Good move and this will help their case.  The photo below, is the photo that the news has just posted.  The irony is that the photo shows each one in their former military uniform, and rightly so.  It is a reminder to the public that these guys not only served their country as civilian contractors, but also served as Soldiers and Marines.  Does that mean they are less patriotic, or that their sacrifice is any less significant, now that they are security contractors? I don’t think so, and the way the press demonizes this industry is despicable.  How many civilian contractors have died in support or defense of the client?  So 230,000 plus civilian contractors supporting and defending an all volunteer military and diplomatic corps in this war, and this is the thanks we get?  

     I want justice served, just like anyone else out there.  But to make out these men to be public enemy number one, is crap.  These men were tasked with protecting people in a war zone, a war zone in which the enemy wears no uniform and obeys no laws.  This is a war, where vehicles are used as weapons, and suicide bombers could be a woman or child, and survival sometimes requires extreme measures to defend against such things.  I will not second guess what these men had to do to survive this incident, because I wasn’t there. To me, these men are innocent until proven guilty, and that their service to country in this war, both in the military and as a civilian contractors, is significant. Perhaps we should bring back the draft, just to show the other half of this country how significant that service really is? Thanks to Jeff for sending me this by the way, and Semper Fi. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————-  

5 Blackwater guards surrender to feds

Charged with killing 17 civilians, they seek trial in pro-gun state, not D.C.

The Associated Press

Dec. 8, 2008

WASHINGTON - Five Blackwater Worldwide security guards surrendered Monday in an investigation into a deadly 2007 shooting in a busy Baghdad intersection.

The five guards are charged with manslaughter and using a machine gun in a crime of violence. Though they are charged in a sealed indictment in Washington, they surrendered at a federal courthouse in Salt Lake City. The Justice Department is preparing to make the charges public later Monday.

Seventeen Iraqis were killed in the September 2007 shooting. Witnesses said the heavily armed U.S. contractors opened fire unprovoked, killing innocent motorists and children at a crowded intersection. Blackwater, the largest security contractor in Iraq, says its guards were ambushed by insurgents while responding to a car bombing.

    FedBiz is a great tool to track the industry out there.  You can find out what contracts are popping up, and who is in line for them, based on this online resource.  The ones I posted below are just the security related contracts, and only the last 30 days.  Use the search feature of the site, and I am sure you will find more.  Enjoy.  -Head Jundi

—————————————————————— 

Welcome to FBO.gov, the US Government’s one-stop virtual marketplace.  Through this single point-of-entry, commercial vendors and government buyers are invited to post, search, monitor, and retrieve opportunities solicited by the entire Federal contracting community. 

Fed Biz Opps.gov

***** 

Afghanistan Stuff

Facility Protective Services

W91B4K-09-R-2001

R — Professional, administrative, and management support services

RC-South Armed Security Guard Services

W91B4L-09-R-0006

R — Professional, administrative, and management support services 

*****

Iraq Stuff 

Personal Security Detail Services at FOB Shield

W91GY0-09-C-0005

V — Transportation, travel, & relocation services 

Personal Security Detail Services

W91GY0-08-R-0076

R — Professional, administrative, and management support services 

   I want to applaud Tara for writing this, and I agree with this assessment. Especially this part, which includes that crap that the New York Times wrote. -Head Jundi

“The New York Times editorial board has called the SOFA’s exclusions of protection for contractors “an acceptable price to pay to show this country’s commitment to the rule of law.” A diplomatic concession that blatantly and offensively treats one class of American citizen differently than others hardly demonstrates the U.S. commitment to the rule of law.” 

—————————————————————— 

SOFA Discards Contractors and the Rule of Law

December 04, 2008

JURIST Guest Columnist Tara Lee, a former Navy JAG now a partner at DLA Piper (US) LLP, says that having a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq that abdicates the jurisdictional reach of the United States over contractors (not just security contractors) who are US citizens acting on its behalf is too high a price to pay for recognizing Iraq’s sovereignty….

Earlier this week the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq issued a report that is highly critical of the absence of due process in Iraq’s criminal justice system. The UN Report notes that “many detainees have been deprived of their liberty for months or even years, often under precarious physical conditions, without access to defence counsel, or without being formally charged with a crime or produced before a judge. Continuing allegations of widespread torture and ill-treatment of inmates are of particular concern.” The report is particularly timely, given that as of January 1, 2009, U.S. citizens who are contractors in Iraq will be subject to the jurisdiction of Iraqi criminal and civil courts, according to the terms of the Status of Forces Agreement signed on November 17, 2009.

     So this is what the prosecutors have to come to?  Using some weapons related drug law to get these guys?  That’s pretty low. Or the debate about jurisdiction will be interesting.  How are they not connected with the State Department, when their job is to protect DoS employees.  Hell, they even have to train to a specific State Department standard, just to be a protector of DoS and contract with them. Not to mention a clearance, so they can actually be around DoS folk.  

     In my opinion, DoS needs to do the right thing and own up to the fact that Blackwater was working for them and do more to stand up for them.  It’s the least they could do.  How many Blackwater employees died while protecting DoS people?  And from what I gather, out of all of the thousands of missions, not one DoS employee was killed over in Iraq.  That is a record that speaks for itself.  -Head Jundi

——————————————————————- 

Blackwater Guards Indicted In Deadly Baghdad Shooting

5 Face Trial Over Incident That Killed 17 Civilians, Sources Say

By Del Quentin Wilber

Washington Post Staff Writer

Saturday, December 6, 2008

Five Blackwater Worldwide Security guards have been charged in a September 2007 shooting that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead and raised questions about the U.S. government’s use of security contractors in combat zones, according to two sources familiar with the case.

The guards, all former U.S. military personnel, worked as security contractors for the State Department, assigned to protect U.S. diplomats and other nonmilitary officials in Iraq.

Federal prosecutors obtained the indictment Thursday, and it was sealed. Channing Phillips, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District, declined to comment on the investigation. The exact nature of the charges could not be determined. The five security guards are expected to surrender to authorities on Monday, the sources said.

     And of course the New York Times has to say something about PSC’s and the SOFA.  This editorial comes packed with ill informed opinion, it is insulting, it disrespects the sacrifice made by PSC’s in defense of the client, and makes no mention as to the repercussions of not protecting PSC’s in Iraq. Typical of the NYT.  As for a a counter point, I recommend Michael Cohen’s reply to this editorial on his blog called Democracy Arsenal. 

     I like the accountability part, but the attacks are not necessary and show a complete ignorance of the dynamics. ‘Spray and pray’ or ‘trigger happy’? How about ’survival’ and ‘protecting the client with lethal force when necessare, when in a war zone’? Obviously the author of this editorial feels that non-lethal weapons or no weapons at all are the best tools for protecting someone in a war zone?

     For the record, weapons and lethal force are a fact of life in a war zone.  And those that are tasked with using those weapons, and implementing lethal force when necessary, have a huge responsibility that is not taken lightly.  That is how I felt, and ’spray and pray’ or ‘trigger happy’ were not words used within my lexicon. Nor would any of my peers or companies have any respect for me if they were.   

     Of course you will get those that might not make the grade, but you find those types both in the military and the PSC industry.  And for those individuals, I say deal with them properly and apply the laws of the state they are working for.  Like the soldier, the PSC is a tool of the state, and a representative of the state.  We should have the protections of the state, just like the soldier has.  UCMJ can and should be enforced with PSC’s, and why it isn’t shows that the client really doesn’t want to put the effort into that kind of protection.  Although we can argue that we are covered by UCMJ, but still, the client should be making this distinction with a well thought out SOFA agreement and the proper regulation of this industry.   

     We are a tool of the client, and if there is any blame at all, it should be on how the client uses that tool.  And to me, the client should be dedicating the necessary resources to properly regulate our industry.  The companies cannot be expected to police themselves, and the client must be involved with quality control.  I do not believe in over regulation though, and we should not hinder the free market forces that can enhance a company. But throwing PSC’s at the mercy of Iraqi Law with an ill thought out SOFA, without any consideration for how that will impact the PSC industry and the overall war effort, is akin to breaking rocks and cement with your sword and thinking that is a good use for that weapon/tool.  -Mudeer

—————————————————————— 

The New York Times

December 3, 2008

Editorial

At Least Some Accountability

American forces in Iraq have relied far too heavily on private security contractors who have operated with no real legal accountability. The trigger-happy tactics of these armies for hire have alienated Iraqis. The fact that they have been out of reach of Iraqi law has been an especially bitter pill to swallow.

For some of those contractors, that get-out-of-jail-free card is now being withdrawn. A new agreement with the Iraqi government that allows American troops to remain in Iraq stipulates that contractors working for the Pentagon who commit crimes will be subject to prosecution in Iraqi courts.

   So it is law, and January 1, 2009 is the date.  In the meantime, maybe the DoS and DoD can answer these questions for those contractors operating in Iraq as we speak?  

***** 

Will there be retroactive application of criminal jurisdiction?(It is unclear whether Iraqi law will preclude ex post facto prosecutions based on allegedly criminal acts that occurred before January 1, 2009.)              

The agreement includes language about the “parties” retaining their rights to legitimate self-defense as defined in applicable international law. “Parties” to the agreement only includes the US government and the Iraqi government, thus apparently excluding contractors from the right to self-defense.  Will there be further guidance forthcoming as to contractors’ rights to self-defense, especially for those contractors who are required or authorized to carry weapons?                                                                                                          

Will the 1934 extradition treaty with Iraq mean that US citizens now in the US will be extradited back to Iraq for trial?

Will contractor equipment in Iraq be subject to pre- or post-judgment attachment when a civil suit is filed against a contractor?

Will there be retroactive application of civil jurisdiction? 

How will the statutes of limitations apply for tort and contract claims, and will this mean that contractors be sued on January 1, 2009 in Iraq based on occurrences in the past? 

***** 

     All of these questions were asked at the briefing given by the DoD and DoS, by legal experts, and they had no answer!  Amazing that we have gotten this far with this document, and these kinds of questions have not been answered.  Talk about being thrown under the bus. 

     I suggest that if you are reading this, and you are a security contractor operating in Iraq as we speak, then ask your company to press the DoD and DoS about these issues.  Or as a civilian, you can write the DoD and DoS and express your concern. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————–

Iraqi Parliament approves security pact

By Alissa Rubin, Campbell Robertson and Stephen Farrell

Thursday, November 27, 2008

BAGHDAD: The Iraqi Parliament ratified a long-delayed security agreement on Thursday that lays out a three-year timetable for the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.

     Boy, so the paragraph that jumps up at me in this article, is this one:

 But the question of whether Iraqis could use the agreement to prosecute contractors for previous incidents wasn’t addressed in the new agreement. When security company officials asked Thursday, “We told them that’s a question we don’t know the answer to,” said a State Department official, who spoke to reporters about the meetings under the condition of anonymity.

     My guess is that they do know the answer, and they have been withholding that information to insure there wasn’t any real protest by the companies.  Especially Blackwater, because if the Iraqis can go back in time and prosecute contractors for previous incidents, well then that will cause a stampede of litigation.  Obviously the Iraqis would want to go after those implicated in the Nisour Square incident as the first case.  But where would it stop, and how far will they go back?  This smells.  

   To me, I think the companies were pretty much in wait and see mode, with what they ‘thought’ was the SOFA. Hell, I even posted the copy that was released over at Fox News.  But if this paragraph up top is an indicator of the holes in this thing, then I think all of us in this industry deserve a full explanation of what really is going to happen?  And why is there an Arabic draft available only to Iraqi lawmakers, yet no official copy of the final draft in English for the rest of us to read?  

   The other thing that gets me, is that the companies should not be surprised about anything.  If they would have had the guts to confront the client about this matter, and demand to be included in the loop, then we wouldn’t be playing this guessing game right now.  How many of us have died in defense of the client/Coalition? There are 230,000 plus civilian contractors in this world wide war, and we continue to be treated like the elephant in the room that no one wants to acknowledge. -Head Jundi

——————————————————————-

US-Iraq Pact Ends Contractor Immunity

November 21, 2008

Knight Ridder

WASHINGTON - Contractors working for the United States in Iraq, including armed security outfits such as Blackwater Inc., will be subject to Iraqi law under the new U.S.-Iraq security pact. Not only that, they could face Iraqi prosecution for acts committed when they supposedly had immunity from Iraqi law, U.S. officials said Nov. 20.

A new U.S.-Iraq security agreement doesn’t specifically prevent Iraqi officials from bringing criminal charges retroactively in cases such as the September 2007 shooting deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians by contractors protecting a State Department convoy, officials told security company officials during meetings in Washington Thursday.

The news caught company officials by surprise.

“We are still trying to make sense of it,” said Anne E. Tyrrell, a spokeswoman for Blackwater Inc., whose security guards have been involved in some of the most controversial incidents in Iraq, including the Sept. 16, 2007, shooting at al Nisoor Square in Baghdad.

Close Protection Position

Ref :         000002

Region:          Global

Country:  Global, Afghanistan, Iraq  

Department: Project Management

Role Type:  Close Protection

Job Purpose

The Individual is expected to have sufficient training and flexibility to be able to undertake the role of a Close Protection Officer as detailed below.