Brian Ross Stumbles On His Own Sensationalism

Remember when you could sort of trust ABC investigative journalist Brian Ross to give you an informative story?

I'm starting to forget those times, too, thanks to Ross's weird distortions of Blackwater coverage. He's increasingly placing himself further out on the fringe. Take a look at his latest story on the company. It was a news story that everyone's been expecting for a year - the Iraqi Ministry of Interior refused to issue Blackwater a licence to keep operating in Iraq, and without that the State Department can't allow the company to continue protecting diplomats when the annual contract runs out in May.

Most news organizations - even the New York Times which ran a Reuters piece - portrayed the development as a pretty straight news story. Even Cuba's creaky propaganda agency Prensa Latina did.

But Brian Ross had to give it an inaccurate and inflammatory spin. Blackwater, he writes breathlessly, was "fired." The State Department "fired" the company, he claims. ABC "News" even made a sensationalist little piece of artwork to accompany Ross's piece, which we ripped off for today's graphic to show what we think of him and his journalism.

Ross is obviously so out of touch that he either has some intern on his "investigative team" trolling the net to catch what the bottom-feeders are saying and turn it into a story under Ross's byline, or he's just become another TV crank. Either way, the guy's days as a credible journalist are gone. He's simply not a professional any more. He ought to get the boot.

Anti-Blackwater Commentary Laced with Hate Speech

Wow - the online commentary about Blackwater today is really over the top! The latest news is really bringing out the left-wing nut jobs, who lace their commentary with bigotry and hate speech. One would expect more mainstream critics of the company to distance themselves, but so far they haven't.

At issue today is the report of the State Department's decision not to renew Blackwater's security contract in Iraq, citing the Iraqi government's refusal to reissue a license. We'll take a look at some of that coverage later, but what prompts this post is the reader commentary accompanying yesterday's Washington Post article.

Here are some selections from the reader comments. Some of these links might disappear from the Washington Post website once people start complaining about them for their offensive content, so I'm posting them so we can remember the critics' hate speech. Many of Blackwater's loudest detractors are hateful people:

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton "has shown herself to be nothing more than a shrewish mouthpiece for her AIPAC paymasters while running the State Dept!! Her Zionist attitudes render moot any kind of impartial resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and they speak volumes about the unconditional US support of Israel. . . ." (Posted by SMMajid_1 January 30, 2009 7:35 PM)


• "We have experienced what it is like to live under evangelical, ultra-right-wing plutocrats. They do what they please. They do it in secret. They flout the laws. They gum up the works so they won't be questioned let alone prosecuted. In the end, like a certain German chancellor, they leave the country in ruin and leave office." (Posted by: BlueTwo1 January 30, 2009 11:34 PM)


• Assorted swipes and slams on Christians, particularly evangelical Christians, written by people under the false impression that the owner of Blackwater is an evangelical and showing an ugly bigotry against Christian believers.

Standish recommends that Blackwater supporters post positive comments on online news stories, but cautions that those comments be brief, factual, respectful and polite.

Pap Smear

Here's the video of trial lawyer Mike Papantonio's self-described "Pap Attack" on Blackwater. He's seen narrating the piece that ran in the Pensacola News Journal, which we dissected in the following post.

Out of Control Buffoonery - Trial Lawyer Embarrasses Himself with Ill-Informed Hit Piece

Imagine - a trial lawyer is calling someone a "phenomenally rich multimillionaire inheritance baby."

That's what Florida trial lawyer Mike Papantonio (pictured) calls former Navy SEAL and Blackwater founder Erik Prince.

But Papantonio's hit job is way off the mark, showing a staggering level of ignorance of American history, law, and of the subject of his attack. The trial lawyer's clumsily-worded, error-filled screed appeared in the Pensacola News Journal. I'm almost embarrassed for him. The piece looks it was written by someone who's had too much to drink.

Papantonio is a radio talk show host on Air America and is founder of GoLeft.tv.

Standish has found at least nine major, glaring errors in Papantonio's attack piece.

1. Papantonio has his legal definitions wrong. He repeatedly refers to Prince and Blackwater as "mercenary." As a lawyer, Papantonio should know better. The international legal definition of mercenary, as defined by the Protocol to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, to which the US is a party, is as follows in Protocol I, Article 47.2:

A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Blackwater contractors do security guard, logistics work, training and related jobs abroad on contract for the US government or under US government license. They are not "specially recruited" to "fight in an armed conflict" or to take "direct part" in hostilities. Their main motivation is to serve their country again, not "essentially the desire for private gain;" as we'll see below, Blackwater contractors are well paid financially, but they pay high taxes and receive none of the non-taxable benefits that military personnel receive, so in the end, the compensation is comparable to those on active duty. All Blackwater personnel guarding the State Department are nationals and residents of the US, a party to the conflict (support staff are multinational). So they do not meet the Geneva Conventions' six standards to be considered mercenary.

Consequently, Papantonio is slandering American veterans who return from their private lives to serve their country again in wartime. The story of helicopter pilot Art Laguna, who gave his life in defense of a trapped US diplomat in Iraq two years ago, shows the caliber of the military vets who join Blackwater: Unusually dedicated people. The Defense Department gave Art Laguna the Legion of Merit posthumously last year, citing his "exceptionally meritorious conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements." Click here for the story.

2. Papantonio says that Erik Prince's (deceased) father funded a "neo-con[servative] revolution." Again, the trial lawyer is wrong, misusing a word intended as a pejorative. Edgar Prince funded Reagan-line social conservatives, including leaders of evangelical Christian causes. Those folks are very different from neo-conservatives, a movement founded by Norman Podhoretz, who characterized neo-cons as liberals "mugged by reality." Neo-cons and social conservatives have seldom been comfortable with one another on major issues; neo-cons tend to be hawkish on defense issues but more liberal on social matters. Many prominent neo-cons turned their backs on their Marxist backgrounds, which is why so many on the left particularly hate them. Neo-conservative movement ideology centered around Podhoretz and other Jewish intellectuals with Commentary magazine - a totally different kind of movement than what Edgar Prince supported, which was based on Protestant Christianity. (Erik Prince is not an evangelical but a Catholic, so his views are not the same as those of his late father.) But "neo-con" is now an unpopular epithet, used both as a means of discrediting the recently-departed Bush Administration's first-term defense team that included some prominent neo-cons. It's also a code word for "Jew" among some closet anti-semites.

3. Papantonio is wrong when he states, "today, the Prince family's private army numbers about 25,000 strong." That's an outrageous estimate. It's not even on the most oddball, foil-hat conspiracy websites. Papantonio must be making it up. It looks like he is referring to the number of private security guards in Iraq, which is estimated at about 25,000, but most of those are Iraqi nationals working for other (mainly Iraqi) security companies.

Blackwater makes up only about 1,000 of the private security guards in Iraq, perhaps even fewer. If one adds the press reports and State Department testimony of Blackwater personnel abroad, and the company's own statements, one finds that the actual number of Blackwater personnel at about 700 in the US and between 1,000 and 3,000 contractors abroad. All Blackwater contractors abroad are either in the direct employ of the United States government, or operating with US allies under explicit US government permission and license. Many of these people are trainers and logisticians, not guards.

4. Papantonio is wrong when he claims, "Soldiers enlisted in the U.S. military get paid about $70 a day to put themselves in harm's way, while Mr. Prince's private soldier gets about $1,500 a day for facing the same risks." This is nonsense, an allegation that was debunked during a congressional hearing nearly a year-and-a-half ago, and by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in August 2008. Blackwater guards make only a fraction of that, and they have to pay their own expenses, from food, housing and healthcare to self-employment taxes and other items that soldiers receive as part of their non-taxable benefits. A 2007 Serviam magazine study found that the compensation is roughly the same. Blackwater has published its own comparison figures.

The CBO discussed cost comparisons less exaggerated than the figures Papantonio uses, and discounted the data. "Those figures are not appropriate for comparing the cost-effectiveness of contracting the security function or performing it using military personnel," according to the CBO. "The figures of $1,222 a day represents the contractor's billing rate, not the amount paid to the contractor's employees. The billing rate is greater than an employee's pay because it includes the contractor's indirect costs, overhead, and profit." CBO says a better comparison would be to estimate the total cost to the government. "CBO performed such an analysis, comparing the costs of a private security contractor with those of a military alternative. That analysis indicates that the costs of the private contractor did not differ greatly from the costs of having a comparable military unit performing similar functions."

5. Papantonio is wrong when he says that Blackwater guys are unaccountable to American law. He claims, "to this day, the lawyers for the Prince-family soldiers are still arguing that these mercenaries can't be prosecuted under traditional criminal and civil U.S. statutes." This claim is false. Indeed, some prominent legal scholars say that Congress never bothered to keep the laws up-to-date, creating a "legal vacuum" and accountability problems. Keeping federal laws up-to-date are up to Congress, not Blackwater, to solve. Blackwater operates under the laws in existence - some of which are either imprecise or contradictory - and it has urged that the laws be updated so that the company's work can be more specifically defined.

6. Papantonio is wrong when he implies that Blackwater is in danger of becoming an "independent, unchecked power in America." The company is tightly regulated under a host of state and federal laws. Its operations are regulated by the Justice Department, Defense Department, Treasury Department, Commerce Department and State Department. It is subject to the same gun-control and export laws that govern everyone else. Where laws haven't kept up with the outsourcing trend, they have been amended, and Blackwater has been urging Congress to continue updating the law. Congress even passed a law that Prince personally advocated in testimony before Congressman Henry Waxman's oversight panel on October 2, 2007.

7. Papantonio is wrong when he says that the US won World War II without the use of "American mercenaries." Perhaps he's never heard of the famous American Volunteer Group (AVG), better known as the Flying Tigers, led by Claire Chennault - a private air force of American aviators who fought the Japanese in Burma, China and Australia. Most people are familiar with the AVG's famous P-40 fighter plane with its distinctive shark-mouth paint job (pictured). Other "American mercenaries," as the trial lawyer would define them, were the armed civilian crews of the Liberty Ships who ferried supplies across the Atlantic to make D-Day possible. The US relied heavily on private contractors to support the military during World War II. In 1941, prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Congress passed the Defense Base Act (DBA) to provide insurance for civilian contract workers on US military bases, an Act that Congress has expanded over the years as the contracting sector has grown.

8. Papantonio is wrong when he says that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson would have opposed private military companies to do outsourcing military work in the service of the United States. As soon as he became Commander in Chief of the Continental Army in 1775, Washington outsourced a naval force, without consent of the Continental Congress, leasing private ships and hiring private sea captains as what he called "privateers." Military historian James L. Nelson documents this in his new book, George Washington's Secret Navy. (See how Nelson's account takes the legs out from under another Blackwater critic, Bill Sizemore of the Virginian-Pilot.)

Washington as general and Jefferson as a member of the Second Continental Congress personally supported the legalization and regulation of private military companies to make war on British shipping, in March, 1776. Washington commanded ships that worked in partnership with privateers, and during the war he even held an ownership stake in a private warship. As president, Thomas Jefferson made extensive use of private warships to compensate for US naval weakness in defense of American trading interests against the Barbary Pirates in the Mediterranean. Robert H. Patton's book Patriot Pirates: The Privateer War for Freedom and Fortune in the American Revolution is a great introduction to the subject in the 1770s and early 1780s. Privateering is one of the few businesses specifically authorized in the US Constitution, under the "letters of marque and reprisal" clause in Article I, Section 8. Papantonio is a trial lawyer who doesn't even know the Constitution.

9. Papantonio makes the preposterous claim that "Blackwater has reached a level of overgrown and unchecked power that makes it capable of overpowering the military of many of the world's governments." The company can do nothing abroad without the legal authorization of the State Department, Commerce Department, Defense Department and Justice Department. Its powers are not unchecked at all. Blackwater is liable under state and federal gun control laws, military export laws, labor and safety laws, and a host of regulations that fall under those laws.

"Blackwater spokesmen tell us that their mercenaries operate under a pledge of strict loyalty and patriotism," Papantonio says. "But take time to follow the story about this mercenary group, and you will wonder who or what entity actually benefits from that loyalty pledge." '

Papantonio's attack on Blackwater is one of the most ignorant this blogger has ever seen. Phony and sloppy allegations like his are what have given many well-intentioned people a false impression of the company and its role. The more people know about Blackwater, the more they appreciate what it does. So it was no surprise when last summer, a US Senator receiving Blackwater protection in Afghanistan said in comments picked up by US News & World Report, "Blackwater is getting a bad rap." That senator is now the new president of the United States.

In Case You Missed the News

The war in Iraq is essentially over. Some of us already knew that, but the Washington Post made it official in Media Land, in an unusual front-page story published on January 2.

Most people probably missed it because of the holidays. So here's what the story said, and we want to dwell on this a bit because it would never have happened without the brave guys from Blackwater, who kept our embassy people 100 percent safe.

"The war, in a sense, is over," the Post said in a center-of-the-front-page headline. No surrendering enemies, or captured fuehrer bunker, or any of those things that we like to see to bring us closure after a war. Here's how the article, by Anthony Shadid in Baghdad, began:

"Maybe it was the only shot heard for days in a neighborhood once ordered by the cadence of gunfire. Perhaps it was the smiles at checkpoints and the shouts of Iraqi policemen navigating the always snarled traffic. 'God's mercy on your parents,' they beseeched. 'God's blessings on you.' Maybe it was the music box still playing 'Santa Claus Is Coming to Town' at a kiosk overflowing with Christmas tree decorations and heart-shaped red pillows.

"For anyone returning to Baghdad after spending time here during the darkest days two years ago, when it was paralyzed by sectarian hatred and overrun by gunmen sowing despair, the conclusion seemed inescapable.

"'The war has ended,' said Heidar al-Abboudi, a street merchant.

"The war in Iraq is indeed over, at least the conflict as it was understood during its first five years: insurgency, communal cleansing, gangland turf battles and an anarchic, often futile quest to survive."

Iraq is fragile, and bombings continue around the country, but the war is essentially over. Blackwater played a big part in the victory.

Cuban Propaganda Agency Issues Phony Blackwater Report

The Cuban government's Soviet-built propaganda agency, Prensa Latina, is running a false report that the US has announced that Blackwater will withdraw its security operations from Iraq.

"US Announces Blackwater Pullout of Iraq," Prensa Latina says in a headline today. Google News is giving it prominence, having pulled down most other reporting on Blackwater as questions continue about the objectivity of its search engine. Most of the recent positive reporting on Blackwater from the past few days no longer appears on Google News.

The Cuban article is difficult to read because its Mexico-based server is slow and the site requires readers to register.

A banner on the top right of the Prensa Latina page champions the cause of the "Miami Five," a group of Cuban infiltrators and saboteurs currently in federal US prison. Prensa Latina calls the five "anti-terrorists [who] battle for justice."

Prensa Latina is the Castro version of the old Soviet TASS "news" agency created during the Cold War. Why it's reporting a false story about Blackwater at this time remains to be seen, but we're putting down this marker to keep track.

(Note: For the record, The Nation magazine, which has sponsored Jeremy Scahill's writing on Blackwater, has been a strong sympathizer with the Castro regime for decades.)

Radio Logs Prove Blackwater Convoy Was Under Fire at Nisoor Square

Radio logs from Blackwater's Baghdad security teams show that the unit involved at the Nisoor Square shootout did indeed come under enemy fire.

Newsday reports, "Prosecutors said the men unleashed a gruesome attack on unarmed Iraqis. But the radio logs from the Sept. 16, 2007, shooting, turned over to prosecutors by Blackwater, suggest otherwise. The guards were authorized to fire in self-defense, so any evidence their convoy was attacked will make it harder for the Justice Department to prove they acted unlawfully."

The Salt Lake Tribune, covering the defense team in Salt Lake City, reports the story under the headline, "Blackwater Logs Depict Mortal Threat to Guards."

Below is a summary of the logs, as reported by the Associated Press. Raven 4 is a Blackwater convoy protecting an American diplomat near a car bombing. Raven 22 is a Blackwater unit that responds to assist Raven 4. Raven 23 was sent to secure Nisoor Square, a traffic circle, at which the deadly shootout occurred.

The following timeline from the September 16, 2007 Blackwater radio logs is from the Associated Press. The quotes are from the AP report:

11:59: Raven 4 reports a car bombing
12:00: Raven 22 leaves the Green Zone through Checkpoint 12 to back up Raven 4
12:10: Raven 22 and Raven 4 depart for Green Zone
12:11: Raven 23 reports securing Nisoor Square
12:12: "Raven 23 reports multiple insurgent small arms fire"
12:13: "Blackwater air support advised of small arms fire at Nisoor Square. Raven 23 reports Iraqi police shooting at convoy" [Note: The FBI would later credit the Iraqi police with helping build the federal prosecution of five Raven 23 team members.]
12:14: Raven 23 is ordered to proceed to Green Zone checkpoint 2
12:16: Raven 23 says that its command vehicle is disabled
12:18: Raven 23 attempts to tow its disabled command vehicle but says its members are still under attack
12:20: Raven 22 is "advised of Raven 23 shooting at Nisoor Square." Checkpoint 12 of the Green Zone is closed.
12:20: Raven 23 reports it is in traffic, "still taking sporadic small arms fire."

(Note: The facsimile of the radio log is brought to us through Blackfive.)

Federal Prosecutors Are Silent About Radio Logs

Federal officials prosecuting five former Blackwater security guards had plenty to say to reporters when spinning public allegations of premeditated homicide - but they're silent about the radio logs that show the security teams under enemy fire at Nisoor Square.

A Justice Department official did tell the Associated Press that prosecutors are "fully aware" of the documents, but they'll wait to answer them in court.

"We cannot comment on evidence related to a pending case, but we are fully prepared to address in court arguments made by the defense concerning the documents you reference," Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd tells AP.

This is the same Justice Department that had no problem scripting carefully worded accusations against the five military veterans of "unprovoked and illegal attacks on civilians." Now it won't comment on evidence that the attacks might have been provoked and therefore legal.

Los Angeles Times Endorses Blackwater-Backed Legislation

Better late than never: The Los Angeles Times is more a year behind Blackwater CEO Erik Prince in endorsing private contractor accountability legislation. Even so, it's good that the Times editors are finally sharing Blackwater's views.

Testifying before Congress on October 2, 2007, Prince alerted lawmakers to pending legislation that would fill holes in the law and tighten ambiguities, thus taking away the gray areas that made accountability difficult in the private security contracting business for the US government abroad. He said he was "happy" with the proposed legislation, authored by Rep. David Price (D-NC) and endorsed it. The House later passed the bill.

BlackwaterFacts.com reported this on October 4, 2007.

Fourteen months later, the LA Times is finally on board. Here's what the editors say in a December 15, 2008 editorial:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that "there is a hole” in the law where prosecution of private contractors was concerned.

Rice may be right. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act allows for the prosecution of civilians who are "employed by or accompanying the armed forces outside the United States." A grand jury concluded that even though the Blackwater defendants worked for the State Department, they were supporting a military mission and are thus covered by the law. Certainly that interpretation is in the spirit of the law; whether it satisfies the law's letter must be decided by the courts. (The defendants also argue that they can't be prosecuted because they were offered immunity by the State Department.) Meanwhile, Congress should enact legislation passed last year by the House that would allow for the prosecution of U.S. contractors in foreign countries -- regardless of the agency for which they work -- if the foreign country doesn't choose to prosecute. If the "hole" mentioned by Rice exists, it should be plugged.

No doubt the LA Times editors are clueless about this, and think that they're sticking it to Blackwater. In reality, the company wants tight laws and rules for accountability and responsibility, so that it can operate without the legal ambiguity that has been so problematic.

Standish is writing to the LA Times editors to congratulate them and to ask them to recognize Blackwater for endorsing the legislation more than a year before they did.

Readers of this blog should do the same. Click here to see how, or write directly at: letters@latimes.com.

'The most thoroughly vetted - and cleared - contractor in the war in Iraq'

"In nominations for the most thoroughly vetted - and cleared - contractor in the war in Iraq, who would have guessed it would turn out to be Blackwater?

"But that’s exactly what happened last Monday (December 8)," Patrick McGuigan writes in Tulsa Today. "After more than a year of gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses around the world, a grand jury found no evidence to indict Blackwater and, instead, indicted five of the contractors who were working for the company on September 16 when a shooting incident occurred in Nisour Square.

The editor adds, "no other company has been subjected to anywhere near the level of media scrutiny, Congressional hounding, or prolonged investigation that Blackwater has weathered.

"So after all the public condemnations and damning headlines just how bad is Blackwater? It turns out that there’s not a shred of evidence that the company has done anything wrong at all. In this instance, a few of its contractors appear to have been caught in a bad situation in Baghdad and innocent civilians were caught in the crossfire – it’s terrible but it’s war; our troops have been involved in similar situations countless times. And just how evil is Blackwater? So evil that every single person they’ve protected is alive and well because of that protection."

"Looking at the facts," McGuigan says, "it’s hard to come up with a company that has been more thoroughly vetted. Maybe, just maybe, they deserve a little credit for doing a good job."

(Photo: General David Petraeus in Baghdad with a Blackwater diplomatic security team who saved the life of Poland's ambassador to Iraq.)

Support Pours In for Accused Blackwater Men

People from around the United States are voicing support for the former Blackwater security guards accused of manslaughter while protecting the life of an American diplomat in Iraq.

Important support can be seen in reader comments attached to online news stories. Readers of the Union Leader, New Hampshire's largest statewide daily, have submitted comments in support of native son Evan Liberty, who served as a Marine before working for Blackwater. They should inspire all of us to voice support across the Internet wherever we can.

Forget all the trash talk comments. What's fresh and new is all the new, supportive commentary, like this:

• "I support Evan Liberty 100%. I was not there and neither were any of you ignorant people posting ridiculous comments here. I am a Marine and I KNOW that the circumstances under which this event occurred may very well be entirely different than what is being broadcast by the media. Semper Fi, Evan and family, stay strong." - Sarah C., Nashua, NH.
  
  
• "If you change Mr. Liberty's name to mine that would be my son. He too works for Blackwater. Their stories are almost identical. These men are all highly trained members from the elite branches of the military. They all have served in war zones. They are not cowboys. They put their life on the line to protect anyone from the ruler of these countries to the entertainers who want to go there to say, 'I've been in a war zone to be with our troops.' They have never lost a client. If they are so bad why are they asked for by people that go visit there ? Even people that bad mouth them now.
  
  "If you think Blackwater hires just anyone who wants to make money,why not go to thier site and try to apply for a job. You would have a better chance applying for a job as astronaut." - JZ, Texas
  
  
• "Charging these guys is what I like to refer to as 'Feel good political policy' and these guys are the scapegoats for the government." - Mike, Manchester, NH.
  
  
• "This is a war zone. Who can second guess their actions if you have not been in the same situation, same place, etc. Sounds like a lot of politics to me. When it's all said and done, I'll bet they're acquitted." - Bob Ahern, Derry, NH.
  
  
• "Given the lethally chaotic situation in Iraq, at the time, I'm willing to give all involved the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure all reasonable people will do the same. I hope the country's hatred (in some cases maniacal) of Bush doesn't negatively effect their trials. Good luck and Godspeed. - Mike P., Manchester, NH.
  
  
• "I wish your son and the rest of these men the best. They are veterans who served our country with great honor, and are now getting thrown to the wolves. What next - start punishing the troops who are deployed? I am sure thats what some anti-military people would say. People in this country have become so libralized that they have forgotten bad things happen during war." - D.S., Amherst, NH.
  
  
• "I have known Evan Liberty since the fourth grade. We were in the same class all the way to high school and I knew him in high school also. He is a very good kid and he was an embassy guard before he went to Blackwater. Only the top ten percent of all marines are selected to carry that title. he was a standout. He is a great guy and always has been. If he fired his rifle he had too, and he is definitely not a cowboy. He is a hero and it makes me so angry to see America turn its back on him. Shame on this country and its government. How come no one is 'supporting our troops' now? It also makes me sick to see some of the comments left on this page. I bet all the negative ones are from idiots who have never fought for this country. Evan, you're a hero in my book." - Jeremiah, Rochester NH.
  

Justice Department 'Reckless' in Assault on Blackwater Men

"Lawyers for the five Blackwater guards indicted by the Justice Department in connection with a 2007 shooting in Baghdad accused the government of overstepping its authority and recklessly staining the reputations of five decorated veterans who had honorably served their country," the New York Times reports today.

"Justice officials have faced trouble with the case nearly from the start," adds the Wall Street Journal. "Investigators from the State Department, which had jurisdiction over the guards, gave the men immunity in exchange for providing statements immediately following the incident. Federal Bureau of Investigation agents arrived to take over the probe weeks later, having to reconstruct a crime scene on public streets, and tracking down witnesses. The men said they fired in response to shooting from insurgents; some Iraqi witnesses disputed that there was any firing other than that by the Blackwater guards."

"These battlefield incident prosecutions are notoriously difficult to win no matter what the forum," says former Navy lawyer Tara Lee.

"Plaintiff attorneys also plan to argue that the men's work for the State Department doesn't fall under the authority of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, the law originally written to cover Pentagon contractors and now being used to prosecute the men," according to the Journal.

More 'Unusual' Spin from the Associated Press

The Associated Press is a mixed bag in terms of the objectivity of its writers, so one always has to be careful when reading AP stories.

The latest cause for caution is headlined, "US Mulls Unusual Tactic as Charges Loom," by the AP's Matt Apuzzo (pictured) and Lara Jakes Jordan.

Apuzzo and Jordan breathlessly report that some people in the Justice Department are considering use of the "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988" as an inspired flash of brilliance in a long-shot effort to convict Blackwater security guards involved in the September 2007 incident at Nisoor Square in Baghdad.

It's another non-story that AP axe-grinders crank out to blow more smoke about Blackwater, leading people to think there's now some kind of drug connection. There's nothing "unusual" about the 1998 law, incorporated into the federal statute called 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).

That law makes it a crime to use any gun in connection with a "violent crime." Of course, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 was a Reagan-era law designed to crack down on drug traffickers. Now, some in the Justice Department want to twist the intent of the law so they can go after Blackwater.

The law in question provides legal beagles of the world a whole a la carte smorgasbord of extra charges to heap on an accused person in order to try to scare them into making a plea.

Abusing 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in order to scare people of forcing a plea is nothing "unusual."

If Apuzzo and Jordan at AP had looked at the Nazario case (the Marine accused of killing Iraqis) that they trotted out in their very own article, they would have promptly seen that the charge was used there.

In fact, they could have checked out just about any federal court case involving allegations of “violent crime” and they’d have found The Anti-Drug Abuse Act charge at work.

Want a statistical measure of how “new” and “unusual” is this count? Well, in 1990 it was used 4,000 times. In 2000 it was used 5,000 times.

If our intrepid mudslingers weren’t up to going down to the courthouse and digging through legal cases (usually they're content to let trial lawyers and political hacks feed them with dirt), even though they wanted to spout off about them, they could have found out how "unusual" is use of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) by going to Wikipedia. An entry there describes 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) as “a frequently used section of the federal criminal code.”

But we can't expect those two AP reporters to be careful or objective. Apuzzo admitted that he was a "D" student in college before he decided to become a journalist. And if AP stuck to professional journalism standards, it would never hire someone like Jordan to cover contentious political issues because her husband is a career Washington political operative.

AP's Jordan Is Wife of Partisan Political Operative

When you read Associated Press stories, pay close attention to the byline. Some AP reporters are pretty objective and try to get things right, even if we might not like the message. Others from AP sound a lot like partisan political hacks.

Washington correspondent Lara Jakes Jordan is one of them. Her reporting uniformly undermines almost anything to do with fighting terrorism, and she's been sloppy (to be polite about it) in her reporting on Blackwater.

Small wonder: Her husband, Jim Jordan, is an accomplished partisan political operative. Jim ran Senator John Kerry's political operations for five years, serving as manager of Kerry's presidential campaign.

Veteran newsman Joseph Farah commented on Lara Jakes Jordan's partisan political connection a few years back. He said, "When I got started a quarter century ago, there was an old newsroom saying that went like this: 'I don't care if you sleep with elephants as long as you don't cover the circus.'

"Mrs. Jordan violated that old newsroom ethic. She abdicated her right to cover the circus because she was sleeping with an elephant – or, in this case, a donkey."

Jordan, he wrote, is a "politically motivated reporter with a big ax to grind. . . . The largest news-gathering organization in the world, the Associated Press, owes the American people an apology for continuing to assign Lara Jakes Jordan to politically sensitive stories."

Makes you wonder whether she's part of the trial lawyers' highly partisan effort to discredit the company. A PR firm in Washington, Levick Strategic Communications, brags that it has planted "thousands" of stories in the press for its clients - clients that included captured enemy combatants in Guantanamo. Trial lawyers hired Levick to trash Blackwater. Jordan has been out front covering both the Gitmo detainee issue and Blackwater. It would be interesting to go back and check if Jordan has served as a mouthpiece for Levick's paid propaganda.

Correcting Sloppy Journalism

Blackwater issued a statement today to correct news reports that contain what the company says are misleading and even false allegations of improper or illegal export of weapons to Iraq.

By any journalistic standard, the reporting is sloppy. Culprits include: Press-TV of Iran; the normally reliable Warren Strobel of McClatchy Newspapers; the ever-defensive, cross-armed Brian Ross (pictured) and Jason Ryan of ABC News; a mixed bag of writers at the Associated Press, and Zachary Roth of TPM Muckraker.

The reports "cite only anonymous government sources, anonymous former employees, and former employees who fired by Blackwater for stealing weapons from the company," according to a Blackwater press release.

"While the company cannot comment on all of the inaccuracies because of its ongoing cooperation with investigators, there are some key factual errors to which it would like to respond," Blackwater says. "The following points address some of the more egregious errors contained in recent reporting:

• Blackwater has never shipped an automatic weapon to Iraq. A recent report that Blackwater has "shipped hundreds of automatic weapons to Iraq without the necessary permits" and "some of the weapons are believed to have ended up on the country's black market" is false. Blackwater has never shipped so much as one automatic weapon to Iraq.


• Blackwater held approved export licenses to ship more than the 798 total guns it shipped to Iraq. A recent media report claiming that '... the State Department found that Blackwater shipped 900 weapons to Iraq without the paperwork required by arms export control regulations,' could not be true because the total number of firearms Blackwater has shipped to Iraq is less than 900. Blackwater obtained export licenses in excess of the number of weapons actually sent to Iraq - and the U.S. government authorized the export of each of these weapons. The investigations referenced by the media do not allege that the company failed to obtain licenses or failed to ensure the government was aware of its actions; rather, the investigations concern Blackwater's not properly annotating the licenses, not timely submitting required reports, and not retaining required records.


• While Blackwater does not ship them, the limited number of automatic weapons that are in Blackwater's custody in Iraq were all exported by the U.S. government or by the manufacturer under U.S. government license. They are all fully accounted for, regularly inventoried, and required to be turned in to the U.S. government at the end of the associated contracts.


• Blackwater has never hidden anything inside a bag of dog food - not a gun, not a radio, nor anything else. A recent news story cited 'former employees' who claim that Blackwater hid weapons 'in large sacks of dog food.' This sensational claim is false. The company has, however, packed shipping pallets with valuable and pilferable items, including weapons, interior to [surrounded by] bags of dog food or other low-theft items. This common practice is done to prevent corrupt foreign customs agents and shipping workers from stealing the valuables. U.S. export statutes require licensing of controlled materials but do not dictate their placement within packaging.


• Blackwater follows all rules governing the type of firearms that can be carried by contractors in Iraq, to include contractual provisions, those outlined by the U.S. government, and those outlined by Iraq's Ministry of Interior. A recent report claiming that the company illegally shipped 'assault weapons' that it is prohibited from using in Iraq is blatantly false. All firearms shipped to Iraq by Blackwater were given proper U.S. government licenses. The firearms owned by Blackwater in Iraq are limited to handguns and civilian-variant carbines. It does not own or possess any 'M-4 assault weapons' in Iraq. All firearms used for diplomatic protection are government-issued.


• A story highlighting that an inspector 'discovered an unlicensed two-way radio hidden in a dog food sack' is both sensationalistic and false because the radio in question did not require a license and was never hidden inside a dog food sack. Blackwater applied for a license for the radio prior to shipment and obtained a written determination issued by the Commerce department that the radio did not require any license. Although the valuable and pilferable radio was packaged among other items - including dog food - in a 13-pallet shipment, it was not 'hidden in a dog food sack.' The commercial waybill and shipping invoice for the shipment both clearly reflected that the radio was in the shipment. We acknowledge that we have made numerous mistakes in complex and demanding area of export compliance over the years. However, the majority of those violations have been failures of paperwork and timeliness while supporting the United States and its allies, not nefarious smuggling or aid to enemies. This is in no way meant to diminish the seriousness of U.S. export control laws, but rather to clearly state: Blackwater has not committed any of the sensational violations that have been reported recently."

Commentators Heap Abuse on Brian Ross and His Silly ABC News Report

Online commentators are heaping ABC News with abuse for Brian Ross's breathless report that the Army discovered a carbine in the hands or Iraqi insurgents and returned it to Blackwater.

Supporters of Blackwater and of winning the Iraq war should always take advantage of the public comment sections on Big Media websites. Some of the Ross commentators appear to be private contractor vets who have served in Iraq.

Though editors and reporters will seldom admit it, public comments - responsibly written, with solid facts and thoughtful analysis - often provide accountability and provoke biased or careless journalists to think twice.

So keep up the good work! Here's the direct link to the Ross report and the comments, so you can add more thoughts: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/comments?type=story&id=5931528.

No wonder Ross likes to pose so often for pictures with his arms crossed defensively over his chest. His body language shows that, deep inside, he knows he's not the great journalist he pretends to be. See post below.

ABC's Ross: His Body Language Tells the Story

Brian Ross is a big man in the big media, but does he really believe he's as hot as he wants people to think? Allan and Barbara Pease, in The Definitive Book of Body Language (Bantam, 2004), offer some insights about why the machine gun man from ABC always crosses his arms over his chest:

"Hiding behind a barrier is a normal response we learn at an early age to protect ourselves. As children, we hid behind solid objects such as tables, chairs, furniture, and mother's skirt . . . . As we grew older, this hiding behavior became more sophisticated and by the age of six, when it was unacceptable behavior to hide behind solid objects, we learned to fold our arms tightly across our chests whenever a threatening situation arose . . . .

"By folding one or both arms across the chest, a barrier is formed that is an unconscious attempt to block out what we perceive as a threat or undesirable circumstances. . . . when a person has a nervous, negative, or defensive attitude, it's very likely he will fold his arms firmly on his chest, showing that he feels threatened. . . .

"When you fold your arms your credibility dramatically reduces."

"Crossed-Arms-on-Chest is universal and is decoded with the same defensive or negative meaning almost everywhere. It is comonly seen . . . anywhere that people feel uncertain or insecure." (pp. 90-93)

Army Returned Blackwater's Missing M-4; ABC's Brian Ross Sensationalizes It

The US Army returned a missing M-4 Bushmaster military carbine to Blackwater after discovering the weapon during a raid on Iraqi insurgents, ABC News reports. The Army apparently doesn't consider the issue a big deal. Soldiers said the weapon was found in "surprisingly good condition," which indicates that the insurgents didn't use it much if at all.

ABC's Brian Ross (pictured in his typically defensive, arms-across-the-chest pose) reports, "Criminal investigators for the US Army turned the weapon over to Blackwater. A spokesman for the Army CID [Criminal Investigative Division] said no further investigation was conducted as to whether the weapon had been stolen or sold on the black market by someone with access to the Blackwater facility."

Ross withholds that piece of news until the 14th paragraph of the 15-paragraph story, stuffing parts of the middle with re-hashed allegations that reflect negatively on the company.

The incident reportedly occurred in 2006.

As is the case in almost any war, the enemy in Iraq often uses captured or stolen American weaponry. The insurgents have stolen, pilfered or captured US arms and weapons the US provided to the Iraqi military and law enforcement. Blackwater turned over two employees to federal authorities after suspecting them of stealing and illegally shipping weapons in the company's custody to factions in Iraq.

The company says that it has reported every known case of weapons theft to the authorities, but did not know about this particular incident. ABC cites documents that reinforce Blackwater's claim that it didn't know the weapon was missing from its inventory.

The ABC report reeks of sensationalism. Ross breathlessly says the incident was "kept secret" until now, and ominously that it "raises more questions" about the company's operations in Iraq, which by all accounts have had a 100 percent success rate in protecting American diplomats, aid workers, officials, visiting congressmen, and even journalists.

Ross repeatedly refers to the M-4 as a "machine gun." While definitions and interpretations differ, with some (mainly civilians) referring to any firearm capable of fully automatic fire as a "machine gun," most military definitions consider machine guns as full-auto firearms that require external support, like a swivel or bipod, and thus the M-4 is not in that category. Generally the media refers to selective-fire military-style carbines like the M-4 as "assault rifles." ABC apparently chose the term "machine gun" to sensationalize the story and "raise further questions" about the company.

After recycling old and negative reports about the company, Ross finally tells readers in the second-to-last paragraph that news the Army doesn't really think that the missing weapon was a very big deal, because criminal investigators returned the M-4 to Blackwater.

In the last paragraph, Ross properly describes the weapon, showing that all the reporter and editors had to do was Google "Bushmaster" to get an official description: "The Bushmaster, according to the company's website, is one of the 'world's most popular military and law enforcement carbine models.' It is outfitted with a flash suppressor and, in military models, can fire three round bursts or fully automatic." The term "machine gun" appears nowhere on the Bushmaster M-4 page or in any official manufacturer description of the firearm. But it sure sounds more exciting.

Amnesty International: Truth or Propaganda?

Is Amnesty International still interested in the truth about human rights, or has it become so politicized that we can safely ignore it?

It's a legitimate question, because Amnesty has subverted itself by jumping to conclusions formed by others with a political agenda, rather than getting to the truth. Amnesty used to be at the cutting edge. Now it's out of date, the tail of the dog, fat and lazy and politicized.

As we see in the entry below, Amnesty has been so out of touch on the Blackwater/Nisoor Square controversy that it didn't even know that the federal government is readying to prosecute guards for the September 16, 2007 incident.

Further into Amnesty's Nisoor anniversary "report," we find that the foundation really wants to put Blackwater out of business - an agenda set by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-Cal.) and moonbat writer Jeremy Scahill of The Nation.

Here's what Amnesty says in its "report": "Amnesty International USA has demanded that the State Department suspend contracts with contractors like Blackwater until it is clear that proper vetting mechanisms are in place to prevent further abuses."

Does Amnesty even know what the vetting mechanisms are? It gives no indication (they are amply documented among the more than 350 entries on this blog).

Waxman and Scahill can't seem to get much support from among fellow Blackwater critics. Scahill pointedly asked Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) if they would endorse pulling Blackwater's contracts, and both said no. Both said Blackwater should compete for contracts. Even Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has privately said, as US News and World Report revealed, that he thinks Blackwater is "getting a bad rap."

But in Amnesty's case, it shouldn't matter what the politicians say. The organization made a good name for itself by sticking to facts and not jumping to politicized conclusions. That was the old Amnesty International. The new Amnesty isn't worth listening to any more.

(Graphic courtesy of thedissidentfrogman.com)

Spinning Headlines or Just Plain Ignorant?

Amnesty International used to have a great reputation as a champion of prisoners of conscience and human rights in general, but in recent years it's good name for objectivity and principle has become a bit tarnished.

Take this pompous headine from its "report" marking the one-year anniversary of the shootout at Nisoor Square in Iraq: "On Anniversary of Civilian Shootings by Blackwater in Iraq, Amnesty International Calls on US Government to Hold Military Contractors Accountable."

All well and good, but where has Amnesty been over the past year? The headline shows the group is way, way behind the curve, out of touch with the facts, and reduced to a Scahillian poodle nipping and yapping to make itself relevant in the media.

That's too bad, because Amnesty could be adding a lot to the debate on private military and security contractors, and to accountability in general.

Let's pick apart Amnesty's September 22 release and get to the facts:

Amnesty: "Amnesty International today condemned the US government for failing to hold anyone accountable for the deaths."

Fact: The US government has been working hard to hold people accountable for the deaths. As Blackwaterfacts reported on August 18 - a month before Amnesty's statement - the Justice Department sent "target letters" to six Blackwater guards, the first public indication that individuals have been targeted for prosecution. Like it or not, American justice is slow and deliberate. It can't be speeded up to coincide with anniversaries.

Amnesty: "'The U.S. government has failed to ensure legal accountability for widespread abuses by civilian contractors,' said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA. 'Iraqi and U.S. investigations have determined that this assault was an unjustifiable use of force against civilians. And yet, a year later, we are still waiting for justice in this case. Robust protections must be in place to guarantee that personnel are held accountable for indiscriminate shootings and killings of civilians.'"

Fact: Cox is mistaken; the accountability measures are in place, as this blog reported last November. Congress has modernized its laws and the administration has tightened its procedures. Amnesty International seems not to realize that Blackwater CEO Erik Prince personally asked Congress for tightened accountability in his testimony before the Waxman Committee on October 2, 2007.

Finally, Amnesty quotes Congressman David Price (D-NC) about the need to expand the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).

Again, Amnesty is way behind. Blackwater Chairman Erik Prince publicly called for accountability under MEJA. The Blackwater chief endorsed Congressman Price's call for other types of expanded accountability nearly a year ago during the Waxman hearings. The House, with full bipartisan support, overwhelmingly passed the Blackwater-approved legislation a few days later.

The timeline shows that Blackwater has been further out-front on the accountability issue than has Amnesty International.