Comments on: Heads up, KBR!

Heads up, KBR!

psychoticreaction — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:11:05 -0800

Newsfilter: Contractors in war zones lose immunity. American civilian contractors are now subject to military law.

By: psychoticreaction

psychoticreaction — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:15:58 -0800

Contractors behaving very badly here and perhaps here also.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:16:52 -0800

So does this mean they weren't subject to any law before now?

By: kafziel

kafziel — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:17:55 -0800

"Civilian defense contractors" sounds so much nicer than "mercenaries", doesn't it. This seems like a good thing. If you're acting as military, then you're liable for your war crimes.

By: psychoticreaction

psychoticreaction — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:21:37 -0800

IANAL, but no charges against trigger-happy Triple Canopy employee, so far.

By: psychoticreaction

psychoticreaction — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:39:16 -0800

Sorry, that first link is boston globe, reg req. Whoops. Bugmenot.

By: Embryo

Embryo — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:29:46 -0800

this is awesome. I thought we were going to have to lean on the Democrats to do this, but here's one big thing checked off the list! Thanks Lindsey. You still suck for giving Alito a pass. But thanks.

By: Embryo

Embryo — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 01:30:19 -0800

mullingitover: yeah, that's exactly what it means. Absofuckinglutely insane, isn't it?

By: portisfreak

portisfreak — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:04:34 -0800

$200,000 grand a year tax free for working at a PMC? Not only should they abide by military law, they should hop on one foot up and down for five minutes at 1:30 AM every day.

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:08:21 -0800

One thing to keep in mind here: this does put journalists under the same UCMJ, which includes the requirement to follow orders. This means that they're even less likely to produce useful news... and those who leak unauthorized material can now be prosecuted.

By: blasdelf

blasdelf — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:22:47 -0800

Only "embedded reporters" – who never produced much journalism to begin with, mostly just cheerleading.

By: furtive

furtive — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 02:35:26 -0800

All your oil are belong to us

By: Malor

Malor — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:00:51 -0800

And there, furtive, is the real reason for the invasion.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:09:32 -0800

I want to see them successfully pump some of that oil. I am betting it will add a new twist to "pipe dream".

By: IronLizard

IronLizard — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:09:52 -0800

So it was true. But the oil won't be going to the US, it will be going to the corporations. What a shock.

By: Faint of Butt

Faint of Butt — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:10:49 -0800

This... this is good news, isn't it? It's been so long since I last saw some, I'd forgotten what it looked like.

By: antifuse

antifuse — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:15:29 -0800

$200,000 grand a year tax free for working at a PMC? $200,000 grand is $200,000,000. Now that's some good scratch! /petpeeve

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 03:35:39 -0800

Donald Rumsfeld

"We don't take our forces, and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does.

He is so completely right and you should be ashamed of betraying your Sec of Defense, you treacherous liberals. U.S. doesn't do that. Oil corporations have U.S. liberate the country and then they take the oil and distribute it to freedom loving friends, friends of friends ! Watchawanta, we freedomed you and we don't get even some oil for our reading lamps ? Fuck you iraqui liberals !

By: adamvasco

adamvasco — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:06:36 -0800

so when do the prosecutios start?

By: adamvasco

adamvasco — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:06:57 -0800

prosecutions

By: pax digita

pax digita — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:19:47 -0800

Wow, that oil story's FPP-worthy in its own right. I'm surprised anybody thought it was necessary to bother with the fig leaf of a Iraqi law about a "production-sharing agreement" (tshyeahright). From the story, Rumsfeld as quoted by al-Jezeera: "We don't take our forces, and go around the world and try to take other people's real estate or other people's resources, their oil. That's just not what the United States does." That is, however, what empires do. And this is the most imperial the US has seemed since oh, about 1898 or so -- y'all who didn't sleep through US History class may remember a splendid little war and an insurgency that followed. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it next semester.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 04:38:47 -0800

They were theoretically under Iraqi law. Good luck enforcing it, though.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 05:27:50 -0800

A little late for this now. Couldn't happen until Rummy got out of the way. Next up: closing Gitmo.

By: Freen

Freen — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 08:29:48 -0800

Somehow I don't think "Woot!" is an appropriate response.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:02:16 -0800

$200,000 grand a year tax free for working at a PMC? Damn, dude. $200,000? Do these guys have to buy their own gear and ammo with that money? How much does it cost to pay and outfit a US Army regular per year? It can't be nearly that much, can it?

By: Cyrano

Cyrano — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:45:49 -0800

psmealey, $400,000 each in 2005.

By: psmealey

psmealey — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 09:59:23 -0800

Yikes. Okay, then that's probably the better way to go, at least at the macro level. I am curious though, when you break it down to specific function, though, if it's more cost effective to have civilian contractors operating the messes and other day-to-day functions like waste disposal, which I think were all military charges back in the olden days. I think this is where a lot of graft and cost overruns are coming in.

By: nofundy

nofundy — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:35:44 -0800

See how contracting out our killing to mercenaries is cheaper?!?! And even better there's plausible deniability.

By: Chuckles

Chuckles — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:39:34 -0800

Okay, then that's probably the better way to go, at least at the macro level. Well, the $200k to $400k comparison is apples to oranges. $400k is the total cost of deploying the soldier. Based on the discussion here, the $200k is just salary, which means the US government (or whoever is doing the hiring) pays KBR at least $300k, and maybe $600k, per man.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:48:07 -0800

Yikes. Okay, then that's probably the better way to go, at least at the macro level. Not necessarily--As I understand it, the $200,000 figure represents the take-home salary of the private contracter providing security services, not the actual cost associated with equipping and keeping one contracter engaged those services. It seems highly unlikely to me that those guys pay for equipment and other incidental costs out of pocket. More likely, those other expenses are built into the contracts and the prime contractor (the vendor) provides the supplies--unless of course they're all independent contractors. But even then, they'd likely be subcontractors, and so the prime on the contract would be expected to provide the supplies.

By: saulgoodman

saulgoodman — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 10:48:52 -0800

oops. chuckles beat me to it. (and was less wordy, even.)

By: Smedleyman

Smedleyman — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:25:33 -0800

Wow, they better start drinking the OJ. Immunity lost...Hmmm...Anyone else think of that scene in Lethal Weapon XXIII where Herman Goering holds up his diplomatic pouch in a Nazi salute and shouts "Diplomatic Immunity!" and Murtrigs blows him away and says he's crazy and his wife died and he's getting too old for that shit? Yeah, that was cool. $200K take home? And that's just an E-3...frick! *kicks self* lousy stinkin' principles.

By: jcruelty

jcruelty — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 11:32:04 -0800

Unsurprisingly, black flag cafe has the best discussion of this.

By: rougy

rougy — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:05:00 -0800

"So does this mean they weren't subject to any law before now? As far as I remember, yes. Bush signed a law saying that no contractors would be held liable for damages.

By: rougy

rougy — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:10:56 -0800

Mullingitover, This is the best I could find on short notice - I'm pretty sure it was signed into law. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39159-2004Jun13.html

By: pompomtom

pompomtom — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 14:47:31 -0800

elpapacito: real estate or other people's resources That's an exclusive OR.

By: winjer

winjer — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:43:50 -0800

When precisely did mercenaries start being called "contractors"? And why does the press go along with it?

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:43:04 -0800

Tales from the green zone of waste and cover up by contractors

By: homunculus

homunculus — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 16:57:31 -0800

Our mercenaries in Iraq: The president relies on thousands of private soldiers with little oversight, a disturbing example of the military-industrial complex.