This bill is supposed to phase out private security companies such as Blackwater.

Sounds good to me. Whaddya think the chances are it'll pass?

Congress finds the following:

(1) The United States is increasingly relying on private security contractors to perform mission critical and emergency essential functions that historically have been performed by United States military or government personnel.

(2) The number of private security contractors in Iraq is reported to be at least 48,000 and Department of State funding for private security and law enforcement contractors is estimated to have increased from $1,000,000,000 to $4,000,000,000.

(3) The Congressional Research Service reports that about one-quarter of private security contractors are third-party nationals.

(4) On October 18, 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the work of many contractors in Iraq was `at cross-purposes to our larger mission in Iraq', and that `right now those missions are in conflict ...'.

(5) A December 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office found multiple deficiencies in the Army's oversight of contractors in Iraq, including `limited visibility over contractors', a lack of `adequate contractor oversight personnel', and `little or no training on the use of contractors'.

(6) The Congress does not have access to security contracts, the number of private security contractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and other combat zones, the number of contractors who have died or any disciplinary actions taken against them.

(7) The relationship between the governments of the United States and Iraq has been negatively impacted by violent incidents involving private military contractors and Iraqi citizens, including a December 24, 2006, shooting of the guard of the Iraqi Vice President and a September 16, 2007, shooting by Blackwater employees that killed 17 Iraqi citizens and wounded 24.

(8) The Government of Iraq has demanded that the United States Government sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater and expel the company from Iraq within six months, highlighting the danger in relying on private security contractors for mission critical functions.

(9) The use of private security contractors for mission critical functions undermines the mission, jeopardizes the safety of American troops conducting military operations in Iraq and other combat zones, and should be phased out.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.4102:










joe

If we get rid of the private contractors then the defense budget is going to have to get a whole lot bigger with the current missions the military has. My brother for one thinks that the hiring of security contractors/mercenaries is horrible for morale. I don't think groups like blackwater are held in high regard by the military in general. I am all for getting rid of them but what are going to be replaced with, a larger military that is stretched to thin to begin with. The military is not a group that can be hired and fired as the needs arise and go away. We are not getting out of either Afganister or Iraq anytime soon. We are kinda screwed that way.

This doesn't put Blackwater out of business. It says the government shouldn't hire them for certain missions.

I don't have a lot of problem with Blackwater doing what it is supposed to do. I do have a problem with them having immunity for the bad acts that they do over there, and with them interfering with military operations. Take away the immunity and see how well they behave, and throw them in Gitmo for interfering with the U.S. Military.

This doesn't put Blackwater out of business. It says the government shouldn't hire them for certain missions.

I don't have a lot of problem with Blackwater doing what it is supposed to do. I do have a problem with them having immunity for the bad acts that they do over there, and with them interfering with military operations. Take away the immunity and see how well they behave, and throw them in Gitmo for interfering with the U.S. Military.

They operate in a combat zone with the same risks our own military face and the same possibilities of civilian casualties in a firefight. The kind of restrictions you propose would make it impossible to recruit personel for some of the missions they perform under the conditions they work in.

They operate in a combat zone with the same risks our own military face and the same possibilities of civilian casualties in a firefight. The kind of restrictions you propose would make it impossible to recruit personel for some of the missions they perform under the conditions they work in.

Though our own military know that they face court martial for misconduct. What's the penalty for contractor misconduct other than a plane ticket home?

Though our own military know that they face court martial for misconduct. What's the penalty for contractor misconduct other than a plane ticket home?

Exactly, they need to be held to some standard, UCMJ or some variety there of. They screw up and get told to not come back, that ain't right no matter how you slice it.

They operate in a combat zone with the same risks our own military face and the same possibilities of civilian casualties in a firefight. The kind of restrictions you propose would make it impossible to recruit personel for some of the missions they perform under the conditions they work in.That's what Dyncorp and Halliburton said about a provision drafted at the Pentagon to eliminate criminal immunity if their employees were caught engaging in sex slavery.
A proposal prohibiting defense contractor involvement in human trafficking for forced prostitution and labor was drafted by the Pentagon last summer [2004], but five defense lobbying groups oppose key provisions and a final policy still appears to be months away, according to those involved and Defense Department records.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512270176dec27,0,1632557.story
For background (http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20Government/dyncorp_disgrace.htm): Dyncorp employees in Bosnia in the late 1990s were caught by U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Division purchasing sex slaves as young as 15 (there were unproved allegations that there might have been girls as young as 12) and one employee possessed a homemade videotape showing him raping an underage girl. These employees were not prosecuted, but were repatriated to the U.S. According to the army, they were civilians so they could not be prosecuted by courts martial; they could not be prosecuted in U.S. courts because the crimes had been committed on foreign soil; and they could not be prosecuted in Bosnian courts because they had immunity from local law on account of taking part in U.S. military operations.

To reiterate: U.S. citizens, working for a contractor were caught raping a child and purchasing sex slaves and they were never prosecuted!

In a related story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0512270176dec27,0,1632557.story?page=2)[T]he [Chicago] Tribune detailed how Middle Eastern firms working under American subcontracts in Iraq, and a chain of human brokers beneath them, engaged in the kind of abuses condemned elsewhere by the U.S. government as human trafficking. KBR, the Halliburton subsidiary, relies on more than 200 subcontractors to carry out a multibillion-dollar U.S. Army contract for privatization of military support operations in the war zone.

The Tribune retraced the journey of 12 Nepali men recruited from poor villages in one of the most remote and impoverished corners of the world and documented a trail of deceit, fraud and negligence stretching into Iraq. The men were kidnapped from an unprotected caravan and executed en route to jobs at an American military base in 2004.

At the time, Halliburton said it was not responsible for the recruitment or hiring practices of its subcontractors, and the U.S. Army, which oversees the privatization contract, said questions about alleged misconduct "by subcontractor firms should be addressed to those firms, as these are not Army issues."

They operate in a combat zone with the same risks our own military face and the same possibilities of civilian casualties in a firefight. The kind of restrictions you propose would make it impossible to recruit personel for some of the missions they perform under the conditions they work in.

WTF? Not giving someone advance blanket immunity for crimes they may commit is a restriction? And that will hurt recruiting? Who are we recruiting, serial killers?

Who are we recruiting, serial killers?


That's a rhetorical question, right?