Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Contract employees shooting at civilians?

Posted by Onnesha Roychoudhuri at 4:32 PM on November 29, 2005.


Looks like our hired guns may be up to no good. What will the U.S. government do about it? Probably the usual: a whole lot of nothing.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get Onnesha Roychoudhuri in your
mailbox!

 

It's no secret that we're short on troops in Iraq. It's also no secret that our troops are being bolstered by private contractors who are hired by the U.S. to provide security detail. Corporations such as Inveco International, Halliburton, Blackwater, and Triple Canopy have been recruiting retired military personnel (some former paramilitaries from Latin American countries) -- folks just itching to get back into the action.

Private contactors are not legally considered combatants, but once given a contract by the U.S., adopt the same rules for opening fire as the military. Yet, regulation of these hired guns, and accountability of their actions, is sorely lacking.

Nothing illustrates this better than a recent incident in which a "trophy video" was posted on the internet. The video shows alleged private security contractors shooting at Iraqi citizens. The video first appeared on www.aegisIraq.co.uk -- a site run by "the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company." Aegis, run by former Scots Guard officer Lt. Col. Tim Spicer (back in 1998, his private military company Sandlines International was accused of violating UN sanctions by selling arms to Sierra Leone) is a private contracting company hired by the US to provide security detail in Iraq. Aegis is taking refuge in the defense that www.AegisIraq.co.uk is not the official company site. Spicer recently posted a message of warning on the site: "Please think twice about posting your happy snaps and whilst I am not concerned about this site as yet, if it develops into something other than a light hearted pressure valve I will take a much greater interest." Interesting version of light-hearted. True, the site showcases "the SheTeam" -- scantily clad female bodybuilders. But, this is also alongside of much more sobering material such as videos of manned checkpoints exploding.

Aegis claims that it is looking into the incident, but the British Foreign Office has passed the buck on to the U.S., rightfully pointing out that it is "a matter for the American authorities because Aegis is under contract to the United States." Yet, aside from the Christian Science Monitor and CorpWatch, the story hasn't seemed to find an outlet here in the U.S.

This is all disturbingly familiar. When the Abu Ghraib scandal was exposed, it was because a soldier from the inside, disgusted by behavior that went counter to the code of conduct he was taught in training, came forward with evidence. The evidence was then passed on to the Army Criminal Investigative Command (CID). But there are no such enforceable regulations with private contractors. Indeed, back in February, four contract workers (all retired U.S. military veterans) left the company they were working for (Custer Battles) because they claimed they had witnessed coworkers firing on innocent civilians. The four came forward to NBC in an interview to explain what they had observed because, presumably, they didn't feel their claims were being taken seriously. When contacted, the Army CID claimed that they had passed the case on to the FBI. And there hasn't been a word about it since.

What's most disturbing about private contract workers is that we aren't hearing much about them -- both the number of casualties (and there are plenty of them), as well as the reports of wrongdoing. Heck, we don't even hear about it when these folks do something good. It's a hidden contingent of mercenaries that aren't being afforded protection. Indeed, as the Washington Post pointed out earlier this year, private security contractors' work is as dangerous, if not more so, than that of the U.S. military. Some contract workers note that they have been shot at repeatedly by U.S. forces.

Not only are they not afforded the same protection as combat soldiers, they are similarly overlooked when it comes to rules and regulations. It's about time the U.S. government figure out a way to better regulate contract employees. Let's face it, with the kind of wars we fight these days, private contactors -- the ready, willing and well paid -- are going to be around long after our troops go home.

Digg!

Onnesha Roychoudhuri is an editorial intern at AlterNet.


How Phone Companies Team Up With Bush to Spy On You
Onnesha Roychoudhuri: A new investigative piece explores American telecoms complicity with the Bush administration’s data mining program.
August 14, 2007.
Making Justice Moot
The Bush administration releases Guantanamo detainees -- just in time to keep their case from the Supreme Court.
May 6, 2006.
Dirty words in politics
A proposal to banish the f-word (freedom) and the s-word (security) from political campaigns.
May 5, 2006.
Enron still wreaking havoc
Even with Lay and Skilling standing trial, Enron creditors and lobbyists are working hard to cover up evidence and exploit consumers.
May 3, 2006.
Guantanamo detainees will be released...
just as soon as we can be sure their home countries won't abuse them the way we do.
May 2, 2006.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
"Private contractors?"
Posted by: mr. joshua on Nov 29, 2005 5:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just out of curiosity, why is the term "mercenary" so assiduously avoided? Is it considered taboo; is it not a technically accurate description of the services these contractors perform; or is this merely a highly successful instance of linguistic framing by those who find such blunt terms distasteful?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: "Private contractors?" Posted by: Falang
reader
Posted by: powdermonkey on Nov 29, 2005 10:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The fact that the US uses mercenaries, not only in Iraq but elsewhere, has disturbed me for a long while. I feel these types become mercenaries because they love the action and will go where it is. Of course, their pay is generous, but not too many men would put their life on the line daily just for money. It's more than that. Men who do 'war' for a living are a different species, indeed.

Unfortunately, we've not seen the last of them, even when Iraq is just an ugly memory, they will still be around to threaten and kill. Scary . . .

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

4 Blackwater contractors
Posted by: TKO on Nov 30, 2005 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The 4 Blackwater contractors killed were professional and trained. They were Army Rangers and even a former Navy Seal instructor. They hadn't worked together before either. This was Blackwater's fault for not providing enough people as required by their contract.

Aegis has a $300 million contract to coordinate the contractors with the different security companies and to protect the Green Zone. Nice to know our money is well spent. This is a war with Subway sandwich shops and Domino's pizza and big screen TV's in the chowhalls on all the enduring bases. They want to make our troops as comfortable as possible when they aren't sending them out to be targets to a roadside bomb.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

American Mercenaries
Posted by: Dadster3 on Nov 30, 2005 5:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hummmmm. I wonder: Do the insurgents consider these guys to be "unlawful combatants"?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: American Mercenaries Posted by: Fade
A fish rots from the head
Posted by: mediagirl on Nov 30, 2005 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Immoral conduct like this happens when the whole enterprise is rife with amoral policies like torture (redefined as not torture), use of chemical weapons (redefined as not chemical weapons), secret CIA interrogation camps and the like.

War is messy and bloody, but this behavior is criminal. And in the end hurts "the mission" much more than what war skeptics say in criticizing such criminality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A documentary that deals with this topic in great detail...
Posted by: nickybee on Dec 10, 2005 1:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course I'm a little biased - since I was involved in making it (as producer, co-director, co-writer)

we're still discussing stuff with broadcasters/distributors but for now see a trailer on www.contractiraq.com

Nick

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]