Depends On The Definition Of Sovereignty

In 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?

Comments

  1. sarabeth says:

    Means if you knew what I meant, why frustrate the situation with the during and before bit.

    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.

  2. JimC says:

    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.

    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.

  3. matt says:

    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.

    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.

  4. JimC says:

    but in the end, you are still borderline illiterate.

    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?

  5. sarabeth says:

    I wasn’t paying attention close enough to the fact that you changed a key word

    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.

  6. sarabeth says:

    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.

    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.

  7. JimC says:

    I’m not sure what else I’m supposed to do to catch your attention, or to try and reach you.

    Well, if you can suffer me, perhaps bold italics next time you try one of these exercises.

    Logical meaning

    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*.

  8. sarabeth says:

    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 defense”

    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.

  9. JimC says:

    Your previous rhetoric doesn’t seem to match the tone you’re embracing now.

    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….