Xe, formerly Blackwater, in the Running for $1 Billion Government Contract

Just after the turn of the year, it was reported that two men who work for the private contracting firm "Xe" (pronounced "zee" and formerly known as "Blackwater") would be charged with murder in the death of two Afghan civilians:

Christopher Drotleff and Justin Cannon are charged with two counts of second-degree murder and one count of attempted murder each in connection with the May shootings in Kabul. The 12-count, 19-page indictment returned by a federal grand jury in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia also includes weapons charges against the two men.

[...]

The incident spotlights the issue of the role and conduct of U.S. security contractors in Afghanistan. A similar issue arose in Iraq after a September 2007 confrontation involving then-Blackwater contractors that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead.

Blackwater lost its contract there after Iraq's government refused to renew its operating license. The company then changed its name to Xe, and it continues to receive multimillion-dollar contracts in Afghanistan.

This was not the first incident that has drawn attention to this troubled mercenary firm. You may remember the infamous Nissour Square Massacre in Iraq in 2007 during which it was reported that 17 Iraqi civilians were shot and killed by Blackwater guards. From a 2008 New York Times:

The Sept. 16 shooting in Nisour Square is considered by the F.B.I., the Pentagon and the Iraqi government to be among the most egregious examples of unprovoked violence by private security contractors. It ignited such outrage that the Iraqi government threatened to ban Blackwater from the country.

Since this massacre, former employees of the organization have come forward to tell tales of weapons smuggling by the firm into Iraq and allegations that implicate the founder of the organization, in murder. From an August 2009 piece by Jeremy Scahill:

A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company's owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company.

[...]

In their testimony, both men also allege that Blackwater was smuggling weapons into Iraq. One of the men alleges that Prince turned a profit by transporting "illegal" or "unlawful" weapons into the country on Prince's private planes. They also charge that Prince and other Blackwater executives destroyed incriminating videos, emails and other documents and have intentionally deceived the US State Department and other federal agencies. The identities o

f the two individuals were sealed out of concerns for their safety.

In the midst of all of these serious allegations that surround this organization, one would think that it may make the United States Government a little wary of continuing to hire Xe to operate within war-stricken countries, but then there comes this news highlighted by the Huffington Post (emphasis mine):

Now called Xe Services, the company is in the running for a Pentagon contract potentially worth $1 billion to train Afghanistan's troubled national police force. Xe has been shifting to training, aviation and logistics work after its security guards were accused of killing unarmed Iraqi civilians more than two years ago.

Here is a video that was created by ReThink Afghanistan that also outlines how this security firm is still in the running for lucrative government contracts even as there continue to be unsolved questions that surround various legal and moral issues:

Jeremy Scahill on "Real Time" and the Release of the Inspector General's Report

Real Time with Bill Maher had an interesting panel this past Friday night on HBO. Included in this panel were comedian Jay Leno, NBC political correspondent Chuck Todd, and investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill.

They get to talking about Blackwater, torture, and holding elected officials to account when Scahill calls out Chuck Todd for the media's role (and Todd's role) in framing this debate. Here is the video:



You may remember a recent interview that transpired between Chuck Todd and Glenn Greenwald where Greenwald made Todd's arguments against investigations look ridiculous. Here is an exchange:

GG: ...But let me ask you this question - and I just have a couple more questions, and I appreciate this time. You just referenced earlier that you think that this has become cable catnip because it's an entrenched partisan debate between the left and the right. And about a month ago you created a little controversy because you said about the question about whether there should be investigations, about the release of the OLC memos, you said, quote, "Frankly, this feels like a political food fight right now: the hard left, the hard right fighting over this in the blogosphere."

Some of the people who have called for investigations and prosecutions of Bush-era torture crimes include people like Jesse Ventura, the former independent governor of Minnesota; Philip Zelikow, the former aide to Condoleezza Rice; four-star general Barry McCaffrey, who said, on MSNBC, actually, that numerous detainees were, quote, "murdered" in custody, and that there's no way that we can not have criminal investigations. General Antonio Tabuga, who investigated the Abu Ghraib crimes, said: quote, "There is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes; the only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account." Same with Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief-of-staff to Colin Powell; Thomas Pickering and Williams Sessions, former Reagan administration officials, on and on, wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post calling for investigations.

The idea that this is something that, the idea that the rule of law, that holding our high government officials to accountability when they commit crimes, is a "hard left versus a hard right" or a partisan debate - isn't that really just an invention of cable news, for exactly the reason that you said, which is that's how cable news typically understands things, even when that's not really what the debate is?

CT: Well, look - and that is my frustration on this very issue, that I don't think - and this is why, when I said, how should this be handled, and how should this be investigated - if you could guarantee me that we could keep this debate off of television, and keep it off of being an ideological - because, this was an ideological, when you read those OLC memos, I was struck by this fact, and that is that the Bush White House was looking for a legal way to do this. They were trying to legally justify what they were doing, and what their policy was. Which then, if that is the case, then, things are going to have an ideological split, and frankly, you, you and I both know you're going find judges that end up falling on both sides of this issue.

Now, does that mean that there shouldn't be investigations as to how these detainees died in custody? Of course there should be investigations. That's what makes the American form of justice held to a higher standard.

GG: And what should be done about investigations that reveal that there were crimes that were committed?

CT: Well, look, that's up to the Justice Department. I know you have strong feelings about this. I am trying, honestly, very hard, not to put my personal feelings on this specific issue into it. I am trying to deal in the analysis of why, for instance, the Obama White House doesn't want this. They don't want to have this debate even if they passionately feel, as many do, about what might have happened.

Scahill's moment with Todd is the second instance where Todd has been forced to defend his views that prosecutions of the Bush Administration are not appropriate and should therefore not happen. Todd is not alone in his views, in fact, the Obama Administration has also adopted this "look forward not to the past" mantra when discussing the possibility of prosecuting Bush Administration officials.

The relevancy of this is also to be noted as the Justice Department is expected to release the internal investigation into torture by John L. Helgerson, or the Inspector General's report. The release of this investigation has been delayed on numerous occasions and should give us additional insight and provide for more disturbing details into the types of actions that were authorized under the Bush Administration. Scott Horton has more thoughts:

If the passages of the report describing in detail the practices used and comparing them to the OLC guidance are released, that would be significant. It would effectively set the stage for the appointment of a special prosecutor—and indeed, it looks to me that the Justice Department is now trying to build support for such a decision.

But in addition to the CIA inspector general’s report, another major document has been on hold for some time: the report of the department’s ethics office, the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Now, its disclosure is another major issue. The New York Times reports this morning that OPR is advising Holder to “reopen nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases” based on its internal review of the torture memoranda and the process that led to their issuance.

This formulation suggests that these cases were investigated and dealt with by the Justice Department under Bush–but that plainly is not correct. The cases were funneled into the U.S. attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Virginia, which served as a sort of “dead letter office” for politically sensitive cases on which the Bush team expected nothing to happen. And nothing did happen. The OPR report would set the stage for appointment of a special prosecutor to look at these cases. As a result of the passage of time and the failure to undertake an investigation while evidence is fresh, it will now be much more difficult to build a case for charges, but an effort will be made. Still, the real issue is whether the OPR report itself will be made public.

[...]

Release of the entire OPR report is critical. If it is not released, or released with key passages blacked out, that will suggest that the Attorney General wants to protect Justice Department figures from scrutiny. The public would be correct to cry foul about this and any other efforts to deflect attention from the Justice Department’s own role in the wrongdoing, which was enormous.

The disclosures made at the beginning of the week will provide a solid indication of how we can expect Eric Holder to act. Most likely he will be exercising discretion to disclose facts and information that reveal whatever conduct he has decided to investigate. That’s sensible enough. But we shouldn’t allow this to distract us from what he’s chosen to keep secret. That will be even more revealing.

UPDATE: Jeremy Scahill sent an email to Glenn Greenwald after his appearence on Real Time that said the following:

Right as we walked off stage, he said to me "that was a cheap shot." I said "what are you talking about?" and he said "you know it." I then said that I monitor msm coverage very closely and asked him what was not true that I said on the show. He then replied: "that's not the point. You sullied my reputation on TV."

So reporting the truth and pointing out the lack of independence in the media isn't the issue, it is about not hurting the feelings of Chuck Todd. This speaks volumes about real journalism in today's society.

Continued Revelations About the Past

It is being reported that in the soon-to-be-released book by former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, he is states that he was pressured to raise the warning level on the color-coded terrorism scale prior to the 2004 election for political reasons. Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic:

The news this morning that former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge believed that President Bush and his top advisers manipulated the terror threat alert system for their political gain is really -- and it ought to be -- a major story. Ridge was in a position to know, for certain, whether this was the case. And though he's hinted at it before, he now says, in his soon-to-be-released book, that he was pressured into raising the alert level before the 2004 election. Let's see what Ridge actually writes before making too many conclusions.

Ben Smith at Politico adds:

An abuse so gross -- if Ridge is right -- shows, among other things, what a powerful influence on the all-important tracking polls terror alerts must have had. And it suggests that Obama's efforts to keep terror arrests out of the national news are good politics too.

I am sure this is not surprising news to many people, especially those who were claiming that this was happening at the time, but it is still worthy of note.

Another interesting piece of information that has come out, is that the CIA apparently hired the private mercenary firm Blackwater (now Xe) to help carry out political assassinations. From Democracy Now:

The New York Times is reporting the CIA hired the private military firm Blackwater as part of a secret program to assassinate top operatives of al-Qaeda. Executives from Blackwater helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The CIA spent several million dollars on the program, which the Times claims did not successfully capture or kill any terrorist suspects.

I, for one, am hoping that Jeremy Scahill can get some more details on Blackwater's involvement in this program.

An Iraqi and a War Veteran Speak Out for an End to Occupation

The Speak for Peace Tour 2008 came to Xavier University's Bellarmine Chapel last Thursday evening in an effort to bring voices from the Iraq War to Cincinnati, Ohio. The Speak for Peace Tour 2008 is put on by the American Friends Service Committee and has traveled throughout various cities in the country. The American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker organization founded in 1917 and "carries out service, development, social justice, and peace programs throughout the world." The event was also co-sponsored by Xavier University's Peace & Justice Programs, Bellarmine Chapel, and the Intercommunity Justice and Peace Center. The Iraq War and its impact on human lives was the main topic as speakers Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar addressed the crowd.

Eugene Cherry is an Iraq War Veteran. He was deployed to Iraq in 2004 where he worked as a medic and for a personal security detachment. He returned to the United States in 2005 with symptoms of PTSD and went AWOL for 16 months before turning himself in. He was given an honorable discharge and now is working with various groups, including Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) to tell his story about what is happening overseas. Cherry spoke of enlisting in the military with the hope of learning some medical skills that would aid him in his quest to become a doctor, but after his time in Iraq Cherry feels that he did more harm than good. Within American Culture, violence is too often embraced and when speaking within the context of the American military, Cherry says that they are often the perpetrators of such violence. Cherry spoke of the use of cluster bombs and their deadly impact on civilian populations and spoke candidly about the use of white phosphorous by United States forces in Iraq.

In 2004, after the U.S. assault on the city of Fallujah, independent reporters began to report that the United States had used chemical weapons on civilians during the assault. Reporter Dahr Jamail was one of those who began to report that he had spoken with Iraqi doctors who treated citizens who "had their skin melted". The U.S. initially denied having used white phosphorus during the assault, then said they had used it only to light up enemy positions at night, and then admitted that they did use the chemical weapon, but assured us that they did not target civilians. Eugene Cherry confirms that the United States did use this weapon and that the those within the military called it "shake and bake".

Cherry went on to speak about the role of private contractors and mercenary firms inside of Iraq as proof that the corporations are in the back pocket of elected officials. "With every war there is an underlying social and economic issue," Cherry stated. He went on to speak of his work with the contracting firm KBR and how KBR paid their local workers a small salary every month while some KBR contractors were earning up to $650,000 for their work. Cherry equated this treatment with slave labor.

The evening had been kicked off with the question "What really led us to this point?" and as Raed Jarrar took the floor, he reminded those gathered in the chapel that what has been going on in Iraq began during the first Gulf War. Jarrar is an Iraqi and following the fall of Baghdad in 2003, became a country director for the only door-to-door casualty survey group in post-invasion Iraq. He currently works in Washington D.C. as an Iraqi Political Analyst. "The same people who have been telling us lies, continue to tell us lies," Jarrar said. He sees two reasons that politicians use to explain why the U.S. must stay in Iraq. The first is for the security of the United States, politicians claiming that if the U.S. withdraws, Al Qaeda will take over. The second is for humanitarian reasons, if the U.S. withdraws, then all hell will break loose and the Iraqis will be worse off. Jarrar claims that both of these views are manufactured myths.

The humanitarian reason for staying in Iraq is based on the belief that Iraq is divided by sectarian hatred, Sunni versus Shite versus Kurd. "Iraqi's do not see it this way," Jarrar stated, "They [Iraqis] realize that it is political and economic, not religious." Jarrar finds that the United States has been taking the side (though at different points throughout the conflict) of Sunnis and Shites with the minority view against the majority of Iraqis. This can be seen if you look at the representation in the Iraqi Parliament which is largely made up of parties who advocate for a complete withdrawal of U.S. troops. Jarrar stated that these very parties hold the majority of seats in Parliament yet hold no seats in the executive branch. This results in the Iraqi people voting in members of Parliament who want the U.S. to withdraw, but an Executive Branch that is aligned with Washington in allowing U.S. forces to continue the occupation. Jarrar feels that this is a disconnect that many members of Congress even fail to see. Jarrar told the crowd that if they wanted to see the view of the majority of Iraqis, to watch the demonstration that would be happening over the weekend in Iraq. The peaceful protest did happen on Saturday and drew tens of thousands of Iraqis who protested the continued occupation of their country.

I had a chance to get in one question during a brief Q&A session which I directed at both Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar. I asked them for the Iraqi's perspective on the presence of private mercenary firms (like Blackwater) and if Iraqis see any difference in opinion between contractors and U.S. troops. Eugene Cherry responded that it is problematic when you have contractors operating with complete immunity inside Iraq. He said the only distinction is that U.S. military operates under a set of laws that can allow for accountability, but contractors are not bound by either American or Iraqi law. Raed Jarrar gave a much more frank answer to the question. "They [Iraqis] do not care where the bullets come from or who is doing the shooting. People do not like to be occupied."

Both Eugene Cherry and Raed Jarrar call for a complete and immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq and reject both major Presidential candidates support for continuing the occupation and building permanent military bases inside of Iraq.

This article can also be found at http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Privatized Iraq and the Expansion of Private Contractors into Afghanistan

President Bush recently announced that he would be sending nearly 5,000 more troops into Afghanistan. Bush stated: "This continuing commitment to the Afghan people illustrates a stark contrast: While the terrorists and extremists deliberately target and murder the innocent, coalition and Afghan forces risk their lives to protect the innocent." Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain have both voiced support for increasing troop levels in Afghanistan, but Barack Obama feels that Bush's plan does not go far enough. Obama recently stated, "His plan comes up short. It is not enough troops not enough resources with not enough urgency." While both major candidates for President may agree on sending more troops into the region, a conversation that is rarely discussed is the increased presence of private military contractors within the borders of Afghanistan and the expansion of military basis that hint at a long-term U.S. presence.

The presence of private military contractors inside Iraq's borders has been documented by some within the corporate media and investigated thoroughly by independent journalist Jeremy Scahill. Scahill published a book in 2007 entitled: Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army in which he outlines the activities of the private military company Blackwater Worldwide. Blackwater has provided security for contractors, diplomats, and other high-level personnel in Iraq since initially receiving a no-bid contract for $21 million to guard Paul Bremer after the 2003 invasion. Blackwater continues to have their contracts renewed despite their involvement in incidents such as the Nisour Square Massacre, in which 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians were gunned down by Blackwater employees. While arguably the most notable private contracting firm in Iraq, Blackwater is only one of many companies that has a presence in the region. In a recent piece in the Christian Science Monitor, it is estimated that there are now over 190,000 private contractors in Iraq as of early 2008, a figure that outnumbers U.S. troops in the country. This continued reliance on such contracting firms, in addition to the expansion of the "Green Zone" and other military bases in the country, indicates that the United States is focused on a long-term presence in Iraq. With both major Presidential Candidates wanting to shift the focus from Iraq to Afghanistan and given the announcement of the increase of troops by President Bush, some familiar patterns are beginning to surface.

In a recent article that appeared in the Washington Post, it is reported that the Pentagon has issued a proposal seeking civilian contractors to begin performing various tasks in Afghanistan. It is also revealed that the Defense Department are seeking firms that could supply airborne surveillance services. Other contracts are also being put out by various governmental organizations for a wide range of materials. One contract asks for a contractor who can provide 22 medium to heavy lift helicopters and another for a contractor who can provide storage for 4,600 vehicles. A very telling quote from the article is from Rep. David Price of North Carolina. He says, "The military is stretched very thin, and to keep low the deployments numbers, there is a tendency to go to contractors who have played a huge part in Iraq."

With the expansion of troops to the region and the increased number of requests for private contractors, it is also relevant to look at the expansion of the Bagram prison facility in Afghanistan. Bagram is currently being expanded thanks to a $50 million dollar contract that was awarded from the Army Corps of Engineers to Prime Projects International to expand the prison facility so that it will be able to hold 1,000 high and low risk detainees. This project is not slated to be complete until October 2009. In addition to the physical expansion of the facility, the Pentagon is also looking to expand the role of intelligence operations at the Bagram facility. It was reported by USAToday that interrogators and analysts are being sought by the Pentagon to questions prisoners and provide intelligence that can be used on the battlefield. The report also states that the Pentagon is looking to hire a "trained Mullah" to conduct Islamic services for the detainees and advise the United States on religious issues.

Iraq has been the most privatized war that the United States has ever been involved in. The private contracting firms have never seen business booming at such a rapid rate. The Congressional Budget Office released a report in August, 2008 in which they stated:

The United States has used contractors during previous military operations, although not to the current extent. According to rough historical data, the ratio of about one contractor employee for every member of the U.S. armed forces in the Iraq theater is at least 2.5 times higher than that ratio during any other major U.S. conflict, although it is roughly comparable with the ratio during operations in the Balkans in the 1990s.

The rise in the privatization of the Iraq War has created a template for maximum profitability on services that are carried out by private contractors and often relied upon during a time of war. As private contractors are used more and more to provide services once performed by the military, accountability to international laws and regulations give way to an accountability to the bottom line. This privatization strategy has been embraced by the political leadership of the United States and is now being expanded to play a more prominent role in Afghanistan. This issue needs to be raised during this election season. While John McCain is largely silent on the issue of private contractors, Barack Obama spoke out against the role of contractors in October 2007; however when questioned by journalist Amy Goodman on the issue this summer, Obama refused to state that he would ban contractors from Iraq if elected. Video of that exchange can be found here. Now, as Obama is calling for a greater number of troops in Afghanistan, it is apparent that the level of contractors will only increase as this has been the model that has shown itself to be the best system for large profits. Will these questions be addressed? Is the expansion of the role of private contractors viewed as a problem by political leadership? Perhaps the answer lies in following the money. From a piece written by Aziz Choudry on ZMag.org:

An April 2008 Centre for Responsive Politics report states that US Congress members invested US $196 million of their own money in companies that receive hundreds of millions of dollars a day from Pentagon contracts to provide goods and services to US armed forces, ranging from aircraft and weapons manufacturers to producers of medical supplies and soft drinks.

Or perhaps part of the answer lies in an understanding of the foundation of the very conflict with which the U.S. has been involved in since 2001. It is summed up most recently by Seth Jones, a military analyst with the think tank RAND Corp:

"One thing we have not taken advantage of is just trying to understand what is motivating people to join the insurgency."

This article can also be found at http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com/

9/11/01: Seven Years Later Where Do We Stand?

As I sat in Memorial Hall this past Monday and listened to Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader address the crowd on various issues, my mind began to wander through all that has happened in this country since September 11, 2001. We often hear that it was the "day that changed everything" and our current leaders often accuse critics of thinking in a "pre-9/11 mindset", but with so much of this rhetoric used in order to achieve political gain we often find ourselves in discussions that are empty of substance. It is simply unproductive and intellectually dishonest to operate under the mindset that a second time-line of historical events began on 9/11/01. While it is certainly true that the events which transpired on that day radically altered the foreign and domestic policy of the United States, these attacks and the subsequent policy decisions implemented by our country's leadership must continue to be understood within the broader context of history and examined with a critical eye.

Immediately following 9/11 the Bush Administration and the leadership in Congress embarked upon a foreign policy that has resulted in an occupation of two countries, a crackdown on civil liberties at home, and the expansion of economic forces into areas of the world that are of strategic importance to so-called "American interests". This expansion of economic forces has led to a rapid increase in the corporate influence over war and occupation. It was first reported in the Los Angeles Times in July, 2007 that the number of private contractors in Iraq exceeded the number of U.S. troops. The private contractors in Iraq do everything from providing oil services to guarding high level diplomats:

The most controversial contractors are those working for private security companies, including Blackwater, Triple Canopy and Erinys. They guard sensitive sites and provide protection to U.S. and Iraqi government officials and businessmen.
Security contractors draw some of the sharpest criticism, much of it from military policy experts who say their jobs should be done by the military. On several occasions, heavily armed private contractors have engaged in firefights when attacked by Iraqi insurgents.
Others worry that the private security contractors lack accountability. Although scores of troops have been prosecuted for serious crimes, only a handful of private security contractors have faced legal charges.

Most importantly, these private contractors who perform functions usually designated to the military, are not beholden to any public interest but to a bottom line. Companies like Blackwater, have already had their contracts renewed in Iraq and are expanding their services domestically (which I will discuss in a moment).
Like the foreign policy decisions implemented since 9/11/01, domestic policy has been passed which has done little for the advancement of Democracy. The PATRIOT ACT was passed a little over a month after the attacks on the World Trade Center and has only aided in the crackdown on civil liberties and dissent within the United States. The most recent example of this was in St. Paul, Minnesota for the Republican National Convention. This Convention saw preemptive police raids on media groups and journalists arrested for doing their job. The city of St. Paul with the help of Federal officials worked to stamp out dissenting voices using police intimidation and force. 8 members of the RNC Welcoming Committee were arrested in one of the preemptive house raids and have been charged with "furthering terrorism" under a Minnesota law that is similar to the PATRIOT Act. This is explained in a recent piece authored by Nat Perry and posted on consortiumnews.com:

The language of the Minnesota law is eerily similar to the original Patriot Act, passed hastily in the aftermath of 9/11. Section 802 of the Patriot Act defines domestic terrorism as "activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the U.S. or any state; (B) appear to be intended (i) to influence policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (ii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. ..."
Groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Bar Association have long objected to this definition, particularly the provision of (B)(i). The prohibition against seeking to influence government policy by "intimidation" is so vague and so subjective that virtually any act of civil disobedience or confrontational protest could fit under the definition, the critics have said.

In addition to vague legislation which is being used to clamp down and even criminalize dissent, we are now seeing the domestic expansion of private contracting firms. Blackwater is notorious for their actions in Iraq and most notably for their involvement in the Nissour Square Massacre, but a recent article in the Los Angeles Times by reporter Jeremy Scahill makes it clear that private contracting firms see the United States as an open market as well:

Blackwater is also winning at home. The company recently fought back widespread local opposition to its plans for a new warfare training center in San Diego. When residents and local officials tried to block it, Blackwater sued the city. A federal judge, appointed by President Bush's father, ordered San Diego to stand down. Now the company is entrenched, guns a blazin', in San Diego and is well positioned to cash in on the increasingly privatized border-patrol industry.
Blackwater's California expansion is just one of several ventures that reveal how Blackwater is growing. Among the others:
* Prince's private spy agency, Total Intelligence Solutions, is now open for business. Run by three veteran CIA operatives, the company offers "CIA-type services" to governments and Fortune 1000 companies.
* Blackwater was asked by the Pentagon to bid for a share of a whopping $15-billion contract to "fight terrorists with drug-trade ties" in countries such as Colombia, Bolivia, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Analysts say it could be the company's "biggest job" ever.
* Blackwater is wrapping up work on its own armored vehicle, the Grizzly, as well as its Polar Airship 400, a surveillance blimp Blackwater wants to market for use in monitoring the U.S.-Mexico border.

Given the accountability concerns that were discussed earlier in this piece as well as the overall concerns over a corporation performing these types of services, I decided to ask Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader about this issue during his recent discussion at Memorial Hall. I asked Nader if he would speak to the significance of the growing influence of private contracting firms with tasks that have traditionally been run by the government. Nader stated that this is "another step towards fascism" in today's society. "There should be a group whose purpose it is to put Blackwater out of business," Nader continued, "There have got to be indicators when a society is on their way to fascism...these are the indicators."

So here we are, seven years after the attacks that have led to a war on a feeling, the occupation of countries, the suppression of rights and liberties at home, and the failure to have an honest discourse on exactly what is happening to this country. It should have been an indication to the path we were on when President Bush had to be pushed into even having an investigation into the 9/11 attacks by the family members of those killed. Critical thinking and transparency have been sacrificed in the name of fear and security and those who stand up to defend the Constitution are now labeled as "soft on terror" and caught in the "pre 9/11 mindset". While the attacks on 9/11/01 were a defining moment in the eyes of many Americans we simply can not let ourselves be caught up in the rhetoric that so often surrounds that day. We must view 9/11 in its historical context and examine the events that have happened since that day by utilizing a full historical timeline. Violations of the Constitution should not be acceptable simply because "we were attacked" and detainees shouldn't be tortured because "there are people who want to kill us." The path on which this country finds itself is unacceptable and we must stand up and demand that it change. Let us use this seventh anniversary of these attacks to mourn those who were lost that day, mourn those who have become casualties of imperialist policies since that day, and declare that all of this madness has gone far enough.

This article can also be found at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Chalmers Johnson on the Continued Rise of the Military-Industrial Complex

Professor and author Chalmers Johnson has written a new piece in which he continues to warn us about the ever present build-up of the military-industrial complex within the United States. The term "military-industrial complex" was first coined in the farewell address of President Dwight Eisenhower:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Johnson argues that while this portion of Eisenhower's speech may be well known, it is the warning of the "unwarranted influence" that has been ignored.

Johnson starts in the 1940's where there was still a great deal of public distrust of the private ownership of industrial firms due to the fallout from the Great Depression. This led to a new kind of "public-private relationship" with this industry, which was sponsored by FDR and worked to rearm the United States as well as other allied nations against the forces of fascism. This not only led to the public approval of such a relationship, but it also found private sector approval since it would gain the public trust and hide profits that were made during wartime. Hence, this new relationship between government and corporate officials was born.

Found in the creation of these "public-private relationships" were some of the protections that are often afforded to private corporations yet not to public institutions. Critics pointed to this as a major problem but these criticisms were never fully explored due to the enthusiasm for the WWII efforts and the economic boom that followed. Johnson writes:

Beneath the surface, however, was a less well recognized movement by big business to replace democratic institutions with those representing the interests of capital. This movement is today ascendant...Its objectives have long been to discredit what it called “big government,” while capturing for private interests the tremendous sums invested by the public sector in national defense. It may be understood as a slow-burning reaction to what American conservatives believed to be the socialism of the New Deal.

Today, we find the continued privatization of governmental activities and as Sheldon Wolin believes, such privatization is not only undercutting our democracy but leaves us with a government that is incapable of performing its duties at all. Wolin writes in his new book:

“The privatization of public services and functions manifests the steady evolution of corporate power into a political form, into an integral, even dominant partner with the state. It marks the transformation of American politics and its political culture, from a system in which democratic practices and values were, if not defining, at least major contributory elements, to one where the remaining democratic elements of the state and its populist programs are being systematically dismantled.”

Today, we see various departments within the United States government that are dependent on private contractors in order to do their job. Companies like KBR and Blackwater receive large, no-bid contracts in order to provide necessities to troops as well as security to various officials that operate within Iraq. Johnson states:

The end result is what we see today: a government hollowed out in terms of military and intelligence functions. The KBR Corporation, for example, supplies food, laundry, and other personal services to our troops in Iraq based on extremely lucrative no-bid contracts, while Blackwater Worldwide supplies security and analytical services to the CIA and the State Department in Baghdad. (Among other things, its armed mercenaries opened fire on, and killed, 17 unarmed civilians in Nisour Square, Baghdad, on September 16, 2007, without any provocation, according to U.S. military reports.) The costs — both financial and personal — of privatization in the armed services and the intelligence community far exceed any alleged savings, and some of the consequences for democratic governance may prove irreparable.

The "consequences" that Johnson references in the above quote are as follows:

1. The sacrifice of professionalism within our intelligence services
2. The readiness of private contractors to engage in illegal activities without compunction and with impunity.
3. The inability of Congress or citizens to carry out effective oversight of privately-managed intelligence activities because of the wall of secrecy that surrounds them.
4. The loss of the most valuable asset any intelligence organization possesses — its institutional memory.

The sacrifice of professionalism within intelligence services can easily be seen in the lead up to the Iraq War, when (by the Bush Administration's claims) the intelligence was so wrong that it led us into a war on false pretenses. No one lost their job at the CIA because of this. In fact, George Tenet was given the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

The readiness of private contractors to engage in illegal activities without compunction and with impunity can be seen in Blackwater's role in the Nisour Square massacre. In this incident, Blackwater employees gunned down 17 unarmed civilians without provocation and as of this writing, no one has been charged with a crime and Blackwater's contract was renewed.

The inability of Congress to carry-out any effective oversight can be seen by the circumstances surrounding the DARPA program. Johnson states:

For example, following 9/11, Rear Admiral John Poindexter, then working for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) of the Department of Defense, got the bright idea that DARPA should start compiling dossiers on as many American citizens as possible in order to see whether “data-mining” procedures might reveal patterns of behavior associated with terrorist activities.

On November 14, 2002, the New York Times published a column by William Safire entitled “You Are a Suspect” in which he revealed that DARPA had been given a $200 million budget to compile dossiers on 300 million Americans. He wrote, “Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every web site you visit and every e-mail you send or receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book, and every event you attend — all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as a ‘virtual centralized grand database.’” This struck many members of Congress as too close to the practices of the Gestapo and the Stasi under German totalitarianism, and so, the following year, they voted to defund the project.

However, Congress’s action did not end the “total information awareness” program. The National Security Agency secretly decided to continue it through its private contractors. The NSA easily persuaded SAIC and Booz Allen Hamilton to carry on with what Congress had declared to be a violation of the privacy rights of the American public — for a price. As far as we know, Admiral Poindexter’s “Total Information Awareness Program” is still going strong today.

This is a prime example of the inability of Congress to effectively oversee such programs.

Chalmers Johnson believes that the most dangerous consequence could indeed be the loss of institutional memory. It has been stated that at the turn of the century, much of the institutional memory of the United States can now be found in the private sector. Johnson:

This means that the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, and the other 13 agencies in the U.S. intelligence community cannot easily be reformed because their staffs have largely forgotten what they are supposed to do, or how to go about it. They have not been drilled and disciplined in the techniques, unexpected outcomes, and know-how of previous projects, successful and failed.

All of this, is greatly alarming for the future of American democracy. Chalmers Johnson, along with others, have been warning us for some time now that the United States has been slowly slipping away from a democracy and towards more of a corporatist state and the continued privatization of some of the industries discussed above, are clear cause for concern. All Presidential candidates need to make their views clear on this issue. Barack Obama, when questioned by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, stated that if we drew down the over 140,000 contractors in Iraq, then we would have to replace them with US troops. He states in the video that he wants to draw down their numbers like he wants to draw down the troop level, but he does not go so far as to say that he will ban them. This exchange is telling in the reliance that the United States has on such contractors and is a prime example of just how far we have come since the days of FDR.