Posted on 10/12/2007 7:20:43 AM PDT by freedomdefender
Blackwater USA guards shot at Iraqi civilians as they tried to drive away from a Baghdad square on Sept. 16, according to a report compiled by the first U.S. soldiers to arrive at the scene, where they found no evidence that Iraqis had fired weapons.
"It appeared to me they were fleeing the scene when they were engaged. It had every indication of an excessive shooting," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, whose soldiers reached Nisoor Square 20 to 25 minutes after the gunfire subsided. His soldiers' report -- based upon their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police -- concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved" and described the shootings as a "criminal event." Their conclusions mirrored those reached by the Iraqi government, which has said the Blackwater guards killed 17 people.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Are they leaving something out? Had the “civilians” fleeing in the cars just left an ambush site that they had set up for the Blackwater guards?
That was my fault.
I saw this statement: “Murtha didn’t issue the report that is the subject of this thread.” and stopped reading at: “Murtha didn’t issue the report...”
Because I just posted a report that initiated by Murtha.
You are carrying water for a propaganda movement that is trying to shut down our contractors.
You certainly seem at pains to give the contractors every benefit of the doubt, and to give the report - or reported observations, or whatever you want to call them - of our own uniformed soldiers, automatic dismissal. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I’m more of a “support the troops” guy.
Do you say that of anyone who criticizes Blackwater - including the soldiers in this newspaper story?
>>>and to give the report - or reported observations, or whatever you want to call them - of our own uniformed soldiers, automatic dismissal.
Copy and paste where I said this.
(Good troll bait thread)
Wasnt there a big battle where US troops had to go and rescue some Blackwater personnel, which turns out to be illegal for them to do? or someting like that?
YOU ARE CARRYING WATER FOR A PROPAGANDA MOVEMENT.
LOOK
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/ksil520.pdf
USAWC STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP COURSE
PHASING OUT PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS IN IRAQ
by
Colonel Bobby A. Towery
United States Army
REPORT INITIATED BY JOHN MURTHA TO GET CONTRACTORS OUT OF THE WAR.
Not for a minute. They reported what they saw. But it is possible that the troops arrived after an incident and only caught the tail end of the proceedings; for instance, the Blackwater guys discovering an ambush in the process of being set up.
no. I also find it highly disturbing
from what I have heard from people who have been over there, these Blackwater guys (and other privatized paramilitary outfits) are pretty much despised by everyone
You apparently didn't read far enough, then:
His soldiers' report -- based upon their observations at the scene, eyewitness interviews and discussions with Iraqi police -- concluded that there was "no enemy activity involved."
The Blackwater folks have a rough job, and on balance I think they fill a useful purpose.
But at the same time, I recognize that the job would hold a certain attraction for some of the more aggressive types whose common sense perhaps doesn't suffice to restrain their reflexive instinct to use force. We've all known cops who fit this mould (I knew one such who described himself as an "adrenaline junky") ... and an Iraq assignment would be like the promised land for them. Big money, and plenty of "adrenaline" opportunities.
And when you couple that with an organization that's not constrained by ROE and military order.... well, you pretty much expect that bad things are more likely to happen.
BlackwaterUSA are members of the INTERNATIONAL PEACE OPERATIONS ASSOCIATION and pledge their Code of Conduct.
“Looks as if Blackwater joins Haliburton and “the rich” as targets of the Moonbats.”
Please. A conservative worth his salt is in support of a strong military and small government. Contractors negatively effecting the operational space of the military and hosing the government for untold billions SHOULD be a conservative target.
I honestly don’t understand how conservative support for Blackwater and their ilk is so strong. Haliburton has bordered on war profiteering on many occassions, inflating their bills and providing unecessary (and in some cases, nonexistant) services to help their bottom line.
War should be a time of sacrifice for Americans, not a chance to wet our beaks at the expense of men and women on the ground.
And if they break their pledge..... Well, they might get fired, or not.
Which is a rather different situation from what would happen if an American soldier failed to follow the ROE.
Neither Blackwater, nor contract security types, are intrinsically bad. But I think such companies are much more likely to have a higher concentration of aggressive "soldiers" than a military unit, and I think that increases the likelihood that there will be problems.
Do you deny it?
and that binds them to what laws exactly? Does this organization have law enforcement mechanisms?
Allegra, is the supposition by the poster above accurate?
Thanks!
Josh White in particular. He was the conduit for the NCIS to leak it's "investigation" in the Haditha case to the public.
Am I the only one who is troubled that the US government is funding a bunch of Rambo-wannabees who apparently have no accountability for their actions?
I just want to add that while those Blackwater men who guard American diplos and other high level VIPs tend to be American nationals the Blackwater low end employees tend to be men hired from all over the world. Is my understanding correct?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.