What Immunity for Private Contractors Can Do In Iraq

Any sentient human being has probably heard of the horror stories of atrocities committed by Blackwater, a private security contractor employed by the U.S. Government in Iraq. What is particularly troublesome about the Blackwater case is what it reveals to us about the unaccountability and legal immunity that such contractors have in Iraq. Apparently, because Blackwater is not part of any official U.S. agency or department, such as the State Department or the Defense Department, it is not subject to the laws that govern the behavior of these governmental entities and it is exempt from prosecution for its misdeeds and crimes committed abroad. Furthermore, because Blackwater is a foreign entity in Iraq it may also be exempt from prosecution by the Iraqis according to Iraqi domestic law. In essence, Blackwater and other similarly-positioned contractors in Iraq seem to have de facto legal immunity against criminal prosecution for what they may do in Iraq.

But, as the tragic case of Jamie Leigh Jones demonstrates, this problem not only applies to non-security contractors such as Halliburton/KBR, but also even when crimes are committed by employees of such contractors against their fellow workers. The ABC News report, linked above, writes:

A Houston, Texas woman says she was gang-raped by Halliburton/KBR coworkers in Baghdad, and the company and the U.S. government are covering up the incident.

Jamie Leigh Jones, now 22, says that after she was raped by multiple men at a KBR camp in the Green Zone, the company put her under guard in a shipping container with a bed and warned her that if she left Iraq for medical treatment, she'd be out of a job.

Read the whole sad story. As you mourn what happened to Jamie Leigh Jones, and as you stand shocked and stunned by the brazenness and unaccountability of Halliburton/KBR and its employees, ponder the conditions and the enviroment that made such a thing possible. I challenge any of my readers and war supporters to come up with any scenario in the United States where such an incident would be tolerated.

I suggest to you that the whole sick culture of anti-terrorism warfare cultivated by the Bush administration, ranging from the suspension of civil rights contained in the Patriot Act to the atrocities of Abu Ghraib to the sanctioning of "harsh interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding (otherwise known as torture), leads to this kind of sick behavior where U.S. citizens employed by a U.S. corporation contracted by the U.S. government can brutally rape a fellow U.S. citizen and then keep her locked up in isolation in a container without having to face any repercussions or without being held accountable at all for this outrage. Now, I certainly am willing to concede that this incident is certainly not the norm and that the vast majority of the folks working in Iraq with subcontractors such as Halliburton/KBR are honorable people doing good work. But I will also declare emphatically that one case like that of Jamie Leigh Jones is one case too much; and that any culture of warfare that makes it possible for such atrocities to happen without accountability and justice is not a culture of warfare that we should accept.

Rush the Disingenuous Dissembler

Rush Limbaugh is now saying that he never called Brian McGough a "suicide bomber" as if his use of the specific words "suicide bomber" is what makes it so. Well, it is true that Rush never called him a "suicide bomber," he just described him exactly in the terms as one would describe a "suicide bomber." Here's exactly what Rush said. You make up your mind if Rush is being disingenuous:

You know, this is such a blatant use of a valiant combat veteran, lying to him about what I said, then strapping those lies to his belt, sending him out via the media and a TV ad to walk into as many people as he can walk into.

How can anyone defend Rush here? If I were an honest conservative, I'd be embarrassed by Rush, not only with this pathetic dissembling, but also by his presuming that this soldier is just a mindless dupe of the left who is incapable of thinking for himself.

Rush Limbaugh on Soldier Intelligence

I wonder if the Dittoheads and other rightwing pundits and bloggers will jump all over Rush for his patronizing disrespect of US soldiers. I mean, really, not only did Rush Limbaugh basically accuse a soldier of being unable to think for himself and of being the dupe of the left, he also likens the soldier to a suicide bomber. Really.

Rush, with his "talent on loan from God" majestic and omniscient "wisdom," spins this soldier's opinions and thoughts according to his own convoluted logic. Of course, in Rush's myopic worldview it is just impossible to be a decorated Purple Heart veteran of the Iraq War AND a critic of the war. Hence, this soldier must be a feeble dupe of the anti-war left. What's Rush likely to say next about this soldier? That his anti-war stance is a product of brain damage caused by the shrapnel he took to his head while serving in Iraq? Puh-leeze!

That's bad enough as it is, but then look at how Rush tries to then turn around this soldier's sacrifice and equate the man to a suicide bomber! It's just stunningly and brazenly disrespectful of this soldier when you think about it. I mean, this guy comes out with some strong and powerful criticism of Rush, and what does Rush do? He basically calls the guy a suicide bomber who can't think for himself. To listen to Rush speak, this U.S. soldier is, in effect, the worst kind of enemy to Rush Limbaugh and all that is good and strong about America that Rush thinks he himself epitomizes. It's pathetic and vile, really. Rush removes any kind of agency from this soldier, which disrespects this man's intelligence, and then he likens him to some of the vilest of America's enemies -- an enemy, in fact, that actually gave the soldier the very injury that earned him his Purple Heart. Ain't Rush sweet?

And Rush has the gall to pretend that it's the left who thinks soldiers are fools and who "use" the military for their own political purposes.

I wonder what the Dittoheads and the rightwing blogosphere will say about Rush now? I'm not holding my breath.

With Friends Like These ...

who needs enemies?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, orchestrated into power by the Bush Administration, responded this way about his erstwhile patron and Bush's mild rebuke:

Al-Maliki, on a trip to Syria, reacted harshly when asked about the earlier comments from U.S. officials.

"No one has the right to place timetables on the Iraq government. It was elected by its people," he said at a news conference in Damascus at the end of the three-day visit to Syria.

"Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere," al-Maliki said.

Now, Bush is planning to backtrack on his comments because he is afraid to hurt al-Maliki's feelings. The sad thing is that Bush has painted himself into this corner and has given al-Maliki the upper hand in the relationship. Bush needs the Iraqi government to succeed, even if it is an ineffective and counterproductive one, because he has so much invested in having Iraq seem less like the basket case that it is.

In the past, such testy and whiny comments by proxy surrogates would be met with an even sterner rebuke and a harsher dose of truth-talk, rather than a meely-mouth cave-in.

Bush is reaping what he has sown.

The Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy ...

continues to traverse the proverbial rabbit hole. At this point, who knows what the truth is. The Weekly Standard reports, according to some "source," that Beauchamp has recanted his stories in sworn affadavits. And apparently the military has concluded that there was falsehood in the Beauchamp stories. What that falsehood entails, specifically, the military investigators refuse to say, which does cause eyebrows to raise. For instance, one would expect that if there were definitive and conclusive evidence that specific things mentioned in Beauchamp's stories were untrue the military investigators would provide specific reference to such evidence. But all we have is some military investigator saying that its review of its own bad behavior has caused it to determine that reports of its bad behavior are ... gasp! ... false! That's like Ken Lay conducting a private investigation of Jeff Skilling and determining that, surprise!, Skilling did nothing wrong. Or, better yet, it's like Dick Cheney investigating Scooter Libby and reporting that, surprise!, Scooter Libby is as clean as a whistle. Why would the military want to air out its dirty laundry when it can try to bury it under the vague platitudes of some nebulous claim that Beauchamp fibbed without specifying what he exactly fibbed about. And then there is The New Republic's statement claiming that they have still not received any evidence to disprove the claims in Beauchamp's stories and that the military investigators refuse to clue them in on what evidence they managed to dredge up that would disprove the claims that the TNR says has been corroborated off-the-record by Beauchamp's fellow soldiers. In fact, the military's point person, Steven Lamb, has refused to corroborate to TNR the Weekly Standard's claims. And I find that such refusal to do so is inconscionable, now that the Weekly Standard is throwing such a claim out there based on its own anonymous sourcing.

Who knows what to believe? But one would think that the military should have specific and concrete evidence one way or the other. Why won't they reveal this evidence, or at least be specific in terms of outlining which of Beauchamp's stories are false and how they know that? I'm sorry, but if the military authorities expect me to believe them just on blind faith, they're mistaken. That's not to say that I believe either Beauchamp or The New Republic either. I don't know whom to believe at this point. But I do know that, as much as one might question the way Beauchamp and TNR have handled this matter, the way the military investigators have handled this matter also doesn't inspire confidence in trusting what they say is the truth.

Wingers Turn on a US Troop

I read this article written by a US Soldier, Scott Thomas Beauchamp, currently on active duty in Iraq, for the current edition of The New Republic when it came out in print. (I'm a TNR subscriber.)

At the time, I found it disturbing, but not unbelievable.

However, the Rightwing blogosphere has gone berserk over this story, challenging both its factual accuracy as well as whether such seedy stories can even be possible within the U.S. military. For a sample of the apoplectic head-popping, see here, here, and here.

I'll wait until the investigation by the military into the incidents described by Scott Thomas Beauchamp before I make any judgments on his claims, but I want to pose a couple of questions to my readers out there who have any kind of military or combat experience:

1) How unusual is it for fellow soldiers or commanding officers to turn a blind eye towards stupid behavior from soldiers like chasing dogs with a Bradley instead of reporting such incidents to the proper investigative authorities?
2) How cruel can soldiers be to one another regarding gross bodily disfigurements caused by IEDs?
3) How unbelievable is it to imagine anything what Thomas describes as completely outside of the realm of the possible within the military?

As I said, I found what Thomas wrote to be disturbing, but I certainly didn't put such behavior beyond the realm of the possible.

Then again, I've never served in the Military nor have I been in Iraq during the war, so my understanding of what is possible or even believable is conditioned by what I read in the news, hear from friends who have served there, or see on the news.

I would appreciate any honest thoughts from folks with such experience, but NOT on the specific veracity of Beauchamp's particular claims. Rather, I just want to know if it is foolish of me to think that such things are even within the realm of the possible.