[lit-ideas] Lit-Ideas Contractors and Denigration of the Military
- From: eternitytime1@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2007 09:04:25 -0400
HI,
Also detailing some of actions of the Blackwater contractor and their ilk as
well as another article describing actions taken against two Lt. Colonels from
a Blackwater contractor--and what did not surprise me was the allegations of
bribery requests made to some of the military to testify against the two Lt
Colonels.
Has Lawrence not been paying attention to the fact that the Philippines (among
other nations) have stopped allowing some of these contractors to even dock or
land in their countries because of the human trafficking going on? There is
extensive research on this (even within the US Justice Dept world--and the
military world. I have a sibling who is a Navy Commander who said she'd been
briefed on some of these actions--and there is incredible concern in many parts
of the military on the actions of these contractors...particularly in Iraq)
I think, once upon a time, I posted some of those citations. (But can again if
there is need or disbelief)
And, if anyone would like, we are still working to provide books for a
children's library in Iraq via some of the military there and I'd be glad to
provide the list of titles provided for us and that unit from Spirit of America
(who has helped set up at least three other children's libraries in Iraq--even
beyond food, water & electricity, many of the families in areas which were hit
were asking for books to read to their kids--and we are working with a unit
whose Captain contacted my library system for help when he and his men met with
the community leaders in the area where they are stationed...they were trying
to see what they could do to help...and the request for books was top of the
list) You can mail directly there--and the cost is like you were mailing to a
military base in the US.
Best,
Marlena in Missouri
briefly delurking because there are very serious problems with contractors
(and because I believe it horrifying to know that there are those who believe
that the USA theoretically cannot trust its own trained military to do as good
a job as paid contractors...or the allegations that somehow our military
men/women are not as good at protecting our State Dept personnel (or others) as
private industry. Just another way to denigrate the value of both our military
as well as the hard work of our government personnel. Or, as I often think, a
way to provide for $$ for cronies--all the while coming up with a rationale to
keep on chopping at the value of government in our lives...)
(Found the following in the Air Force Times)
A look at contractors firing on civilians
The Associated Press Posted : Monday Sep 17, 2007 20:42:54 EDT
A look at some of the incidents involving private contractors firing on Iraqi
civilians:
* September 2007: Contractors believed to be working for North Carolina-based
security firm Blackwater USA kill eight Iraqi civilians and wound 13 in a
firefight after a bombing near a State Department motorcade in Baghdad. The
Iraqi government says it is revoking the firm’s license.
* May 2007: A Blackwater employee fatally shoots an Iraqi civilian deemed to be
driving too close to a company security detail. A company spokeswoman says that
based on incident reports and witness accounts, the employee acted lawfully and
appropriately.
* December 2006: A drunken Blackwater employee fatally shoots a bodyguard for
Shiite Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi, Iraqi and U.S. officials say. He made
his way to the U.S. embassy where Blackwater officials arranged to have him
flown home to the U.S., according to American officials. The incident is under
investigation.
* 2006-2007: Two employees of Virginia-based Triple Canopy accuse their
supervisor of shooting at Iraqi civilians for amusement after saying he was
“going to kill somebody today.” The company fired all three employees for
failing to immediately report incidents involving gunfire.
* 2005-2006: Former employees of Custer Battles, a Rhode Island-based firm,
accuse co-workers of firing indiscriminately at civilians and crushing a car
filled with Iraqi children and adults while trying to make their way through a
traffic jam. The company denies the accusations.
* December 2005: Employees of London-based Aegis Defense Services post videos
on the Internet showing company guards firing at Iraqi civilians from a moving
vehicle. Aegis said the shootings were within protocols allowing guards to fire
on vehicles that approach too close or too quickly. U.S. Army auditors agree
with Aegis.
* May 2005: Sixteen American security guards employed by North Carolina-based
Zapata Engineering are jailed by Marines in Fallujah after they allegedly fire
on U.S. forces and Iraqi civilians. The guards are released after three days
and sent back to the U.S. None are charged.
Also from Air Force Times:
Evidence possibly falsified in Kabul case
Lt. cols. acted ‘exactly as they were trained’
By Kent Miller and Rod Hafemeister - Staff writers
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 19:51:12 EDT
SAN ANTONIO — Two Air Force lieutenant colonels who pulled guns on a Blackwater
contractor in Afghanistan should not face courts-martial, the investigating
officer has recommended.
But the Article 32 report uncovered allegations of witness tampering and
attempted bribery; falsified evidence; and charging documents improperly
altered.
All of that raises the question: Should somebody other than the lieutenant
colonels be charged?
Lt. Col. Gary W. Brown and Lt. Col. Christopher R. Hall were accused of
assaulting Blackwater USA contractor Jimmy Bergeron, including aiming an M4
rifle and M9 pistol at him. The showdown came after the vehicle driven by
Bergeron and the one carrying the two officers collided on the road from Kabul
Area International Airport to Camp Eggers on Sept. 19. The collision led to a
confrontation during which the officers drew down on Bergeron.
Read the investigating officer’s report on Brown in which she recommends
dismissal of all charges against both officers.
Prosecutors sought to blame the two officers, saying they initiated the contact
between the vehicles, escalated the incident when the two vehicles met again at
a traffic gate near the Afghan Ministry of Defense, then pushed and struck
Bergeron before Hall finally slipped the safety off his M4 and pointed it at
him.
But at their Article 32 hearing Feb. 24-27 in Kabul, Brown and Hall testified
that Bergeron, not they, initiated the incident. As they were driving on a
public road in their Toyota Land Cruiser, Bergeron drove his black-windowed
sport utility vehicle into their vehicle — twice.
Fearing they were being attacked by a terrorist, they sped off. But a short
while later, as they were waiting at the traffic gate, Bergeron, bearded and
dressed in civilian clothes, approached their car and began screaming and
threatening them, they testified.
Brown is a C-17 pilot based at Charleston Air Force Base, S.C. Hall is an
instructor pilot at Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas. The two deployed to work
with the Afghan air force until the incident.
They fell back on their training. Hall and Brown got out of the vehicle with
their weapons and ordered Bergeron to the ground. When he refused, they tried
to force him down. And when that proved unsuccessful, Brown raised his weapon
and clicked off the safety. According to the officers, only then did Bergeron
comply and tell them he was American. Before leaving, Brown threw Bergeron’s
keys into a bush so he wouldn’t be able to follow them when they departed, and
they then went to the Camp Eggers Provost Marshal’s office to report the
incident.
The investigating officer, Lt. Col. Leslea Pickle, recommended that all charges
against the lieutenant colonels be dismissed. “Given the security situation in
Kabul at the time and the facts and circumstances of their encounter with Mr.
Bergeron on the road, and then at the gate, I believe that they truly felt
threatened and reacted exactly as they were trained to do,” Pickle wrote.
“Therefore, I do not believe that either Lt. Col. Hall or Lt. Col. Brown
engaged in any criminal conduct. I believe that all the charges and
specifications against both officers should be dismissed.”
Now it is up to the convening authority, Lt. Gen. Gary North, commander of 9th
Air Force and Central Command Air Forces, to follow that recommendation or
decide to proceed to court-martial.
Civilian attorneys for the officers said they were pleased with the
recommendation — but not surprised.
“There’s not a jury in the Air Force that would convict these two guys,” said
Charles Gittins, Brown’s attorney.
The government’s case disintegrated, in part, because Pickle would not let
Bergeron testify by phone.
Bergeron was willing to attend the hearing “had the government invited him
before 15 Feb 07, just 8 days before the hearing began,” Pickle wrote. He was
“key to the government’s case, and therefore, his presence at the Article 32
hearing was crucial to a fair and impartial hearing for Lt Col Hall and Lt Col
Brown.”
It’s unclear where Bergeron is now. “It’s a matter of company policy not to
comment on anything involving an investigation,” Blackwater spokeswoman Anne
Tyrrell said.
Disturbing findings
Pickle’s report stated that she reviewed a videotape prosecutors had given to
the defense, purportedly showing the incident at the gate, and noticed
“discrepancies” between what the tape showed and what supposedly happened
during the incident. Defense counselors argued that the tape was a fake.
“I was not presented with any evidence as to how the video was obtained by the
government and when it was produced,” Pickle wrote. “There is no chain of
custody for the videotape. I concur that the videotape provided, that is
purported to be from 19 Sep 2006, does not match the sequence of events as they
have been described by witnesses. Therefore I did not consider it for purposes
of this report.”
Among the many discrepancies in the videotape is that it purportedly shows
Bergeron hopping into his blue SUV and leaving the scene first, without
searching for his keys. But the government’s case against Brown included a
conduct unbecoming charge that resulted from Brown throwing Bergeron’s keys
into a bush before leaving the scene first.
After the Article 32 concluded, the police commander in charge of the Afghan
gate guards who witnessed the events told Pickle that he had been contacted
many times in an effort to have the guards provide false testimony, and that
someone had attempted to bribe some or all of the guards to give false
testimony.
“I have sent a request to Army CID, through the Army legal personnel at Kabul,
to have this information investigated,” Pickle wrote.
On the day the Article 32 hearing began, prosecutors revealed that the charge
sheets against Hall and Brown, reviewed and preferred by Col. Mark A. Morris of
Central Air Forces, were altered at the direction of Maj. Sarah Scullion, chief
of military justice, CentAF Judge Advocate’s Office. The original charging
documents stated that Hall and Brown were placed on restricted duty — confined
to the compound at the airport, without weapons — on Sept. 23. But the charge
sheets served on the officers Feb. 4 did not include that notation, raising
questions about whether their right to a speedy trial, defined as 120 days by
the Uniform Code of Military Justice, had been violated.
When Scullion was asked to testify and Pickle read her her rights under
Articles 31 and 134 of the UCMJ, obstruction of justice and altering a public
record, she declined, invoking her right to counsel.
Pickle said the 9th Air Force Judge Advocate’s Office had the right to change
the document, not by whiting out the information, as it did, but by crossing it
out, initialing it and promptly notifying the defendants and their counsel.
None of that was done.
Aside from the issue of the improper altering of documents, if the orders
limiting the officers’ movement and right to bear arms “are found to be
‘restriction in lieu of arrest’ … then the speedy trial clock began on 23 Sep
06 for both cases,” Pickle wrote. “This will be a significant issue for the
government at trial.”
Next step
A 9th Air Force spokesman confirmed that the command has the report, but that
North, the convening authority, needs to review it before deciding if the cases
will go to courts-martial.
But the question on many people’s minds is why this case was brought in the
first place. Why would the Air Force take the word of a Blackwater contractor
over that of two Air Force officers?
It’s a question Brown and his wife, Stacey, have had to ponder. He has had to
shell out almost $24,000 for attorney’s fees so far, and that will climb
dramatically if there is a court-martial.
Greg Pavlik, Hall’s attorney, said the officers’ alleged actions were
completely out of character with their exemplary military records. Several
colleagues attested as much.
“There’s no way in the world,” Pavlik said, “that they went out on their own
and created this road-rage incident.”
________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! -
http://mail.aol.com
Other related posts:
