Depends On The Definition Of Sovereignty
by sarabeth at 6:00 am on September 17th, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Iraq WarIn the sovereign state of Iraq, when the government determines that contractors employed by their honored guests, the U.S. government, have committed a crime — for example, by mowing down innocent civilians — the harshest punishment they can threaten is that the contractor will probably no longer be allowed to make money hand over fist in Iraq:
A U.S. State Department motorcade came under attack in Baghdad on Sunday, prompting security contractors guarding the convoy to open fire in the streets. At least nine civilians were killed, according to Iraqi officials.
The shootout occurred in the downtown neighborhood of Mansour at midday after an explosion detonated near the convoy, police said. In response, the security contractors “escalated the force to defend themselves,” a U.S. Embassy official in Baghdad said.
Iraqi officials alleged that the response by the security company, which was not named, involved excessive force and killed innocent civilians. The Iraqi government will investigate the incident and “probably will withdraw the authority for this security company in Baghdad,” said Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, an Interior Ministry spokesman.
“The security company contractors opened fire randomly on the civilians,” he said. “We consider this act a crime.”
Early Monday, Iraqi state television reported that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had condemned the “criminal operation” in Mansour and said he would “punish” the private security company and shut down its operations.
It is, of course, good to be the King. But being a security contractor to those who lord it over Iraq seems to come pretty close.
I didn’t realize that these security companies have their own combat helicopters:
A Washington Post employee in the area at the time of the shooting witnessed security company helicopters firing into the streets near Nisoor Square in Mansour. Witnesses said they saw dead and wounded people on the pavement.
Do they have their own battle tanks too? Maybe the odd B-52 bomber?
The U.S. Embassy official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the incident was under investigation and that he could provide no further details.
No doubt, once the investigation is complete, the U.S. embassy will provide full details, and make it clear whether the rampage was unwarranted and indefensible? After all, as el Presidente once said in only a slightly different context:
One of the things that happens in a transparent society like ours is that there is — there will be a full and complete investigation. The world will see the full and complete investigation.
[…]
The United States of America has got a willingness to deal with issues like this in an up-front way, in an open way, and correct problems. And that’s what you’re going to see unfold.
Maybe now that Bush has turned over a new leaf and all, his administration will actually start delivering on that promise?
*** Update, 6:30 am ***
The security contractor in question has turned out to be the infamous Blackwater USA. And the Iraqi government has already pulled their license. For now, at least.
Iraq announced on Monday it had withdrawn the license of a U.S. security firm and would prosecute employees it said were involved in a shooting in Baghdad in which 11 people were killed.
An Interior Ministry spokesman said security personnel working for contractors Blackwater had opened fire after mortar rounds landed near their cars in Nusour Square in the western Baghdad district of Mansour.
[...]
Thousands of private security contractors, many of them American and European, have worked in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion to topple Saddam Hussein in 2003.Many Iraqis believe they operate outside the law with little accountability either to the Iraqi government or U.S. military forces.
Just Iraqis, huh?
JimC wrote:
No “allegedly”? No “accused of”? According to news reports, an investigation hasn’t even started, so how are we condemning or assigning guilt yet?
Let’s see:
So an Iraqi witness claims there were gunmen who were in a firefight with the security forces. Was that in any of the articles you saw? That certainly paints a very different picture, starkly different than blood thirsty security forces shooting randomly at civilians as the article you linked to states.
The “apparent slaughter” of innocent civilians needs to be investigated and all info considered before we state so boldly that they have committed a crime “by mowing down innocent civilians”. Or maybe not….
Posted 17 Sep 2007 at 4:34 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Ah, the voice of truth and reason…
First, the issue isn’t whether “Blackwater guards in the diplomatic motorcade had caused any of the deaths”. Maybe you recognize this statement? It’s from the post:
Second, do yourself a favor, you twit, and go back and read that opening paragraph. Can you see that it clearly states that the Iraqi government claims to have determined that innocent civilians were mowed down? (This is what the later quote also makes clear.)
It’s not “we condemning or assigning guilt”. And if you can’t see that, you really should just retire from this commenting business.
Posted 17 Sep 2007 at 4:49 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well when you post “by mowing down innocent civilians” without surrounding it with quotes, I assumed it was your assessment as well. If not then my bad. In any case, the Iraqi Gov. or any other group should wait until after an investigation and longer than a day to make such bold statements as to the actions taken by these security forces.
Clearly from the Iraqi witness I quoted, there seems to be another side of the story that has yet to be fully explored….
Posted 17 Sep 2007 at 5:34 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
methinks the laddie doth presume too much.
there is such a thing as reading comprehension, you know. it’s a skill most of us picked up as we went through school.
Posted 17 Sep 2007 at 5:45 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It seems that Condi is also prematurely buying into the high-handed assumption that innocent civilians were mowed down:
No “alleged” or “accused of” there either. How about that?
Posted 17 Sep 2007 at 7:18 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
It is ok to say “death of innocent civilians” because I don’t doubt that some innocent civilians may have been killed during the firefight with the gunmen who attacked the convoy. Doesn’t mean they were “mowed down” (as in cold blood by security forces randomly shooting) as the story goes…
Unless these security forces went around executing the civilians after the firefight was over or beat them to death as they were being taken away to an ambulance as was accused in the case when big Z bought it, it should be considered self defense and really the actions of the insurgents attacking from the midst of civilians that should be assigned blame….
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 5:50 am ¶
matt wrote:
i know mercs give you wood, but you’re embarrassing yourself again.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:02 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
what’s embarrassing about arguing that executing civilians during a firefight, or beating them to death before any ambulances arrive on the scene, is self-defense?
just JimC revealing his true colors, is all
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Right….Ok….sure….
My point is that before anyone gets as a giddy as a schoolgirl about the potential for another Bush Administration snafu, let’s hear the full story and give all sides a proper hearing and let all the facts come out….
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:14 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What???
I said Unless and was mocking previous premature accusations….only those who believe such things would consider that I was calling such things “self defense”…
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:19 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
just give up, asshole. you said what you said. it means what it means.
let’s not get into one more episode of “I didn’t mean what I said, I meant what I meant”.
of course, it’s perfectly possible you don’t understand the meaning of what you wrote. if so, seek help. consult an adult whose IQ exceeds their age.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:21 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Now wait a minute, I’m not going to take that. It is clear what I typed,
Unless X, then (implied) it should be considered self defense.
I gave exclusionary conditions up front and then stated the default position otherwise. Reading comprehension goes both ways.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:34 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
there is really no cure for your reading comprehension issues. it was as an act of kindness that I recommended you seek outside help.
is there anyone who can help JimC to see that if you say “Unless these security forces went around executing the civilians after the firefight …, it should be considered self defense”, then that does mean executing them during the firefight should be considered self defense?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:44 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
the funniest things in this comment thread are the “What???” in 10 and the “Now wait a minute, I’m not going to take that.” in 12.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:46 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
sorry. “Reading comprehension goes both ways.” in 12 too!
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 7:47 am ¶
JimC wrote:
What the frak are you smoking today?
Consider this sentence:
What does this sentence mean? Anyone?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:09 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, in the immortal spirit of Paul Hogan/Mick Dundee, that wasn’t embarrassing (before 7), this is embarrasing (10 onwards).
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:27 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JimC, try this s-l-o-w-l-y.
Read it over as many times as necessary.
You said “unless X, then self-defense”, where X = “security forces went around executing the civilians after the firefight”.
Y = executing civilians during a firefight.
Y, clearly, is not equal to X
Therefore, if Y, then self-defense.
If you still don’t get it, loop back to the beginning.
Or try this first: What you said is that X is the only scenario that is not self-defense. That does mean everything else is self-defense.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:33 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I have no idea what you are talking about but if it helps I will rearrange my sentence and see if that makes it clearer…
I really didn’t change ANYTHING except move the statement to the front and the exclusion remarks after that. Means the same as before but hopefully, will be clearer…
If not well, then who cares anyway…
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:45 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JUST GIVE UP, DUDE! CEASE! DESIST!
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, let’s just ban this guy, please?
Someone who doesn’t care about making sense has no business here.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 8:52 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I don’t know what to say, except my statement is perfectly clear and makes absolute sense and I am absolutely stunned at the length you’re going to stick to a “I’m never wrong” policy.
Clearly I care about making sense, otherwise I wouldn’t be defending what I said to this extent. The part about no one cares is in reference to the fact that no one cares if I’m right (or clear), you’re never going to retract your previous statements and admit you were wrong and apologize…
For the record: I never stated that executing civilians during a firefight = self defense…..
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 9:09 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
In view of the fact that you do care about making sense (even if you are utterly unable to actually achieve this lofty goal), I withdraw 21.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 9:15 am ¶
JimC wrote:
So, please, from comment 19, my rearranged sentence, is it clear to you in that form, that I clearly never equated executing civilians as self defense?
Please, for Pete’s sake, just tell me you understand that, I won’t say another word, I just want it recognized…
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 9:19 am ¶
sac wrote:
It should come as no surprise to SB that I understood the paragraph in question to mean that unless they did X, then their actions should be considered self-defense. I interpreted it that way because that’s what it clearly states.
Does this mean that SB is…human!? No, I refuse to believe it.
That said, I don’t trust Blackwater one iota.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 10:29 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I trust Blackwater more than a government that is failing to act as a government and looking to draw criticism away from their inability to get things done and laws passed…pick whichever government you want…
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:29 am ¶
sac wrote:
That failing gov’t is the one who came up with the plan to hire Blackwater. And do some digging into Blackwater. Very shady.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:35 am ¶
matt wrote:
for fuck’s sake. when you find yourself typing something like that, just stop.
shady doesn’t even begin to cover this. start with the simple indisputable fact that they operate under no law. not US law, not iraqi law, and not even international law. why wouldn’t they be acting as they are? there’s no incentive to act otherwise.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:38 am ¶
matt wrote:
sac and jim: please read #18
during and after do not mean the same thing, much as you both protest.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:48 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
This is perfectly priceless.
First JimC and now sac (in 25).
It is apparently going to come as a big surprise to sac that “unless they did X, then their actions should be considered self-defense” is precisely what I’ve been arguing.
If sac were to go back and read 18, he might see that I’m not the one with my head up my ass. JimC and sac are. (Unless, as has happened before, they have their heads up each other’s asses).
During the firefight is not the same as after the firefight.
If JimC says it’s self-defense unless it’s after, then that does logically mean that it’s self-defense if it’s during.
Is that so hard to follow, even after it was spelled out in 18?
For the record, I know what JimC meant. My only point in 8 was to point out what he’d actually gone and said (so that he could go “that’s not what I meant, of course”). Of course, it turns out he’s incapable of seeing that the logical meaning of what he’s written is very different from what he meant.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:54 am ¶
JimC wrote:
Let’s just say that statement wasn’t an endorsement of Blackwater per se but was more of an indictment of politicians, any party, any country….
I don’t trust our politicians or Iraqs to get anything done, that includes both Republicans and Democrats and the Administration (emphasize which ever party that you want). So by default I trust those of our Military and those who were once part of it who are acting to augment it now. If Blackwater isn’t acting under some laws then who cares who’s fault it is, just fix it so there is no ambiguity about the situation.
My opinion is that if they are augmenting our military then they should be grafted in and governed by the same laws as the military and held to the UCMJ and fall under military command until their contract is up….
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 11:56 am ¶
sac wrote:
I wasn’t arguing about what Jim typed, I was stating how I, and apparently, everyone here, interpreted what Jim meant. Since we’re all in agreement as to what that was, let’s hit the showers. Me first, I reek of success.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:03 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
So in actuality, you were just messing with me all along….thanks…all because I used the word “after”…what a lesson…thanks for the time well spent!
Uughhhh….
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:07 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
32 makes as little sense as 25
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:08 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
as should have been perfectly clear from 11, the dispute wasn’t about what JimC meant but about what he’d actually gone and said
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:09 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
JimC, you have only yourself to blame. I made myself perfectly clear in 11 and 18.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:11 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Oh SB, you are a stern headmistress. Teach us more! Teach us harder!!
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it is a sad fact that that you did not comprehend the logical meaning of what you yourself had written.
Put as much lipstick on the pig as you want now, it isn’t going to change that.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶
sac wrote:
And just to be fair, that goes double for headmaster Matt. And fuck the nullus.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:15 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i really just don’t understand. words are all we have here. we’re not reviewing abstract art or describing a sunrise. words mean what they mean. slag us all you want for pointing these things out, i’m not sure what else we’re supposed to do.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:22 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
in 25 sac is creaming his pants at the thought I’ve been caught in an embarrassing mistake. in 32 he’s pretending who-knows-what.
just the kind of intellectual honesty we’ve come to except from him.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:24 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I know, but everyone here knew what Jim meant by the paragraph in question. I’ve seen him make some grammatical gaffs in the past that actually did misrepresent what he was trying to say, but this is not one of those instances.
How could you tell from there. What browser are you using?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:33 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
funny how sac has this persistent delusion (32, 42) that he knows the mind of, and speaks for, “everyone here”.
ever notice that guys who claim to be the voice of “everyone here” are invariably talking nonsense?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:37 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, I could ask for a little more meekness and discernment and kind corrections or questions, but in lieu of that, harsh biting stinging rebukes and mind games :-)
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:40 pm ¶
sac wrote:
I’m basing my “everyone here” assessment on what you stated in #30:
But you are correct when it comes to Matt, I’m assuming he also knew what Jim meant. Care to dispute that, Matt?
Anyone who hasn’t yet commented on this post does was not considered.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:44 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Ah, a typo in that last sentence of my previous comment. I’m giddy with anticipation at the devious games SB is conjuring up to teach me a lesson in careful typing.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:45 pm ¶
matt wrote:
i guess you could ask that.
i thought i knew what he meant, then SB tried to clarify during vs after, and jim didn’t acknowledge that the two were different states. so what’s the difference what i thought, he couldn’t tell me what he thought because he doesn’t know what words mean.
enough of this. jim wants to give blackwater the benefit of the doubt, SB and i find that laughable and annoying, but not surprising. you thought you could scold SB for reading comprehension issues, and in the process made yourself look foolish because you can’t differentiate during vs after either. then you tried to joke about how we do things here which is fine, but wasn’t funny.
anything i missed?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:53 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
here we go again: What on earth does “I could ask for a little more … discernment” mean?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 12:56 pm ¶
sac wrote:
Yes, my jokes were hilarious.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 1:06 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Means if you knew what I meant, why frustrate the situation with the during and before bit. And if that truly was an issue that needed to be clearer, there are much better ways to achieve that. I didn’t pick up on the during and before bit from 8 and I think after my first response to that in 10 clearly showed I didn’t pickup on the word play, and comment 11 only furthered my confusion as to what you were actually critiquing.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 1:11 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I can only refer you to Matt’s 40, and maybe 47 (but not with any real hope that you’ll get it now, if you didn’t get it before).
I wasn’t trying to frustrate the situation, I was only trying to point out that what you said meant something very different from what you thought it did.
It really doesn’t appear from the exchange that you were trying to understand what I said, or even listening. You were too busy dismissing it out of hand.
Any frustration you felt, you created for yourself, I’m afraid.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 1:26 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You’re correct. I wasn’t paying attention close enough to the fact that you changed a key word which logically is correct but you acknowledged that you (#30), and then Matt acknowledged that he initially thought he knew what I meant until you tried to “clarify” during and after which I clearly read right over that subtle change.
But I don’t know what I’m hoping for so I will just have to try harder and read closer to every jot and every tittle.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 1:40 pm ¶
matt wrote:
don’t play games. the point remains that you can’t accurately express yourself. that i was fooled is a problem for me, but in the end, you are still borderline illiterate.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 2:05 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
lol, ok…I don’t know howcome I got this far wit out ya. I’m gonna quit my job program’n these here computational contraptions and go polish rocks from now on, thanks for the revelation….
Illiterate by your standards, perhaps, but most people don’t live by bullet proof blog comments as a standard. I am guilty of using poor conversational language (as stated many a times before, I’m not an English major nor write much English, C# yes, English, not so much) in my commenting, I will try to do better by gollie.
Also, I am going to kindly ask that, if and that is a big *if* I find any grammatical problems with any of your comments, that I hope that I could point them out without incurring any wrath. Just as an exercise in reciprocity.
One last thought, and no disrespect intended but could it be that I just am more forgiving and naively believe the same will be returned? Even hoping beyond hope, disregarding of past experiences here, that by chance, hearts will be softened?
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 2:22 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
It didn’t need close attention. I put those words in italics in 8. I put them in italics again in 18, when I spelled out the whole thing in little baby steps.
I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to do to catch your attention, or to try and reach you.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 2:23 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
don’t be deliberately dense. this wasn’t about grammar. it was about the logical meaning of a loose statement by you. Logical meaning. Not grammar.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 2:26 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Well, if you can suffer me, perhaps bold italics next time you try one of these exercises.
Add logical meaning to the list as well. Basically, if I find examples of such things, can I point them out without retribution and if I turn out to be wrong, how about only a light whipping instead of a brutal scourging? I want to do better, to make myself strive to the level that it takes around here to be considered *more than just barely literate*.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 2:56 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
You are welcome to point out what you want. How I respond will obviously depend on both tone and content.
Your previous rhetoric doesn’t seem to match the tone you’re embracing now. I refer you to:
9: before anyone gets as a giddy as a schoolgirl about the potential for another Bush Administration snafu
10: only those who believe such things would consider that I was calling such things “self defenseâ€
16: What the frak are you smoking today?
22: I don’t know what to say, except my statement is perfectly clear and makes absolute sense and I am absolutely stunned at the length you’re going to stick to a “I’m never wrong†policy.
If you taunt me and insult me, then don’t come complaining about my hobnailed boots later.
And I will be personally obliged if you will drop the “could it be that I just am more forgiving” line of attack.
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 4:11 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
You’re right, I let my emotions carry me away. I’ll try to be nicer in the future…I’m especially embarrassed by #10, “frak”, not only is it a substitution for language I have long since forsaken, but it is also from a Sci-Fi TV show….
Posted 18 Sep 2007 at 4:47 pm ¶