For those already outraged at the AIG bonus scandal, here is a fact that should add more fuel to the fire: The Obama administration has paid the mercenary firm formerly known as Blackwater nearly $70 million to operate in Iraq and, according to the Washington Times, may keep the company on the payroll months past the official expiration of its Iraq contract in May. I reviewed Blackwater's recent transactions with the Obama State Department and discovered a $45 million payment to Blackwater on February 4, 2009 for "protective services-Iraq." It is described as a "funding action only." Here is the interesting part: The estimated "Ultimate Completion Date" is 5/07/2011.
The Washington Times (as described below) reported on a $22 million payment to Blackwater on February 2. Combined with the $45 million payment I discovered, that's nearly $67 million in 72 hours. Not bad for a company supposedly going down in flames.
With the US economy in shambles and millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet and keep their homes, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton need to explain to US taxpayers how they justify these mega-payments to a scandal-plagued mercenary company. (At the very least, someone should ask Robert Gibbs about it).
It has been widely reported that the Bush administration's preferred mercenary company, which recently renamed itself Xe, will soon be leaving Iraq. That news came early this year after the State Department, under immense public pressure, announced it would not renew the company's lucrative deal to act as the private paramilitary force for senior US occupation officials. The Iraqi government has said it wants the company to leave Iraq and says it has revoked the company's operating license. The Obama administration continues to use Blackwater in Afghanistan and the company has extensive domestic training contracts with the military and law enforcement agencies inside the borders of the US.
Earlier this week, the Washington Post reported that some of Blackwater's armed operatives may simply be rehired by two other US mercenary firms that are expected to take over Blackwater's work in Iraq under the Obama administration: Triple Canopy and DynCorp. Now, The Washington Times reports that the State Department has signed contracts with Blackwater that appear to extend the company's presence in Iraq at least until September 2009.
According to the paper:
"On Feb. 2, a department spokesman was asked whether officials planned to renew one of Blackwater's contracts past May. The spokesman, Robert Wood, said the department had told Blackwater 'we did not plan to renew the company's existing task force orders for protective security details in Iraq.'
"But records available through a federal procurement database show that on that same day, the State Department approved a $22.2 million contract modification for Blackwater 'security personnel' in Iraq, with a job completion date of Sept. 3, 2009."
"Why would you continue to use Blackwater when the Iraqi government has banned the highly controversial company and there are other choices?" said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the nonpartisan Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
State Department spokesman Noel Clay told the Washington Times the contract modification involves aviation services. "The place of performance is Iraq, but it is totally different than the Baghdad one that expires in May," he said. Sloan called the State Department's explanation of the Feb. 2 deal a "parsing of words" and said "they should just be straight with us." Xe spokeswoman Anne Tyrell declined to comment on the status of the company's work in Iraq or the Feb. 2 contract modification. She said the company was aware that the State Department had indicated that it did not plan to renew its contracts in Iraq but that Xe officials had not received specific information about leaving the country. "We're following their direction," she said.
Blackwater recently renamed itself Xe and its owner Erik Prince "resigned" as CEO, though he remains its sole owner and chairman.
UPDATE: Could Arlen Specter's Logic on AIG Bonuses Be Applied to Blackwater?
Several people have written me asking what the Obama administration SHOULD do with Blackwater, following the reports last night that the State Department paid the company some $70 million over a 72 hour period in February.
Many people take the position that Obama is dealing with remnants of the Bush administration's disastrous policies and that it will take time to unravel. Fair enough. But, with the US economy in shambles, is it really a priority to make good on payments to a company like Blackwater?
I have long written that the Obama Iraq policy will necessitate using mercenary forces. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is Obama's refusal to scrap that monstrous US fortress they are calling an embassy. If it's not going to be Blackwater guarding Obama's occupation officials, it will be Triple Canopy and DynCorp (who will in turn hire a bunch of the "fired" Blackwater guys anyway). The point here is this: I disagree that the reality is simply that Obama needs time to phase out Blackwater and his hands are tied when it comes to paying them on existing contracts. I believe Obama needs them to sustain his bad Iraq policy, which will continue the occupation, albeit with a softer face. If Obama wanted to, he could outright fire Blackwater. Henry Waxman and others have called for that. He certainly would have the support of the American people, particularly given how much money Blackwater has milked from the US treasury.
All of this brings me to Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, former chair of the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, he was interviewed on MSNBC by Andrea Mitchell about the AIG bonuses. Read what he says about the AIG contracts not having to be honored and then apply the logic to Obama's Blackwater situation:
MITCHELL: What say you when it comes to these bonuses? Should they be taxed back? Should the AIG executives who approved the bonuses have to commit hari-kari? With whom do you side?
SPECTER: Andrea, they're not enforceable under the law. They are against public policy. It is obviously against public policy to pay bonuses to people who caused the problem. If you have, for example, a contract for the sale of heroin, that's not enforceable. You take those cases to court, they won't be enforced. It's just that plain. It's set out very simply in the restatement of the law on contracts
(.....)
MITCHELL: Well, you know, there's been a lot ventilating on all sides, but you're a former district attorney, a former prosecutor, experienced lawyer and we tend to trust your judgment on this, former Judiciary Chairman. So let me hear you out on when you say they're not enforceable, the top economic adviser and the Treasury Secretary said that these were contracts that if the government broke the contracts, there would be greater expense in going to court and suing to get the money back.
What would the next steps be in a practical way to get the money back and break the contracts?
SEN. SPECTER: The top economic adviser and the Secretary of the Treasury are wrong again. It happens too often to be excusable. I'd like to argue this as a legal matter. If you have a contract, which is against public policy, it is not enforceable. I gave you an extreme example. If you have a contract for the delivery of heroin, the use of heroin, the delivery of heroin is against the law, you can't enforce it.
Let those individuals who claim that they're entitled to bonuses go to court and the government will defend the case and will say these are against public policy. How can you pay a bonus to this individual in this company, which raised the problem and caused this $180 billion bailout and now they want bonuses on top? It is simply unenforceable.
Mr. Obama.... you are failing me and I am LOSING HOPE very quickly.
Mrs. Clinton.... I kind of expected underhanded behavior from you...and I'm glad you prove me right every time.
Obama did not want to take VA benefits. It was an idea (and that wasn't even the idea, but I'll be short for the sake of expediency) that got nixed by Obama himself.
If you can't see the value in having Blackwater and the associated corporations around, then you need to start doing pushups, because buddy, the draft is coming.
I think that draft army is a liberty like second amendment. It is wrong to rely on the other to defend your life and freedom just for money. And theese are very modest money as I can figure out from this "The use of stop-loss will cease by 2010, and in the meantime, troops serving after their enlistments are supposed to be over will see an extra $500 in their monthly pay."
I do not see citizen's army in US now. But actually in Vietnam era with draft it did not feel like a citizen's army either. Something has to done.
I appreciate Mr. Scahills opinion. But, anyone who has read his material knows that he is biased against Xe. If they opened an orphanage and became monks, he would still find an issue with them.
I hope your enlightenment was illuminating, have a nice day.
Also, unless you're all ready to be drafted (since you're not currently serving in the military), it's stupid to preclude the private sector from government programs. They make it cheaper for you because they don't take you out of the workforce to become a soldier and become a non-productive economic agent. This is better for everyone.
This works because some people just want to make money. It's selfish, but benefits are benefits independent of your moral compass. Speaking of which, it's hard to swallow any assertion that the entirety of Blackwater is a part of some kool-aid conspiracy theory because they have some unruly employees, and yes, that is what they are.
It seems as if this security agreement creates, from an Iraqi legal perspective, a US-funded criminal element under arms in Iraq. If Iraqis (or Iraqi-supported Iranians) choose to attack Blackwater criminals with arms when arresting them pursuant to Iraqi law, the US is unable to legally defend these Blackwater criminals from these attacks through US military intervention. Even if numeous Blackwater thugs are injured or killed or maimed by Iraqis during their arrest by Iraqi Security forces or those whom Iraq sanctions to perform the arrest, the US is powerless legally to protect them.
I'm not for the Iraq war, but I do know that Blackwater works with our troops, trains our troops and our troops needs them for this training.
Contract law and military exposure is what your lacking knowledge of...
From Obama's first economic appointments I tried to raise a warning. If someone picks up a gun, puts bullets in the chamber, you don't need to wait for them to cock, aim and pull the trigger. You holler and get out of the way. Well, apparently that's not how it works in Alternate land. You give one more chance, and then one more chance, and you justify and defend and equivocate, because it's easier than pitching in and getting your hands dirty. Better to put up 10,000 posts because you like to see your name on the little screen.
It's the same attitude the Neo-cons had for their guy. He could do no wrong. Well, I agree with you. Getting elected is just the Beginning and our vigilance should be, if anything, redoubled until we have good reason to believe that our interests are being served.
They are NOT protecting our troops, but they have killed several of them.
And, we are not 'getting the heck out of there' for years, so if you really want to defend Blackwater and other equally violent mercenary armies sucking up your tax dollars because 'we have a need for these special ops guys' maybe you should learn a bit more about what these guys do.
The 'give us more time to fix Bush policies' argument is as worn out as any lame excuse could be.
After watching Obama pack his cabinet--especially the economic side--with Wall Street retreads and Goldman Sachs operatives based on a very narrow range of input that excluded voices that predicted this crisis, I am not surprised to hear that he is also continuing the Bush legacy with Blackwater.
I, too, worked and voted for him. I expected that he would engage a broad representation of voices in the economy, international relations, and the two wars. He hasn't. He also hasn't mentioned repealing any of the unconstitutional laws passed under Bush--Patriot, Military Commission, Homegrown Terrorist, spying, etc. Those laws are there only to allow the repression of the People in This country.
When I read Clemons or Scheer today on the power of Goldman-Sachs over our government through their operatives in Treasury and the FED, I have real doubts about the survival of our Democracy.
Note to self... proof read AFTER your second cup of coffee.
Blackwater gets what they get because they are that type of dog. All of you peace loving pacifists who think there's no need for the likes of Blackwater have no idea what real security entails. They are in a ware zone w/ people that strap bombs on mentally retarded women and send them off to die, they aren't at a tea party.
There have been cases of abuse of power by a few Blackwater operatives and that's inexcusable, but the vast majority of Blackwater's contractors are professional people, who willingly put their lives on the line to insure the safety of others. I know some of them, I have trained w/ them and I can testify to their reasonable nature.
Unless you people want to re-institute the draft, then there is a need for contractors like Blackwater and since they have a 100% safe delivery rate of all of their protectees in Afghanistan and Iraq, then it's a good thing they are available.
That was my point about the draft, if we had the draft we could have the troop levels needed and private contractors wouldn't be needed, but no one wants the draft re-instated. I personally like the Israeli model, where every man and woman serves for two years in the armed forces (18-20 y/o) and then they stay if they choose or go to college or work if they choose at 20 y/o. That's not a popular idea in the States.
Mercenary isn't the proper term. Mercenary implies an individual who is hired to fight someone's private dirty war. These are security contractors, they provide security for high risk protectees in high threat areas. They provided security for Pres. Obama when he visited Iraq and Afghanistan and he complimented them and their service. For lack of clarity these men and women are highly trained body guards. They aren't mercenaries.
____________________________
MATTHEW ALEXANDER: You know, ultimately, interrogation is just one tool we’re using in this war. And we have to conduct ourselves while we’re doing interrogations according to American principles. If we don’t, then we’re not living up to the ideals that we proclaim to have. And for me, this war, it’s more about preserving our American principles than it is about defeating al-Qaeda. We can’t become our enemies in trying to defeat them. http://www.democracynow.org/2008/12/3/us_interrogator_in_iraq_says_torture
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's it right there! As much as I admire our brother's courage, conceiving the cosmos as a giant jungle-gym for wannabe war gods is the problem.. Since it's not really about the war per se, can't we conceive of a way of being in the world, other than perpetual holy war?