Blackwater Security Guards (2 from TN?!?)

[Magiccarpetrides]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,463409,00.html

Interesting article....

[TGO David]

Scapegoats.

[poak]

Scapegoats.

Agreed.

[TripleDigitRide]

I did not realize they weren't allowed to use full-auto weapons while in Iraq.

[molonlabetn]

They are... but not to perpetrate crimes with.

This is bull:poop:

[Magiccarpetrides]

The part that gets me is they can be tried for a machinegun "crime" committed in a different country. That just boggles the mind. I would call that exigent circumstances.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Magiccarpetrides
...

[poak]

I did not realize they weren't allowed to use full-auto weapons while in Iraq.

I've read a lot about Blackwater's "illegal machine guns" in several articles claiming they were smuggled into the country. I'm a little more than confused about the whole "illegal machine guns" situation, but I couldnt understand how they would receive security contracts for several of the details they've been working WITHOUT proper armament. I mean, the insurgents surely aren't limiting their arsenals....

[TripleDigitRide]

Not being there it's really hard to have much of an opinion on a story like this, but one has to admit, there sure are an awful lot of negative press regarding Blackwater.

Seems as if there are far too many reports of "shady practices" by Blackwater for all of them to be void of truth.

[Guest bkelm18]

Yeah, I mean war is war. Crazy stuff happens, but I think people should be held accountable for their actions and justice should be held. This goes for anything, not just Blackwater. I agree these guys are probably just scapegoats but like TDR said, there's gotta be a grain of truth in there somewhere.

[TGO David]

Not being there it's really hard to have much of an opinion on a story like this, but one has to admit, there sure are an awful lot of negative press regarding Blackwater.

Seems as if there are far too many reports of "shady practices" by Blackwater for all of them to be void of truth.

You should probably walk a mile in their shoes before judging them.

Yeah, I mean war is war. Crazy stuff happens, but I think people should be held accountable for their actions and justice should be held. This goes for anything, not just Blackwater. I agree these guys are probably just scapegoats but like TDR said, there's gotta be a grain of truth in there somewhere.

You started off on the right foot, then veered off path. War is hell. The public has neither the stomach or the need for knowing every little thing that happens, and it is not a business that is conducted civilly or in step with the delicate sensibilities of civilized life. We have hamstrung our soldiers and security contractors by forcing them to consider innumerable rules of engagement in split-second scenarios where hesitating for a mere moment can mean the difference between life and death, not only for the individual but for entire squads or platoons.

The lawyers need to stay the **** off the battlefield.

[poak]

The lawyers need to stay the **** off the battlefield.

+1

Especially to the lawyer who told my brother he couldn't be armed on a 2month stint in Iraq due to "liabilities".

[TGO David]

The part that gets me is they can be tried for a machinegun "crime" committed in a different country. That just boggles the mind. I would call that exigent circumstances.

Referring to the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act that requires 30-year prison terms for using machine guns to commit violent crimes... charging these men with crimes under that Act is just utterly ****ing nauseating and shows how far some attorneys are willing to go to make an example of these men.

I shudder to think what our enlisted soldiers would be up against were they ever to be made fair game for these same ravenous wolves.

[Daniel]

IMPO, I followed the Law of War. They could have also.

[TGO David]

IMPO, I followed the Law of War. They could have also.

I'm not saying they were right. I just think that the whole thing of forcing soldiers / contractors to second guess themselves under fire is counterproductive to the task they are faced with. It is only a semi-workable situation when the other side is observing the rules also, but jihadists and insurgents aren't and won't.

Look at history. The American colonists won their war against a superior fighting force by disregarding the "rules of war" and using guerrilla tactics against the British.

[TripleDigitRide]

You should probably walk a mile in their shoes before judging them.

Exactly how was I judging them? I said that I wasn't there, so I can't really have much of an opinion on the matter.

On the other hand, you, who seems to be the knower-of-all, seem to have enough facts in this particular case to determine these guys are definitely nothing more than Scapegoats.

You very well could have this right, but as I stated in my OP, there has been an awful lot of bad press regarding Blackwater, and I think it would be somewhat ignorant to assume there isn't at least a possibility of some shred of fact in the mix.

I think it's safe to say that Blackwater is just like everyone else, in no way perfect. They make mistakes, and if making a mistake happens to be a criminal offense, they should be punished just like the rest of us. Our government passes these laws knowing full well what type of situations these guys could face, and just like us average citizens, tough times hardly constitute breaking the law with no repercussions.

Tiimes are getting real tough for many families these days. There are many men who at one time lived a nice life and had the ability to provide for their families. Some are now having a very difficult time simply providing basic necessities like food and shelter. The fear of leaving your family homeless and hungry could seriously damage a man's mental well-being, and a man with a damaged mental well-being is more likely to do all kinda of crazy things. Let's say one of these men were desperate to provide for their family, and it just so happened that you and your family had what they needed and/or wanted. I guess because times were so tough, mentally, it would be perfectly acceptable for them to take whatever needed and/or wanted. And God forbid this man with a damnaged mental well-being kills your wife in the process, which he had no intensions of before choosing your family. Hey, extreme situations call for extreme measures.

There is never an excuse to break the law. If you feel you must, then by all means do so, but don't cry about it when the hammer of justice comes crashing down right on top of you.

I'm sure the men and women (assuming there are women) of Blackwater are dealing with some real s***y situations, but none of them are being forced to be there. They signed up on their own free-will, and are being paid quite nicely to do so. $450 and $650 per day, according to the Blackwater website. Just like they signed up for the job, they always have the option of going home to a situation which their mental abilities are better suited. The job is obviously not cut out for everyone. Again, there is NO excuse for breaking the law.

Edited December 8, 2008 by TripleDigitRide

[Guest bkelm18]

You started off on the right foot, then veered off path. War is hell. The public has neither the stomach or the need for knowing every little thing that happens, and it is not a business that is conducted civilly or in step with the delicate sensibilities of civilized life. We have hamstrung our soldiers and security contractors by forcing them to consider innumerable rules of engagement in split-second scenarios where hesitating for a mere moment can mean the difference between life and death, not only for the individual but for entire squads or platoons.

The lawyers need to stay the **** off the battlefield.

Yeah, holding people accountable for their actions and bringing to justice those that have done wrong is definitely the wrong path. I never said what those Blackwater soldiers did was right nor wrong, I simply said that if they did wrong, they should be held accountable for their poor decisions. If thats the wrong path then this country has seriously gone to hell.

Edited December 8, 2008 by bkelm18

[TGO David]

Exactly how was I judging them? I said that I wasn't there, so I can't really have much of an opinion on the matter.

On the other hand, you, who seems to be the knower-of-all, seem to have enough facts in this particular case to determine these guys are definitely nothing more than Scapegoats.

First off, you picked the wrong week to be a smart ass with me. I'm not about to put up with it and I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange with you to prove who has the smallest penis but the largest ego. Rather, if you want to be a douche you can do it somewhere else and I can make the decision [easier] for you.

Now that that is out of the way...

You said:

Not being there it's really hard to have much of an opinion on a story like this, but one has to admit, there sure are an awful lot of negative press regarding Blackwater.

Seems as if there are far too many reports of "shady practices" by Blackwater for all of them to be void of truth.

It seems clear that you are judging them and that you are doing it strictly based on what you have heard from the mainstream media. I, being the knower of all things, try to base my opinions on information from sources that aren't biased toward any particular agenda. Most of those sources are guys who have worked with or around Blackwater and other contractors and most of them agree that these guys are getting the shaft and being used as scapegoats.

You very well could have this right, but as I stated in my OP, there has been an awful lot of bad press regarding Blackwater, and I think it would be somewhat ignorant to assume there isn't at least a possibility of some shred of fact in the mix.

Let's clarify: What you think is shady, I think is a necessary evil in times of war. Collateral damage is nothing new. It's been an unfortunate byproduct of war since wars started being fought. What is new is the recent advent of lawyers hounding combatants on the battlefield. That sort of **** wouldn't have been put up with 60 years ago.

I think it's safe to say that Blackwater is just like everyone else, in no way perfect. They make mistakes, and if making a mistake happens to be a criminal offense, they should be punished just like the rest of us. Our government passes these laws knowing full well what type of situations these guys could face, and just like us average citizens, tough times hardly constitute breaking the law with no repercussions.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree with what you quoted above... mostly.

Bunch of rambling stuff deleted to keep this brief.

The job is obviously not cut out for everyone. Again, there is NO excuse for breaking the law.

The people doing the job could probably do it a lot better if people who weren't doing the job kept their noses out of the job being done. Suffice it to say that in war, I think sometimes the end should justify the means. But I'm pretty politically incorrect like that.

[Jasongar8]

I dont know about you guys but I really could care less about the Iraqi people. Most of them would not think twice about killing American women and children. Do I think that it is right to target them? NO, but some will get killed in war, thats what happens. 2,974 innocent American people died on September 11, 2001, I think we need to remeber that when talking about how bad it is that some civilians died in Iraq, yea it happened, lets move on. The case was B.S. from the start, using a 80's drug law to "get" the Blackwater guys, total bull-*****.

-Jason G

[Guest TnDeerHunter]

Sounds like a lot of politics trying to go where they have no idea of what is going on. Send them over and let them be security, let them get a good taste of it then see if they still stand by their origanal mindset.

[TripleDigitRide]

First off, you picked the wrong week to be a smart ass with me. I'm not about to put up with it and I'm not going to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange with you to prove who has the smallest penis but the largest ego. Rather, if you want to be a douche you can do it somewhere else and I can make the decision [easier] for you.

I'm sorry that you're having a difficult week (which I had nothing to do with), and obviously having an even more difficult time engaging in what should be a civilized discussion/debate of differing opinions.

Resulting to public name calling is more than just a little uncalled for, and I'll leave the debate at that.

If you feel the need to make anything "easier", I'll leave that decision up to you. I enjoy TGO, and have no desire to leave on my own free will, so if you feel as if I'm no longer welcome here, I guess I'll have no choice but to stand by your decision.

I hope this week turns out better for you.

[Daniel]

I dont know about you guys but I really could care less about the Iraqi people. Most of them would not think twice about killing American women and children. Do I think that it is right to target them? NO, but some will get killed in war, thats what happens. 2,974 innocent American people died on September 11, 2001, I think we need to remeber that when talking about how bad it is that some civilians died in Iraq, yea it happened, lets move on. The case was B.S. from the start, using a 80's drug law to "get" the Blackwater guys, total bull-*****.

-Jason G

the bolded comment proves you dont know j.s.

furthermore 911 and Iraq are completely separate events.

Edited December 8, 2008 by Daniel

[Guest bkelm18]

Ok, so where is the line then? What's ok in war and what is not? Obviously killing unarmed civilians bodes well with some (not saying that Blackwater did it or not), so at what point will the general consensus change from "hey its war, it happens" to "give those men the needle"? We are a civilized nation of rules and laws, regardless of the events that formed this nation 200+ yrs ago. I'm not trying to start am argument but I'm curious where some people draw the line.

Edited December 8, 2008 by bkelm18

[TGO David]

I don't advocate killing civilians, but there is a metric ass-load of both concrete documented proof and anecdotal evidence that the line between innocent civilian and insurgent is insanely blurred on the battlefield these days. I think one of the most telling scenarios that I have read about recently was in the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell.

Luttrell's SEAL team might still be alive today had they chosen to kill two civilian "non-combatants" who stumbled upon them while they were staking out an Al Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan. Luttrell examines the situation in his book and discusses the fact that he was conflicted with what he knew needed to be done to preserve operational security versus what the UCMJ would allow him to do as a soldier.

They chose to let the civilians go. When they did, the civilians immediately retreated to the village and alerted the Al Qaeda operatives of their presence. In the subsequent firefight, all of the SEALS save for Luttrell were killed by the enemy and Luttrell went through hell to survive and did that just barely.

So yeah, I think sometimes people who end up in the wrong place at the wrong time just need to end up being an unfortunate but necessary casualty of war. War isn't fair. It isn't pretty. It isn't clean. And it doesn't jive well with what those of us sitting warm and safe behind our keyboards talking about it on the Internet feel is acceptable behavior becoming of a soldier or security contractor.

Which is why I think we should STFU and let them do their jobs.

[Guest bkelm18]

I don't advocate killing civilians, but there is a metric ass-load of both concrete documented proof and anecdotal evidence that the line between innocent civilian and insurgent is insanely blurred on the battlefield these days. I think one of the most telling scenarios that I have read about recently was in the book Lone Survivor by Marcus Luttrell.

Luttrell's SEAL team might still be alive today had they chosen to kill two civilian "non-combatants" who stumbled upon them while they were staking out an Al Qaeda hideout in Afghanistan. Luttrell examines the situation in his book and discusses the fact that he was conflicted with what he knew needed to be done to preserve operational security versus what the UCMJ would allow him to do as a soldier.

They chose to let the civilians go. When they did, the civilians immediately retreated to the village and alerted the Al Qaeda operatives of their presence. In the subsequent firefight, all of the SEALS save for Luttrell were killed by the enemy and Luttrell went through hell to survive and did that just barely.

So yeah, I think sometimes people who end up in the wrong place at the wrong time just need to end up being an unfortunate but necessary casualty of war. War isn't fair. It isn't pretty. It isn't clean. And it doesn't jive well with what those of us sitting warm and safe behind our keyboards talking about it on the Internet feel is acceptable behavior becoming of a soldier or security contractor.

Which is why I think we should STFU and let them do their jobs.

You're right, if they had killed those those civilians, they might still be alive. That's a line. In that case, I agree, it would be acceptable. But what if the SEAL Team then proceeded to go into the village and lay waste to everything that moves because they thought they saw an insurgent? There has to be a point where we step back and say what someone did was wrong and they should be held accountable for it.

[TGO David]

You're right, if they had killed those those civilians, they might still be alive. That's a line. In that case, I agree, it would be acceptable. But what if the SEAL Team then proceeded to go into the village and lay waste to everything that moves because they thought they saw an insurgent? There has to be a point where we step back and say what someone did was wrong and they should be held accountable for it.

I don't think they operate like that. Those guys tend to be consummate professionals.