage of the "Shootout at Blackwater". To put it one way, with publicity like this, I have a "bridge investment" for the person who thinks that the LeMas ammunition was "unauthorized".
The illegal weapons allegations continue, but they still sound odd to the knowledgeable.
John Doe #2 "Mr. Prince generated substantial revenues from participating in the illegal arms trade. Using his various companies, he (Prince) procured, and distributed various weapons, including unlawful weapons such as sawed-off semi-automatic machine guns with silencers through unlawful channels of distribution. For example, Mr. Prince and his employees arranged for the weapons to be polywrapped and smuggled into Iraq on Mr. Prince's private planes which operated under the name Presidential airlines. "
Firstly, what the heck is a " sawed-off semi-automatic machine gun with silencer". A machine gun is by definition fully automatic, not semi-automatic. If a machine gun is semi-automatic, it fires one shot for every time that you pull the trigger, just like the old revolver mentioned earlier, and such a gun is legal to own in the US. If it is "sawed-off" then legally it is a short-barreled rifle, and requires a permit, but is not necessarily unlawful. A silencer also requires a permit in the US, although not in many other parts of the world. Clearly there are some questions regarding the factual accuracy of the affidavit, particularly given that Blackwater has the very special sort of government authorization to possess most any gun. To return to the poorly-described mystery weapon however, most likely this accusation actually refers to a short-barreled submachine gun with a silencer like this MP-5.
The affidavit claims however, that Prince is smuggling SEMI-AUTOMATIC submachine guns into Iraq to SELL. Now there are a couple of big problems with this story. First, semi-auto submachine guns are an inferior weapon in the arms trade. The very same MP-5 above is generally held to be the best submachine gun in the world...... in its fully automatic version.
In any case even if Iraqis were not bothered by the lack of full-auto capabilities, the MP-5 is not some American exclusive. The gun is designed and manufactured in Germany, but the maker has licensed manufacture to, amongst other nations, Iran, Pakistan, Mexico, Sudan, and Turkey. It would be easier to smuggle weapons from the vast majority of these nations than the US, and the product would be superior to the semi-auto only version permitted to US civilians.
Maybe it is the silencer that is key? You can walk into a store in a number of European nations and buy a silencer without a license, very much unlike the US, because the silencer is regarded as a device to cut down on nuisance noise and protect hearing. American silencers are also very expensive for what its worth.
Moreover, if Prince was selling American weapons illicitly on the black market in Iraq, then US soldiers would likely encounter some, capture them, and trace the serial numbers. Would Prince be stupid enough to risk going to a 'very special' sort of jail for "assistance to terrorists"? In a world full of superior and cheaper weapons, would this sort of scheme actually be practical?
There are several more likely explanations.
1. The affidavit is completely inaccurate.
2. The affidavit is falsely suggesting that Prince is involved in the "arms trade" when in fact he was sending his (legally acquired) weapons to his employees for their bodyguard work. The US government is aware of this even if the Iraqi government hasn't formally approved.
3. Prince and Blackwater are transporting weapons for the CIA or another US government agency.
At this point, it is worth taking a look at the quality of John Doe #2's affidavit, and The Nation's reporting on it. John Doe #2 does not confine himself to claims that Erik Prince is a religious warrior, war criminal, and arms smuggler; no there is SEX, not just violence.
"Mr. Prince's North Carolina operations had an ongoing wife-swapping and and sex ring which was participated in by many of Mr. Prince's top executives."
This sex ring ended up causing so many disputes amongst Mr. Prince's executives that Mr. Prince directed his employee Joseph Schmidt to investigate and prepare a report.
Now according to the scenario as laid out by John Doe #2, our villain Mr. Prince is not a participant in a "wife-swapping sex-ring" but asked for a report on one that is disrupting his business.
In other words, this supposed "sex-ring", by definition a bunch of swingers more or less opposed to sexual jealousy, in fact is so quarrelsome, that they attract the hostile attention of their notoriously religious boss.
Ask yourself, which seems more realistic, a real "wife-swapping sex-ring", or a handful of office affairs and related quarrels that trigger both a report for the blue-nose boss, and lurid rumors spread by a certain type of rumormonger.
Now ABC news was happy to mention these salacious accusations. This has the whiff of tabloid journalism about it, but frankly, the full coverage also means that the viewer or reader is likely to take all the accusations with a grain or two of salt.
By contrast, The Nation is happy to report on every accusation of violence, but fails to mention the gossipy (note that the supposed "wife-swapping sex-ring" is quite irrelevant to either shootings in Iraq or blameworthy behavior from Erik Prince) tone of the affidavit. You notice if you read both affidavits, but many people will not. What The Nation does mention is worth calling attention to and takes on new significance however.
The Nation cannot independently verify the identities of the two individuals (the John Does), their roles at Blackwater or what motivated them to provide sworn testimony in these civil cases.Now none of this is not to say that I dismiss the core of the wrongful death lawsuit in its assertion that Blackwater was trigger-happy and careless with the lives of Iraqis.
The overall public concern, and blame, focussed on Blackwater are not necessarily in proportion to the reality of Iraq however. Affidavit #1 emphasizes, for the needs of the court case, the fact that after blazing away at some supposed threat (likely a dubiously defined threat, but a threat) that the Blackwater personnel did not stop to see if someone was wounded and needed medical attention.
Does anyone really suppose that the State Department officials, or anyone else in the US government for that matter, would want to stop and check in this scenario however, given that the whole goal of the convoy was to escape the (commonly repeated) roadside bombs, suicide car bombs, RPG attacks and machine gun strafing that characterizes the Iraq occupation. The US military does not stop its convoys under these circumstances; why should Blackwater, with a dedicated VIP protection role? For that matter, imagine that you, the reader, in whatever competency you possess, were sent to Iraq as a consultant. If you had bodyguards who fired at a perceived attacker, would you want the vehicle to stop and "check out" the situation, rather than carry you immediately to safety?
This sounds very callous, and uncaring of the safety of Iraqis of course, but any other way of thinking about it denies the reality of occupation. To put it a different way, try and devise a plan whereby a foreign nation may occupy your own, and do so despite the efforts of tens of thousands of your countrymen who are willing to risk their own, and their family's deaths. Now take that plan, and modify it, so that the foreign occupation forces take the sort of risks that you would be willing to take as an occupier, rather than the occupied. Does your new occupation plan sound brutal?
So much of the criticism and finger pointing around Blackwater and similar groups pretends that working officially for the government is indicative of some vast distinction in the quality of the personnel involved. While it is worth noting that the Blackwater employees are virtually all ex-soldiers (usually ELITE ex-soldiers), I am willing to presuppose for the purposes of argument, that private contractors might be more brutal than government officials in a given role.
Look at what the role of the Blackwater contractors really is however. They are bodyguards. The military is trying to suppress people fighting against foreign occupation. Which role is more brutal?
Bank guards in most nations around the globe are, I believe often armed, and normally private employees, and it is probably likely that they will have less restraint than a decent policeman of a given nation. How often do you hear about bank guard brutality however? If the area is lawless enough that you do hear about bank guard brutality, does anyone suppose that the police are better? It is a lot easier to protect a few discrete people, places or objects, than it is to control a hostile nation. A lot of additional brutality follows the need or desire to control and change the behavior of a population.
Certainly the Blackwater guards can be described as trigger happy, but they are not the only ones. Here in an official report two years back, the military acknowledges a full year of civilian shootings; more than one a day. These are the shootings that were acknowledged. Most all of those Blackwater contractors were in the military before. Does anyone think that they only started covering up shootings AFTER they became bodyguards?
PZ Myers posts about the Blackwater 'goon squad' and 'killers for hire'. Andrew Sullivan points darkly to the mindset behind Blackwater. Blackwater may be a goon squad, but I can find you a very large unit that is a hell of a lot worse. They may work for the government, but the mindset of these "patriotic" goevernment workers is a LOT worse than that of Erik Prince, at least when you adjust for the likely hyperbole and rumormongering of John Doe #2. Read these two articles and tell me about how scary mercenaries are.
If the history of the 20'th (and many other) century can tell us anything, it is that people working for the government, and people purportedly working for the good of the public are capable of killing people on a scale that private gain does not justify.
If the history of the past ten or so years tells us anything, it is that a good deal of the public in the English speaking world is quite willing to tolerate trigger happy behavior in government officials with a lot less provocation than the car bombs, RPGs, and IEDs of Baghdad.
Amadou Bailo Diallo, Bronx NYC, USA unarmed, shot 41 times by four policemen, policemen bearing the holy authorization of government title, acquitted.
Sean Bell incident, Queens NYC USA, three men, unarmed, at a wedding party, fired upon 50 times by five policemen, one of the three men, killed, policemen bearing the holy authorization of government title, acquitted.
Jean Charles de Menezes, London UK, unarmed, shot 8 times, 7 times in the head, policemen bearing the holy authorization of government title, never charged.
Etc., etc., etc.................
Posts
