House OKs bill to prosecute contractors

[maddezmom]

Source: AP


WASHINGTON - The House passed a bill on Wednesday that would make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts. It was the first major legislation of its kind to pass since a deadly shootout last month involving Blackwater employees.


Democrats called the 389-30 vote an indictment in connection with a shooting incident there that left 11 Iraqis dead. Senate Democratic leaders said they planned to follow suit with similar legislation and send a bill to President Bush as soon as possible.

"There is simply no excuse for the de facto legal immunity for tens of thousands of individuals working in countries" on behalf of the United States, said Rep. Sheila Jackson-Lee, D-Texas.

The FBI is currently leading an investigation into the Sept. 16 shootout, although administration officials acknowledge they are unsure whether U.S. courts would have jurisdiction in the case or others like it.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071004/ap_on_go_co/congress_blackwater

[babylonsister]

1. Good! About time, too! nt

[truebrit71]

2. Let's see how it does in the Senate...I'd imagine that the giggling war criminal in the WH will veto

...but what else is new?

[truthisfreedom]

3. Watch bush veto this one too. The creature has no shame.

[Rage for Order]

16. Let him try

That vote margin is veto-proof and ripe for an override. Hopefully the Senate passes it by the same margin

[budibudinski]

4. Hope they make it retroactive to include recent BW events..

Be just like Bush to sign it on condition that BW's recent acts are exempt. fuckers need to be treated no different and with as little concern as they had for the Iraqi people they killed.

[Rage for Order]

17. I'd rather not see that happen

Not that the blackwater pricks don't deserve it, but I'm not anxious to see ex post facto prosecutions come into play. That would be a horrible precedent.

[Thothmes]

24. Congress shall enact no expost facto laws

[Malikshah]

5. Outlaw profiteering--limit the money available and this war will be over in a nanosecond

Take the Blackwater Prince and put him in the stocks.

[Richard Steele]

6. So, will this be VETO'd, reversed by a "Signing Statement", or simply ignored?

My nickel is on "Signing Statement".

[no_hypocrisy]

11. Then if it is challenged or ignored, we'll finally have our constitutional

showdown in court to see which branch controls the law: the executive or the legislative. This case might finally nullify and neutralize those signing statements.

[rocktivity]

12. ANYTHING that gets obstructed, vetoed, filibustered or otherwise blown off

by Bush and the Rethugs puts them on public record puts yet another nail in the GOP's coffin for next November. That's why it's vital that the Dems "go through the motions" on these issues rather than taking them off the table--with the exception of defunding the war, of course. Until they're guaranteed a veto-proof majority in the Senate, that bill never leaves the House. And if they complain, the Dems can pull out their laundry list of the number of times the Rethugs did it to them when THEY were in power!

:headbang:
rocknation

[Richard Steele]

13. I agree- more nails in their political coffin.

It's the fact that they seem completely UNCONCERNED
about that that makes me lie awake nights.

But that's a whole other subject. :tinfoilhat:

[chill_wind]

19. Signing statement. Or pardons. No way will he choke this down behind closed doors,

He and Republicans have taken and depended on waaaaay too much money from the in-laws.

This occupation depends on mercenaries. That's become very clear.

[havocmom]

7. Yes! (n/t)

just a little celebratory dance :woohoo:

[gasperc]

8. looks vero proof in the house, will the Senate filibuster?

doesn't sound like a bill Bush wants to sign. Will this be the bill that breaks the back of the occupation?

With an almost 1-1 ratio of soldiers to contractors in Iraq the occupation is heavily dependent on the mercenaries in Iraq to complement the US military's contingent. In order for Bush to maintain his scheme of keeping China and India locked out of Iraq's oil before they are able to lock America out, Bush must either invoke the draft or keep the contractors in Iraq.

Will the levee break? Time will tell, time will tell.

[angstlessk]

9. 389-30 is veto proof in the house, it is now up to the senate!

[KoKo]

15. Reid will come to 'The Rescue'!

[Semper_FiFi]

10. K&R Finally! It's about time we have some action on these murderous thugs.

It is unbelievable that these paid assassins could be beyond the law. Let them get thrown in prison if they commit crimes. Maybe we should just let the Iraqis exact justice on their "soldier-of-fortune" *sses.

[defendandprotect]

14. Why wouldn't this have been LAW from the very beginning ---

How in the hell did we even get to this point with Blackwater -- who approved this?

[chill_wind]

18. The ties that bind. Prince and his uber-rich kin have given MASSIVE amounts of $$

to the Republican reich. The RNC, Bush's election campaigns, RRR Christian thinktanks, etc etc etc going back decades. Billionaires for Bush incarnate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/054744.php

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1971198&mesg_id=1971198

[defendandprotect]

27. I understand the Repug connections . . . I mean how did privatizing the military get approved . ..

Guess I'll have to try to find time soon to look that up --
I mean, it's not exactly like deciding to let Wendy's cook in the mess -- !!!

[knight_of_the_star]

20. It doesn't feel right to start a pool on if Bush will veto or not

That's sort of like asking if the sun rises in the east.

[Theduckno2]

22. Actually, I don't think he will veto.

My guess is that Bushco is nervous about this issue for it hasn't left the news cycle and there is a possibility that Iraq would flex its sovereignty in regards to foreign civilians that aren't diplomats.

This legislation may just placate the Iraqi government and would still allow for the use of mercenaries.

By the way, how would these cases find their way to a U.S. court? Who would be allowed to bring these cases and how much prosecutorial discretion would they have in bringing these cases? If the U.S. Executive Branch is solely responsible for bringing these cases(Attorney General, State Department or other), what assurance is there that justice would be done? Think Scooter.

On the whole though, it is good news that a degree of accountability has been served on Blackwater et al, and I hope the precedent of accountability is continued/strengthened in the next Presidency.

[knight_of_the_star]

26. I still think he will veto

Simply because he's someone who doesn't take challenges to his authority very well and would probably see this as such.

[Amonester]

28. Veto? Nah... That's to much "in the open" ...

* will let it pass in the open.

Then * (Cheney) will just issue another signing statement in secrecy that will nullify this law and proclaim himself and Cheney as being above the law, and that will pretty much be it.

[liberalla]

21. Bravo! Those contractors and their parents, the corporations

need limits. What they have been allowed to do- even encouraged to do, is criminal and immoral. We need to get control of this now, before they go poison another country, or return to the US to 'protect' and terrorize another community after the next disaster.

[Vidar]

23. Great news indeed.

[PassingFair]

25. A quote from the "Black Prince":

"Beyond firing him for breaking the rules, withholding any funds we can, we can't flog him," Prince said of the intoxicated Blackwater guard. "We can't incarcerate him. We can't do anything beyond that."



THAT'S EXACTLY WHY YOU SHOULD'T BE THERE, J-HOLE!

What a screwed up situation these pukes have engineered
for their enrichment.

:puke: