Scott Horton of Harper's gives us chapter and verse of the Justice Department's very deliberate -- and insultingly brazen -- sabotaging of its own case against the Blackwater mercenaries who murdered 17 Iraqis in Nisoor Square back in September 2007. As any sentient observer could have told you then, these hired killers -- gorging on taxpayer dollars as they assisted the mass-murdering invasion and occupation of Iraq -- were never going to do time. Why should they? They were just doing what they were paid, by us, to do: kill ragheads.

The case was dismissed by a federal judge last week due to prosecutorial misconduct. In an interview with Democracy Now, Horton explained how the bad deal went down:

[The] decision to dismiss these charges had nothing to do with lack of evidence or weak evidence against the Blackwater employees. To the contrary, there was copious evidence. There was plenty of evidence prosecutors could have used that they evidently weren’t prepared to, including eyewitnesses there. The decision to dismiss was taken as a punishment measure against Justice Department prosecutors based on the judge’s conclusion that they engaged in grossly unethical and improper behavior in putting the case together.

And specifically what they did is they took statements that were taken by the Department of State against a grant of immunity; that is, the government investigators told the guards, “Give us your statement, be candid, be complete, and we promise you we won’t use your statement for any criminal charges against you.” But the Justice Department prosecutors took those statements and in fact used them. They used them before the grand jury. They used them to build their entire case. And they did this notwithstanding warnings from senior lawyers in the Justice Department that this was improper and could lead to dismissal of the case. It almost looks like the Justice Department prosecutors here wanted to sabotage their own case. It was so outrageous.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that’s possible?

SCOTT HORTON: I think it is possible. Specifically in this case, there were briefings that occurred on Capitol Hill early on in which senior officials of the Justice Department told congressional investigators, staffers and congressmen that essentially they didn’t want to bring the case. In fact, one of the congressmen who was present at these briefings told me they were behaving like defense lawyers putting together a case to defend the Blackwater employees, not to prosecute them. And I think we see the evidence of that copiously in Judge Urbina’s opinion.

Horton also notes the bipartisan nature of the ongoing, long-standing moral rot at the "Justice" Department:

It was a decade of gross prosecutorial abuse. We saw lawyers at the US Department of Justice issue opinions attempting to justify torture and mistreatment of prisoners. That was adopted as a legal mantra of the department. [And is now being upheld by the Obama Administration in several court cases.] We saw hundreds of politically motivated prosecutions being brought, one of which is already withdrawn. That was the prosecution of Senator Stevens of Alaska. But we have the Siegelman case, the Paul Minor case, many others, where notwithstanding now overwhelming evidence of misconduct by prosecutors, the Justice Department standing its ground. ...

It’s really quite a mountain of evidence now pointing to serious misconduct by Justice Department prosecutors. And there’s very little evidence — although most of this occurred on the watch of the Bush administration, there’s very, very little evidence that Eric Holder has realized the gravity or severity of the situation or taken any appropriate measures to deal with it.

I'm afraid I must disagree with Horton on this last point. I believe that Eric Holder and his boss recognize very well what is going on in the Justice Department. They just don't want to do anything about it. Why? Because no faction of greasy pole-climbers ever wants to give up any of the powers it inherits when it takes over the reins of a government. A highly politicized, deeply corrupt prosecutorial arm is a very powerful tool. And just as Obama is strenuously upholding all the major assertions of authoritarian power the Bush Regime made in other areas (including the arbitrary right to seize anyone -- or kill anyone -- the Leader or his minions arbitrarily declare a suspected "enemy"), he is diligently protecting the dirty workers in the Justice Department. It is not a failure or oversight on Obama's part: it is deliberate policy.

Horton also notes that despite all the heartfelt noble promises of both candidate Obama and candidate Clinton during their glorious progressive agon for the presidential nomination in 2008, the mercenaries of Blackwater -- and other firms in the ever-expanding security goon community -- are still swelling their bellies at the government trough:

AMY GOODMAN: What about the US continuing to work with Blackwater, now called Xe, X-e? You have just this latest news of two government—Blackwater operatives reportedly killed last week at the CIA base in Afghanistan.

SCOTT HORTON: Well, that’s right. In fact, I would note that one of the statements the Iraqi government made in response to this was that even though Blackwater was no longer formally a contractor in Iraq, they found that many of the Blackwater employees had simply recontracted with the new contractors there, so they were still in place. And the Iraqi government said that’s completely unacceptable.

Well, the problem is that the US has not changed its pattern of heavy reliance on private security contractors. If anything, we’re actually seeing that reliance increase in connection with the operations in Afghanistan. And in fact, there are only a handful of qualified and authorized service providers. So Blackwater, almost by definition, is going to continue to hold a large part of these contracts as they’re awarded, not with — this is notwithstanding promises that were made by Hillary Clinton, when she was running for president, to terminate the Blackwater contracts. I mean, now she is Secretary of State, and Blackwater is still the principal security contractor to the State Department.

This is all tediously predictable. But in the end, there is a perverse sort of justice at work here. For why should the goon squads of Blackwater be put on trial, when those who hired them go free? The mafia don who orders a hit is considered equally culpable with the button man who actually does the job.

In the end, it is almost obscene to pursue a few hired killers for a single incident, when our highest, most honored officials routinely order mass killings of innocent people all over the world, year after year, without the slightest blush. On the contrary, they boast about it, laud themselves for it, and invite our admiration and support for their "toughness."

For be assured: these bombing runs and house raids and drone strikes are all carried out with the full knowledge that innocent people -- that is, people who have not been arbitrarily declared an "enemy" based on god knows what "intelligence" (lies, whispers, rumors, denunciations, misinformation from double agents, etc.) -- will be killed. An "acceptable level" of "collateral damage" is factored into the matrix of mission planning.

For example, in the early days of the invasion of Iraq, the acceptable level was 30 innocent people -- women, children, the old, the sick, and all other non-combatants. Any mission that was likely to kill more than 30 innocent people had to be signed off personally by Pentagon chief Don Rumsfeld. As far as can be determined, few -- if any -- such missions were ever cancelled by Rumsfeld. Missions which fell below that threshold -- that is, missions in which more than two dozen innocent people were likely to be killed -- were left up to the discretion of commanders in the field.

The acceptable level of civilian deaths in today's operations is not known. (Although it appears that at least eight children can be handcuffed and murdered at any given time.) Very likely the levels change according to the shifting political winds, the nature and location of the mission, the forces and weapons involved in carrying it out, etc. These sorts of details are more closely guarded now. The story about Rumsfeld's mass-death warrants came out in the heady days of "Mission Accomplished," when our masters waxed more lyrical about their special military genius. In fact, the story was put out in order to show how "surgical" and "humane" the American invasion was: "See, we're not just blowing everybody to hell over there! We care. Why, if it looks like we're going to slaughter more than 30 people, Rummy himself has to give the nod!"

In any case, almost every day, our highest officials knowingly and willingly give their approval to the destruction of innocent human lives. (And we won't even get into their culpability for launching operations -- or actively supporting operations -- that ravage societies and foment even more violence in the resultant chaos and blowback, as in Somalia, Yemen, Colombia, Gaza, the Sunni-Shiite civil war in Iraq, etc., etc.) In the past decade alone, they have been responsible, by direct or collateral hand, for the murder of well over a million people around the world. By the end of this decade, if the present policies of "surge" and expansion continue, it is likely that the number of innocent people killed in the American "War on Terror" will be approaching -- if not surpassing -- the Holocaust.

Blackwater is indeed an odious organization, filled with -- and led by -- unsavory characters. But these goons are pipsqueaks with popguns next to our lauded, godly good and great who send their bloated war machine around the earth, "in search of monsters to destroy."

| More...

Comments (36)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Sean O'Neil said:

	... Just yesterday someone tried to persuade me that Obama and Holder's DOJ are working to right the wrongs of the Bush/Cheney Admin. Of course I asked him for examples rather than fierce rhetoric, because some of us 'round here have been following this nonsense for a few moments, eh? Bueno, Mr Floyd!
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: +1

Art James, bebop-o, GoodCelery! said:

... I read John Brenner is being praised. Brenner? Is that a proper spiel of John? The desert cowboy guy who wears boots? The guy who played football with bundles? Bundles of one-hundred dollar bills. Same? I bet these critter never say`God bless You? If Chris Floyd was on a first date with` Eric? I wonder. Eric Holder would kiss Chris Floyd? I don't know. John Brenner sneezed on dates? I am not a DoJ lawyer. If Brenner kiss Holder? Maybe Holder would say``Enough is Enough! We need someone like `Hulk Hogan to reign! Maybe Barbie has 'liquid asset' to help Floyd? If Barbie kissed Chris Floyd You'd be famous! You'd not have to scour dirty baked bean pot! silly. kitchen. you cooking. God bless You. I don't know if? DoJ is crooked? I am wondering. O! no be arrested! agent Sonny's FBI. why take so long? FBI? agent Sonny? okay. no be jailed in a bank? I was arrested in a bank. Defiant Trespassing, Oy! The Moral. Go be ethical! no enter bank in Waynesboro, Pa. the PSA commonwealth go crazy. Maybe DoJ `Sprechen Sie Deutch. O! God bless honesty in Ooh la la. Holder may take a business class? He (Holder) can hold Floyd to kiss? He(Holder) will no kiss?`Loophole? Eric Holder loves Chris? Yes. neigh. Holder do say`Love thy neighbors. Chris Floyd can cook tomato soup. goofy. kooky. heehaw.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010 | url
Votes: +1

Grandma Jefferson said:

Ahab Asked..... "Where do murderers go, man! Who’s to doom, when the judge himself is dragged to the bar?” Obviously, nobody in our sacred government is interested in prosecuting crimes committed using the twisted laws they themselves intend to exploit and expand. Naturally, a feeble play of due process must ensue, just to shut up those ungrateful Iraqis, but it's rigged to fail. This particular Kabuki should be sufficiently enlightening for all but the most brain-washed devotees of the WH Butler-in-Chief, and his enforcer, Holder. Nobody is going to be prosecuted for anything, anywhere, not the ghouls of the Cheney Junta, not the pillaging banksters, especially not Geithner, not any blood drenched hired gestapo, nor the devotees in the DOJ itself, no one. For a hint about who the G actually IS interested in prosecuting, we turn to the helpful minions of MSNBC, describing the on-going escalation of the "keeping us safe" project: "Mind-reading systems could change air security. Technological developments can blur line between security, civil liberties" "As far-fetched as that sounds, systems that aim to get inside an evildoer's head are among the proposals floated by security experts thinking beyond the X-ray machines and metal detectors used on millions of passengers and bags each year." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34765155/ns/travel-news/ Yes friends, straight from the Ministry of Love to you: THOUGHTCRIME. Irritated at the three hours you've been standing in a cattle corral waiting to be scanned, probed, searched, patted down, x-rayed, unshod? That could make you an "evildoer" to the mind-probing savants at the checkpoints! Where's the Vulcan mind meld when we need it the most? I love the use of "evildoer" in this newspeak piece, BTW, it adds that definitive stamp of psy-ops authority to the effort. Since we know that no device constructed will "read minds", we can see nothing but a lust for federal funds to fuel yet another fantasy project floated by the MIC to provide yet another income stream among the millions they already receive. Oh, and the goal of providing more "enemy combatants" to fling to the craven mob. The Genocidists and Arch-Banksters, though, well they were just "following orders", and really, we got to move on into the glorious future. Who's to doom, indeed.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: +6

john kelley said:

... Indeed, not even a reprimand for the 'intelligence' failure (or was it just communication breakdown?) in the great underpants caper. It's all good. And yes, for sure, our tax-evading, truth-evading, fraudster of a Secretary of the Treasury will, no doubt, sleaze through the latest muck. It's all good. Eric Prince will 'step down' with his millions. It's all good. It's all part of the new and improved Obama Doctrine of preemptive 'noble' intentions.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 08, 2010
Votes: +2

Debbie Kimlin said:

	... But.. you have missed the 'good news', no US deaths in Iraq in December, Yah!! first month since the successful invasion.I am so utterly depressed and angry.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +1

jo6pac said:

	So True Why? Because no faction of greasy pole-climbers ever wants to give up any of the powers it inherits when it takes over the reins of a government. Is this the truth or what? I knew I wasn't going to get much from O but I did want was my rights back but I also knew that the above really was the truth.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +1

Paul said:

	... Great post Chris! The moral truth IS staring us in the face: the US (Western) security apparatus every day murders scores of innocent people like you and me. Thanks for once again highlighting that basic but so easily ignored fact.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010
Votes: +1

Chris Watson said:

Not so fast... Chris, I think the first challenge for your readers is to grasp the difficulties of living, working, and surviving in a Third World combat zone; unfortunately, that experience isn't easily communicated to folks who, in many cases, haven't left the US and sit in abject judgement that everything that the military or it's contractors does is somehow wrong. Iraq was a harsh, dangerous and confusing environment - and remains so today - and you were likely to catch incoming fire from about anywhere anytime. The terrorits - your readers often laud them as 'freedom fighters' - routinely used women, children, mosques, and schools as shields and platforms to shoot from. I wasn't in the square when the shooting occurred and only know what I've been able to glean from some of my peers in the PSD community; they had caught some fire and responded. It was a confused, scary, and bloody mess but there was no malice aforethought and THAT is, IMNSHO, the key point of all of this. I think your readers may want to consider trying to recruit themselves into working overseas in Afghanistan, Djibouti, or Baghdad and get a sense of what a day to day life of persistent and overwhelming danger can do them as people and how thier preceptions change when you *know* that someone really is out to get you. (We had a rocket attack yesterday, for example) I am currently downrange in Afhganistan and a military contractor with service in Haiti and Iraq prior to deploying to Bagram and I am very happy to become the 'loyal opposition' here on the Blog. I do appreciate your writing though I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 09, 2010 | url
Votes: -4

Jimmy Montague said:

I want some exploding underpants -- I just saw Tom Tomorrow's rave about "We have predator drones and hellfire missiles and abrams tanks and f-16s and ships and artillery and nuclear submarines and they have -- ummmm -- exploding underpants?" I thought I'd die laughing, and maybe I will if this war goes on long enough. The idiocy and incompetence of the people who run The War on Terror is so utterly laughable that it almost makes up for all the money they waste while they trash our national reputation and murder millions of innocent people. It's like watching The Three Stooges (Joe, Barry and Hillary) administer The Holocaust. And if what we're watching isn't funny enough -- wait until they invade Venezuela! Chris is right, as usual. I'm still waiting for the revolution. . . .

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +2

john kelley said:

... Chris Watson said: "I think the first challenge for your readers is to grasp the difficulties of living, working, and surviving in a Third World combat zone;" The USA is, by far, the foremost creator of third world combat zones. It works out well for all the bottom-feeders, though, doesn't it? Chris Watson said: " It was a confused, scary, and bloody mess but there was no malice aforethought and THAT is, IMNSHO, the key point of all of this." Gee, I thought the key point of all of this was the 17 innocent Iraqis who were slaughtered in cold blood. Your exceptional American hubris betrays your concern. Chris Watson said: "I am currently downrange in Afhganistan and a military contractor..." No doubt consoling yourself with 3,4,5, or 10 times the pay of the grunt on the front lines who just had his legs blown off.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +2

Paul said:

... Chris Watson: "I am currently downrange in Afhganistan and a military contractor with service in Haiti and Iraq prior to deploying to Bagram and I am very happy to become the 'loyal opposition' here on the Blog. I do appreciate your writing though I don't necessarily agree with all of it." I don't see how you can agree with any of it given the fact that you are part of what Chris here(and of course with him many other bloggers and writers across the world) again and again demonstrates to be a fundamentally immoral enterprise, i.e the enterprise of being the global Boss who wants to makes sure nobody is going to hurt his global racket. Using violence on an industrial scale daily, killing innocents daily. The difficulties you experience when you are over there count for nothing morally. And also the fact that I am giving you this response from a quiet and safe living/room counts for nothing in the moral reckoning.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +1

Chris Watson said:

Harsh, way too harsh I don't think the 11,000+ civilians here at Bagram are anything close to being 'bottom feeders'. We all have families, bills, rent/mortgage, and responsibilities and each of us brings unique skills to jobs that a non-draft, wartime military has to fill. Is it more money? Not by much when the shifts are 12x7x365 and you're on call for the other 12. I'm talking 'Welcome to Walmart' greeter on an hour-to-hour basis. The folks here are your neighbors (okay, maybe not to the sophisticate, NY Times, latte'-drinking readers) and hard-working Americans driving trucks, doing laundry, inventory, Tradesmen skills, and IT work and very, very few are the dreaded 'Blackwater/Xe boogie man' that some folks go hysterical about. Most of us are pretty average people. The economy sucks and we're far, far deeper in debt then we were a year ago and things aren't getting better with 12% unemployment. If somone offered you a job here and you could make a better than good living at this time, you'd be a damn fool not to take it. If you can choose poverty and homelessness in favor of your own principles, I laud your dedication to your 'cause' - whatever that may be. In the meantime, I have to pay for food, clothing, shelter and college funds for my kids. I'm doing what I need to do to get 100% out of personal debt and take care of my family. I'd be vary careful using that broad brush in the future.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Debbie Kimlin said:

... Chris W, You seem very concerned for the state of your fellow US citizens debt etc, but not at all for your REAL neighbours of the moment. You know, the Aghanis. "Iraq was a harsh, dangerous and confusing environment - and remains so today - and you were likely to catch incoming fire from about anywhere anytime" HA! Wasn't like that until US invaded in 2003. Is it at all possible for you to see that maybe you are part of the problem, not the solution. Gawd, the exceptionalism is amazing. All about ME!

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +1

Chris Watson said:

Ignoring history doesn't make it easier >Iraq was a harsh, dangerous and confusing environment - and remains so >today - and you were likely to catch incoming fire from about anywhere >anytime" >HA! Wasn't like that until US invaded in 2003. Saddaam and Baath Party had an iron fist on the populace and ruthlessly killed all opposition in the country; in fact, ask an Iraqi Kurd about how dangerous it was to *be* a Kurd prior to the US invasion and they'd say it was pretty damn likely you'd dissapear into a prison system that made Abu Gharaib look like Disney's Magic Mountain ride. (There were small neighborhood 'prisons' - torture cells - that we found and tore down post-invasion. Another reason we had to work so hard to get the people to trust the Iraqi Police and revised the justice system along American lines) So, while it wasn't dangerous to Americans it was bloody dangerous to oppose a ruthless dictator. Now, are you advocating that we should do like we've done in the past - quite stupidly I may add - and kept him in power?? I hope you are not an advocate of unbridaled dicatorship.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Chris Watson said:

Guilty as charged >You seem very concerned for the state of your fellow US citizens debt >etc, but not at all for your REAL neighbours of the moment. You know, >the Aghanis. Well, no, I don't. I also don't make or influence policy and I'm leaving that to the current Commander-in-Chief, 'The Lightbringer'. 'The New Messiah', 'The Hope', etc., et al. You know, the guy you all voted for. Like I said, the economy sucks and this pays pretty damn well and we all have families to support and debts to pay. The conditions suck with 8 men to a room, communal showers, a rocket attack every other day or so lately, and food that could at best be described as monotonous. (I'm getting a hate-on for chicken and catfish) I seriously challenge you to come and give it a go; you'll be able to use your skill set and make a decent chunk of change. If working for America is too 'evil' for you and you'd be entirely too embarassed at explaining your largesse at the next Progressive Party Coffee Clatch, the UN DPKO has compound in Kabul where they are trying to help the Afghans stabilize and rebuild thier country. The conditions really suck and the pay is worse (DPKO *lost* 3 months of my pay in Haiti) but you'd be able to say that you made the Third World a bit safer for the average Afghani. In other words, come put your ass on the line and your money where your mouth is regardless of your political orientation. There is ALOT of good to be done here - women's rights, revising a political system that needs to wean itself from corruption, and least of all stabilizing a country that's been at war with itself for over 100 years.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Chris Floyd said:

... I would advise readers not to expend a great deal of energy engaging in debate with Mr. Watson. Looking over his comments, I very much suspect that Mr Watson is not at all who he says he is. On several occasions, there have been commenters here claiming to be soldiers serving in the field, etc., who turn out to be no such thing. Apparently there are people out there who enjoy playing with such personas, for reasons which escape me -- and which don't interest me in the least. His arguments are too flaccid, too obvious -- "just putting food on the table for my kids," "Saddam was one bad hombre," etc. -- and also too inconsistent to be readily believed. It certainly beggars credibility that someone actually serving as a mercenary in the War on Terror would find anything congenial on this website, and want to serve as its "loyal opposition." If I were the kind of fightin' "contractor" he claims to be, I would be mortally insulted by a site that routinely condemns my profession as an inherently criminal activity, aiding, abetting and/or directly commiting mass atrocities in murderous campaigns of imperial domination. The fact that he seems so cheerfully oblivious to this clear thrust of the website indicates to me that he is probably a charlatan or fantasist of some sort. And if, by chance, he is what he purports to be, and is actually offering financial need as his justification for going to foreign lands and killing people (or helping the invaders who are killing people), then I honestly don't know what kind of intelligent response one can make to such a depraved mindset. This is the argument of a mafia hitman, not a rational moral agent with whom one can debate, as a "loyal opposition" or anything else. I would only quote to him a passage (or paraphrase) from Solzhenitsyn that I've often used on this website: "It is impossible to prevent evil from entering the world; but try to act in such a way that it does not enter through you."

report abuse vote down vote up

January 10, 2010
Votes: +1

Chris Watson said:

I am who I say I am Chris, You have my email in my registration and my address here in Afghanistan. I am am who I say I am - a contractor at Bagram Airbase. As far as being offended by other people's points of views, I'm not. If anything I whoeheartedly agree with you on Central America and have been an advocate for policy change there since the days of the Maryknoll Massacre. American policy is ego-centric in it's application of what defines oppression but so has every other village/town/city/country since the dawn of man. It doesn't make it right, but it puts it in perpective. As far as helping the invader, I need to ask if you're advocating that we should have left the Taliban or Saddam in power? I won't go into the human rights abuses or the women's rights abuses that have been very well documented by folks on your side of the divide. Is it not right to relieve people of tyrrany and injustice - even if it's an unintended consequence of what you call 'imperialism'? We may not have the best democracy but we have the one that works the best. To many Progressives that meant the election of thier 'Savior', thier 'Lightbringer', and the 'New Messiah' only to find out that he's a Chicago political scab in a suit who took thier rose colored sunglasses and crushed them under the wheels of realpolitik. I'd still argue that the system works because it gave the gullible what they asked for and are now whining about. As far as your premise that we're an Empire - or even trying to be - I find that...amusing; America's attempts at real empire in the 1800's just failed. Today, we may have - soon to be 'had' - global influence but never a real global-spanning empire like the Romans or the British. I think that we've had opportunities (we *could* have offered the Iraqis statehood, for example) but the nature of the American psyche is to actually shy away from it. So, to end my participation on your site, I'll call bullshit on your premise of empire and imperialism. You have my real email address and I am open to being educated otherwise.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	... I don't find "chris watson" credible.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Chris Floyd said:

... More than 700 military bases in more than 130 countries, countless military interventions, decade after decade, in dozens of countries who won't play ball with its agenda -- oh no, that's not an empire. That's a -- what? -- a Boy Scout troop? I find your premise that just because our boys don't wear pith helmets like the Brits or carry shields like the Romans then America must not be an empire ... amusing. Also, you must have missed all the earnest pontificating on "your side of the divide" (as you would put it) which embraces and celebrates the idea of the new American Empire. Or the top White House official (most likely Karl Rove) who famously told Ron Suskind,"We're an empire now, and we create our own reality." The language of empire regarding American foreign policy is by no means limited to one side of the "aisle" or other. You should read more of the writings of the folks who helped instigate profitable sojourns in Iraq and Afghanistan, [e.g., Max Boot, "The Case for American Empire," among many many others], and you'll see the notion of empire promoted and lauded all over the place. I also find ... interesting, if not amusing ... your contention that the "War on Terror" which you are assisting does not, in fact, have anything to do with terror at all. So we are in Afghanistan and Iraq simply to liberate them from tyranny, is that right? But why not China? North Korea? Zimbabwe? Or even more to the point in the geopolitical strategies underlying the "War on Terror," why not "liberate" the most repressive, extremist religious tyranny on earth, Saudi Arabia? Don't you care about the tyranny and injustice inflicted on those folks? Oh, I forgot; you don't "make or influence policy," do you? You don't concern yourself with such matters. You let the big guys, the honchos, do your thinking for you. You just go where the "commander in chief" (even one you despise) sends his armies, and make money from the operation. If the commander in chief -- either this one or the next one -- decides to "liberate" Canada or Mexico or India or France, why, I guess you'll just tag along too, all the while telling yourelf and others that you are simply liberating poor benighted peasants. As for "painting with a broad brush," what's with all the "New York Times readin', latte-sippin', Progressive coffee klatch, Obama-Messiah" bullshit? Not only are these some of the most witless, hackneyed stereotypes imaginable, they don't remotely apply either to the ideas advanced on this website -- for years -- or to any of its regular readers, as far as I know. So if you think you're insulting anyone here with such stinging ripostes or shocking delicate sensibilities by your criticism of Obama, then, once again, you have shown an egregious misunderstanding of what the site is all about. But now that you are signing off as the "loyal opposition," let me wish you, in all sincerity, a safe return from your mercenary work. In fact, why don't you quit now and come home to your neighbors, all the people who are "driving trucks, doing laundry, inventory, skilled trades and IT work" in their own country, instead of assisting military adventures that are only greatly exacerbating the very problems they are purported to address? -- But that brings me back again to your "latte-sipping" bullshit. Who the hell do you think the readers of this website are? They ARE truck drivers, cleaners, farmers, stockers, shop clerks, IT workers, teachers, etc. Those readers who still HAVE jobs, that is, in our broken society, where the ever-churning war-profiteering machine that pays you so well has ravaged our economy and devoured our seed corn as it circles the globe killing people and fomenting hatred in order to make the world safe for financial speculators. Your sanctimonious condescension is infuriating -- as if those who disagree with your views aren't REAL people, aren't hard-working, salt-of-the-earth types like you and your fellow hirelings. Oh no, they HAVE to be wispy, useless, hero-worshipping liberal wimps. Cause ain't no red-blooded truck driver ever gonna criticize a good old shootin' war -- is that the idea? Jesus Herbert Walker Christ, what a blinkered, lazy, threadbare, feeble viewpoint! And how insulting toward the very working folk you purport to praise. But I digress. Again, I hope for your safe return -- just as I also hope sincerely that in the "confused, scary, and bloody mess" of the "Third World combat zones" in which you make your money, you and your comrades for hire don't end up "liberating" too many innocent people from the confines of their physical existence. I know it's good for business and all -- but aside from the moral considerations (which I understand are not your concern; as you say, you don't make policy, you just follow orders and cash checks), it also engenders a lot of blowback which can be bad for the rest of us. And who knows -- one of these days it might give you bad dreams.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +1

Ron Warrick said:

... The people charged with defending this country have a tough job. There are people, including many Americans, who will argue that America, for her past crimes, does not deserve to be defended, but that is a matter the Administration cannot adequately address in one term. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of well funded jihadists who appear to be eager to do a genocidal number on America. With a little luck, they could well succeed. With this in mind, I certainly expect that the ideals of the 'rule of law' will be severely tested. If they weren't, the Administration probably isn't doing its job, which is to defend the country first.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: -1

Ron Warrick said:

... Yes, the US is an empire, and it grew for much the same reasons as earlier empires - glory and the perceived need for self-defense. I like to think we leaned more toward the self-defense model, but the glorification of things military is undeniable as well. Perhaps that is unavoidable when involved in defense. In any case, the inevitable stage of overreach and rampant corruption has been reached very quickly, and collapse certainly seems imminent.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: -2

Sean O'Neil said:

GEE WHILLIKERS! abstractions from "Ron Warrick" that are useless lies! "Ron Warrick" delivers a Sermon of Jingoistic Faith regarding the noble warriors who defend America. It's a deep and wide shame that nobody is attacking the integrity of America harder or more successfully than the US Govt and its military contractor-led "economy." Poor old Ronnie Warrick thinks "our troops" who are murdering innocents abroad are engaged in defending America. That'd be a riotous laugher if it weren't so far removed from reality. It's almost surreal enough to be hilarious, but not quite.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Ron Warrick said:

	... Sean, did you actually read my comments, or is that too much to ask?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... More snark-by-implication! Incredible! In fact I did read your posts, but was unable to read your unspoken sentiments, which appears to be the argument you're making... that I didn't properly refute or discuss what you did NOT say. Say, "Ron," I don't imagine you really want to get into a challenge when you've already proved you're not well informed. There's no "defending" of anything going on right now, despite your pathetic pleas to entice us all to empathetically understand the arguments for supporting the "Chris Watsons" of the world. It looks a lot like you merely switched handles from "Chris Watson" to "Ron Warrick." The sentiments are very consistent, the mis-statements of reality are similar, and the damning by faint praise nearly identical. Bully for you.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Chris Watson said:

... @Chris I decided to hang around because I'm buying your book to see what you're talking about in more detail. Where can I get an autographed copy? Seriously. Drop me an email. FWIW, Ron is really someone very different from me. I am grateful for his support and I think making some more Conservative folks aware of the anti-American jargon here would provide a refreshing breath of points of view - provided that there is an effort for a real and *open* exchange of ideas. Emo sulking in corners and saying how America is The Great Satan without providing concrete answers is a bit lame. I'm hoping Chris' book will have some insights and answers for the post-Bush, Obama-Messiah era. Going back to the core issue - the not guilty verdict - I undertsand that these guys were promised or granted diplomatic immunity and it was the core of a case that most folks here seem to be upset about. It's very, very easy to cry 'murder' when you're not there, not under fire, and not enduring the confusion of combat. It's also wqually easy for others to say that they are all angels providing security to the diplo corps and did a Very Brave Thing that day. The truth is, I am quite sure, somewhere in the middle. I'd argue that the stressors they were under led to some bad choices and a charge of manslaughter - *maybe* - but not wholesale premeditated murder. This is an isolated incident and truly not indicative of the professional behavior of 99% of the security firms operating in the ME and around the globe - no matter how many of the readers wish it so. The folks I have supported in Haiti, Iraq, and here are doing thier best and really couldn't care less about the 'big picture'. That's why we hold elections, have representation, and have a President and a Cabinet to decide on our behalf. I am very curious how many folks on the board actually voted last election and are going to hit the poles this November?

report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010 | url
Votes: -1

Ron Warrick said:

	... OK, Sean, you're too smart for me. Yes, I am really Chris Watson. It's an old combat trick, setting up dummies so it looks like you have more troops than you really do. I guess I can take off the mustache now.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Chris Watson said:

	Hey! Not cool! No, he's NOT! :p Ron, what's the name of the DFAC north of Building 5 at Camp Victory?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010 | url
Votes: +0

Ron Warrick said:

	Hey! Not smart! Chris - I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Ron Warrick said:

	Re: Not cool. Chris - You're right. My message wasn't cool. Couldn't help poking the paranoia. I can't imagine why someone would decide I was an impersonator and then get so worked up about it, using quotes around my name and everything. I guess the stress of modern life is getting to all of us.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 11, 2010
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

har-de-har-har! It's not paranoia. I'm making fun of you two astroturfers for spinning out such parallel tales of angst and sad lack of recognition for your heroic efforts at "defending" your own incomes, which you have somehow confused with defending my interests as an American citizen. Such juvenile forum-baiting might make you feel powerful and superior, but the truth is that you're not winning anyone over to your selfish views, and neither Mr Floyd nor his regular commenters have been shown wrong, misled, deluded, or poorly informed. So if you want to thump your chest and declare victory, please go right ahead.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 12, 2010
Votes: +1

"Ron Warrick" said:

... Oh, I would hate to end it all by declaring victory, tempting as it is. No, it is too amusing too read all the ugly motives, hidden agendas, nefarious associations and even false identities you are able to dream up about someone just because they post something you find disagreeable. I don't often come encounter such an active imagination. If this is baiting, I plead guilty - comforted by the knowledge that I am not the one who started it, of course.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 12, 2010
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

	And yet... And yet you fail to demonstrate how protecting your source of income somehow equates to defending Americans' rights. That WAS your primary point argued -- at least it's what the text you posted suggested. And you've failed to make your proofs on that argument. And the argument was what "started" your commentary here, no?
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 12, 2010
Votes: +0

Ron Warrick said:

Yet what? If that is what you think my point was, we've been wasting a lot time. You may have me mixed up with Chris again. I never mentioned income or American 'rights' once, and I find Chris's cavalier attitude troubling, frankly. No argument started my comments here, exactly. I intended them to be relevant to the discussion, but I was hoping for dialog rather than arguments and flame-throwing. Silly me to think there could be a civil discussion on an emotional subject on the internet, huh.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 12, 2010
Votes: +0

Sean O'Neil said:

... The interesting thing about e-forum posting is that you can pretend to respond to another's post, yet rip away on a tangent all your own, re-defining the other's post with your composition, erecting straw-men and tearing them down, implying the straw-men are the same as the other's points. What I found most parallel about the comments of "Chris Watson" and "Ronald Warrick" are that they pretend to be engaging Mr Floyd and some of the commenters here, but they are launching their own assaults against straw-men, and then declaring "Mission Accomplished!" as if they have achieved mighty victory. Well, they have won something. They have won their microcosmic battle against a reality they hate. They have created a surreality straw-man that they've destroyed. So they're mighty fine Ghostbusters, those two.

report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2010
Votes: +0

john kelley said:

... Well, since the dialog is still running... Ron Warrick said: "Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of well funded jihadists who appear to be eager to do a genocidal number on America." Where did you dig up those numbers, hombre? I think what you meant to say was: "Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of well funded US troops, special ops, mercenaries, etcetera, DOING a genocidal number on Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen, etcetera."

report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2010
Votes: +0

Ron Warrick said:

	... Sean Well, it is perfectly appropriate to suggest that a poster has gone off topic, or to point out a perceived straw man. But it is a bit late to do that now, especially with no specifics. I still have to think you are throwing accusations without having read the message.
	report abuse vote down vote up

January 13, 2010
Votes: +0