Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

Pentagon Issues Blackwater New $92 Million Contract

Posted by Amanda Terkel at 5:50 AM on October 1, 2007.


Amanda Terkel: Blackwater was involved in the fatal shooting of 11 Iraqi civilians, yet our government keeps looking the other way.

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 PEEK in your
mailbox!

 

This post, written by Amanda Terkel, originally appeared on Think Progress

Click for larger version
(click for larger version)

Earlier this September, Blackwater USA was involved in the fatal shooting of 11 Iraqi civilians. While the Iraqi government swiftly condemned the contractor, the Bush administration has continued to back Blackwater's story that it was "defensive fire."

Last Thursday, Gen. Peter Pace told reporters, "Blackwater has been a contractor in the past with the department and could certainly be in the future." The next day, that future was already here. The Pentagon had issued a new list of contracts, including one worth $92 million to Presidential Airways, the "aviation unit of parent company Blackwater." From the release:

Presidential Airways, Inc., an aviation Worldwide Services company (d/b/a Blackwater Aviation), Moyock, N.C., is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract for $92,000,000.00. The contractor is to provide all fixed-wing aircraft, personnel, equipment, tools, material, maintenance and supervision necessary to perform passenger, cargo and combi Short Take-Off and Landing air transportation services between locations in the Area of Responsibility of Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. This contract was competitively procured and two timely offers were received. The performance period is from 1 Oct. 2007 to 30 September 2011.

Government officials have repeatedly ignored Blackwater's transgressions. Senior Iraqi officials "repeatedly complained to U.S. officials" about Blackwater's "alleged involvement in the deaths of numerous Iraqis, but the Americans took little action to regulate the private security firm."

Next week. Rep. David Price (D-NC) plans to introduce legislation "to extend the reach of U.S. civil courts to include security contractors in Iraq."

UPDATE New video proves that Blackwater's attack on civilians was unprovoked. Check it out here.

Digg!

Tagged as: bush adminstrations, blackwater, pentagon, us defense

Amanda Terkel is Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and serves as Deputy Editor for The Progress Report and ThinkProgress.org at the Center for American Progress.


Race-Baiting Former Senator Jesse Helms Has Died
Conservative Republican railed against "Negro hoodlums", opposed the Voting Rights Act, backed terrorists, and died an unrepentant segregationist.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 4, 2008.
NYC Cops Harass Club Owner Whose CCTV Footage Overturned Drug Conviction
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Post by . July 4, 2008.
Watermelon is the New Viagra
USDA-funded research helps Americans put some pizazz in their picnic baskets this fourth of July.
Post by Lindsay Beyerstein. July 3, 2008.

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:
Why would they fire on Civilians?
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 1, 2007 6:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think they would use civilians for target practice. This sounds like an article with alot of spin. Blackwater, from what I read, is there for security, and in my line of work, security only fires when fired upon first.

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

» RE: Why would they fire on Civilians? Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN
» whatever drugs you're on... Posted by: hurricane hugo
Blackwater and Civilian Contractor are unnecessary
Posted by: Jim Williams on Oct 1, 2007 8:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Get Americans involved in this "War." Draft every male and female between the ages of 18 and 45. With six months of training we will have enough cooks, security guards, and construction workers that we can bar all civilians from the combat zone. You cannot fight a war with this Volunteer Army. It is to small to get the job done. In addition, an army of 1.5 million Americans would put 5 Million protesters in the street and stop this adventure.

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

Well at least
Posted by: chaoslegs on Oct 1, 2007 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
this contract isn't for any work in Iraq. That would have really been adding fuel to the fire.

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

» Damn it!! Posted by: hurricane hugo
Wag the Cash Cow
Posted by: eddie torres on Oct 1, 2007 10:20 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The performance period is from 1 Oct. 2007 to 30 September 2011."

A four year contract is awarded to a cut-out aviation operation for Pentagon support activities in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan. With no linkage to the possibility that competently-run US military operations could catch or kill Osama bin Laden before September 2011, declare "victory" on GWOT, and disengage all US military activity in the Central Asian theater.

Would a new US president dare to throw all that pre-paid contract service away? $92 million says no.

Would any US president dare to admit that US military operations are not competently run? $532 billion says no.

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

Shades of Saddam
Posted by: Gaubladt on Oct 1, 2007 10:21 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black water is the US version of the Republican Guard;
Black water IS the Republican Guard.

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

» RE: Shades of Saddam - NO! Posted by: mike_burns