Here is the scenario, you have a a standard issue M-4 Carbine with a gas operated rotating bolt capable of firing 700-950 5.56 mm cartridges in one minute. Also attached is the M203 “who nanny” grenade launcher special. You and your squad of ultimate bad-asses are attempting to clear a building that, either has terrorists planning to attack a convoy, or a family of eight finishing night-prayers. The dilemma is, do you go guns blazing? Or do you attempt to secure the room and merely return fire if fired upon?
Turns out your answer will depend on whose name is on the check paying you for your services. If you are a member of our prestigious armed forces, then you are held to the highest standard of honor and your actions will be for you to secure the room, making sure no hostile action is taken unless shown towards you first. As per their combat and ethical training, guided by the rules of engagement.
Also seems that if you get your check from the State Department, er I mean, Blackwater, you can just about kill who ever you choose to because you have blanket immunity. So you can go through the door blasting cause, hell, what is the Iraqi government gonna do to you. No worry of criminal proceedings, no court martial to worry about, you are golden.
The administration doesn’t seem to mind since they are Mercenaries, I mean contractors, not representatives of the United States Military. Which is another example of the Bush II administration complete ignorance to the complex sensitivities within the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular. If the people killing Iraqis aren’t other Iraqis, they tend to get a little upset.
So even though, to my knowledge, Blackwater doesn’t wave the American flag, or have the flag emblazoned on their uniforms they are still seen as the tools of the American government and we will be blamed for the atrocities even if we attempt to enact a Reagan policy tool of “plausible deny-ability”. It is these actions that solidify the ideology of the Islamo-Fascist, or whatever buzzword we are supposed to use this week.
This also opens the door to very damning criticism to the administration and the Secretary of State should Congress decide to investigate how broad this immunity went, unlikely cause that may actually bear fruit. The President has maintained that the United States “does not partake in torture”which would be consistent with the values of or country and preserve the moral high ground when dealing with an enemy that takes satisfaction from the slaughter of innocent women and children.
Given the nature of man and the numerous amount of examples that history gives us about the cruelty we are capable of, one has to entertain at least the possibility that the “workers” at Blackwater may be a shield of technicality for the Bush Administration interrogation programs. This would at least be consistent with the allegations that we ship captives to places where the rule of law is much more flexible in terms of treatment of prisoners.
What this policy has the potential to do is legitimize the tactics taken by other countries not only against out own troops should future conflicts occur, but rather the level of brutality governments may treat their own citizens in order to maintain their rule. An example of legitimizing torture tactics would come from the United States last poorly planned, but honorably fought war Vietnam. The Hanoi Hilton was notorious for its mistreatment of captured US personnel, would the Bush Administration hold the actions taken by the Vietcong as despicable, or rather an instruction manual on how to break the will of an enemy?
These are the unintended consequences of an Administration that believes that they alone hold the moral truths and knowledge of how to defend the United States. The disregard for the political process, which is by its nature supposed to be slow to prevent such abuses in power, has been a staple of this administration only matched by their disregard of the intellect of the American Public.
This has created an even more apathetic reaction by the public for the Bush Presidency has shown that their is no room for dissent within his administration and no tolerance of accepting outside opinion that contradicts its own. Thus while a President had been impeached for having disregarding his vows of marriage, this President has done far worse, disregarding his vows to hold the public trust and the values of our Constitution. If you will not take a stand against that blatant misuse of power, my advice to you is don’t drink the water when you are being water-boarded.
