Blackwater chairman says company acted appropriately
By: RICHARD LARDNER and ANNE FLAHERTY - Associated Press | ∞
WASHINGTON -- Blackwater chairman Erik Prince vigorously rejected charges Tuesday that guards from his private security firm acted like a bunch of cowboys immune to legal prosecution while protecting State Department personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"I believe we acted appropriately at all times," Prince, a 38-year-old former Navy SEAL, calmly told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
His testimony came as the FBI is investigating Blackwater personnel for their role in a Sept. 16 shootout that left 11 Iraqis dead. The incident and others, including a shooting by a drunk Blackwater employee after a 2006 Christmas party, led to pointed questions by lawmakers about whether the government is relying too much on private contractors who fall outside the military courts martial system.
"We're not getting our money's worth when we have so many complaints about innocent people being shot," said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., committee chairman, at the conclusion of a nearly six-hour hearing. "And it's unclear whether they're actually being investigated by the State Department, because we haven't had any cooperation."
The committee agreed not to look into the Sept. 16 incident during Tuesday's hearing after the Justice Department requested that Congress wait until the FBI concludes its investigation.
Prince cast his company as a scapegoat for broader problems associated with the government's reliance on security contractors and the murky legal jurisdiction. He said his staff was comprised of courageous individuals who face the same threats and high-stress environment as U.S. military personnel, and noted 30 Blackwater personnel have been killed and no Americans have died under the company's watch.
Often leaning back to listen to the advice of his lawyer, Stephen Ryan, Prince repeatedly refused to say whether former Blackwater employees were guilty of murder and said it should be up to the Justice Department to pursue charges against contractors who commit crimes overseas.
In the case of the Christmas eve shooting, Prince said the company fired and fined the individual.
"But we, as a private organization, can't do any more," he told the House panel. "We can't flog him. We can't incarcerate him. That's up to the Justice Department. We are not empowered to enforce U.S. law."
The Blackwater chairman said he supports legislation that would guarantee his employees and other private security companies working for the State Department are subject to prosecution in U.S. courts. The House was expected to consider such a bill, sponsored by Rep. David Price, D-N.C., on Wednesday.
At the same time, Prince said the government's decision to include the FBI in the investigation of the Sept. 16 incident is proof that oversight and accountability already exists.
Waxman said he was particularly concerned to learn the State Department advised the company on how much to pay the family of the Iraqi security guard shot by a drunken Blackwater employee in 2006. Internal e-mails later revealed a debate within the State Department on the size of the payment, Waxman said.
"It's hard to read these e-mails and not come to the conclusion that the State Department is acting as Blackwater's enabler," Waxman said.
Administration officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, said the incident had been referred to federal prosecutors in Seattle, where the former Blackwater employee now lives, but there has been no public announcement of any charges.
State Department officials said Tuesday the criminal prosecution of such cases was out of their hands and should be handled by the Justice Department.
"They're the prosecutors. The State Department isn't the prosecutors for the U.S. government," Richard Griffin, assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, told the House panel.
David Satterfield, the Iraq coordinator for the State Department, said the U.S. and Iraqi ministry established a commission to examine use of contractors in Iraq. A separate U.S.-led panel, staffed with several independent advisers, is reviewing the security practices of diplomats.
"The secretary of state has made clear that she wishes to have a probing, comprehensive unvarnished examination of the overall issue of security contractors working for her department in Iraq," he said.
Waxman expressed frustration at the State Department representatives for not providing more information about Blackwater and its conduct in Iraq.
"We've had a better response from Blackwater then we've had from the State Department in getting information," Waxman said to Satterfield. "Does that bother you as much as it bothers me? Or do you have to find out whether you feel that way or not?"
Waxman also cited a November 2004 crash in Afghanistan of a plane piloted by Blackwater pilots as an example of what he said is the company's cavalier attitude about how it operates.
The crash of flight "Blackwater 61" killed the Blackwater crew and three U.S. military passengers. According to information gathered by Waxman's staff, the Blackwater pilots lacked experience flying in Afghanistan, yet were joy riding through a valley before crashing into a canyon wall.
Prince acknowledged pilot error led to the crash, but said his company's aviators often fly missions in difficult conditions. He said the military violated its own rules by loading people and explosives on Blackwater 61. But Blackwater flew the mission anyway because that's what its government customer wanted.
"There is no FAA in Afghanistan," he said.
Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, the committee's top Republican, said the State Department is "trying to get it right," but its oversight of security contractors "seems to have some blind spots as well."
There's little data on contractor performance, Davis said, "so it's impossible to know if one company's rate of weapons-related incidents is the product of a dangerous 'cowboy' culture or the predictable result of conducting higher-risk missions."
Davis said concentrating on Blackwater won't answer questions about the use of security contractors.
"Nor are we likely to learn much by focusing on one sensational incident still under investigation," Davis said.
Prince would not discuss his company's finances, although he did say his salary was more than $1 million in 2006. Blackwater is a "private" entity, Prince said, and disclosing profits and losses would give his competitors an unfair advantage.
"We're not hiding anything," he said.
Blackwater, founded in 1997 by Prince and headquartered in Moyock, N.C., is the largest of the State Department's three private security contractors with nearly 1,000 personnel working in Iraq. The others are Dyncorp and Triple Canopy, both based in Washington's northern Virginia suburbs.
Blackwater has had more shooting incidents than the other two companies combined, according to Waxman's report.
-- Associated Press writer Anne Gearan contributed to this story.
On the Net:
http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071001121609.pdf
More Stories
- Blackwater chairman says company acted appropriately
- Prosecutors say Liberty City 7 sought to topple U.S. government
- Supreme Court examines disparity in crack and powder cocaine sentences
- Cities along Texas-Mexico border block access to land where government wants to build fence
- Investigators: Federal employees wasted $146 million on unjustified premium-class travel
Advertisement
Reardon wrote on Oct 2, 2007 9:49 PM:I want Blackwater on my side, "...30 Blackwater personnel have been killed and no Americans have died under the company's watch." That says it all. In fact, one of the Americans who was NOT killed in Iraq, because he was protected by Blackwater, was Congressman Henry Waxman! It is important to note that when the Iraq government put Blackwater on a temporary "stand down," NO State Department personnel were permitted to travel in Iraq!
Randy wrote on Oct 3, 2007 2:39 AM:War should be fought by soldiers, not by contractors. If you don't have enough soldiers to fight a war, you should not be fighting a war! Mercenaries are a tacit admission that the government's war lacks adequate public support.-
Ron wrote on Oct 3, 2007 7:25 AM:100% effective. All of their charges were delivered safe, sound, and fully entact. 33 operators died to make that happen. You do the math.-
Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2007 9:14 AM:Randy -- no, the use of Blackwater is tacit admission that talented professionals, using weapons not authorized for military us and tactics devised on the scene and not in the Pentagon, can carry out specific tasks better than men, weapons and tactics designed for 100,000 men. There are many military and CIA units who could do the job (SEALS etc.) but right now they are busy.-
Oooohhhh censorship wrote on Oct 3, 2007 10:23 AM:I feel just like a radio talk show host! I am delighted that the NCT has decided what is free speech and what is not. At least we have asked our law makers to bring in the FBI to investigate the law makers who want to censor any that disagrees with them. Especially when they are using our money to censor us.
Disgusting wrote on Oct 3, 2007 1:14 PM:Where did these mercenaries come from? The US military! So really what is really going on is a raid on military personnel for personal gain! It's no different that a senator or congressman leaving the capitol to become a lobbyist. This whole thing is a slap in the face of the military, and serves to cut them off at the knees in their efforts to prepare a battleworthy unit.
John wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:43 PM:I agree with Randy and take issue with Ron and Reardon. Please stop defending these hoods. You are supporting criminal activities. Ron... 100% effective at protecting diplomats - and killing innocent civilians too apprently. We have safe diplomats and a country that is too PO'd to work with them. Reardon... 122 talented professionals including the one that was drunk when he shot the Iraqi VP's body guard have been fired from Blackwater so far. No prosecutions. Smell a cover-up anywhere? They have kept diplomats safe by shooting anything that moves and paying off the families. It is creepy beyond belief. We should not have high paid hit men sucking resources away from our troops. Pay the troops. Supply the troops. Dump Blackwater.
John wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:49 PM:Ditto Disgusting!
Take a good look. wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:52 PM:This is what Fascism looks like.
Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2007 4:41 PM:To John: I'll bet you would have trouble finding a State Department person in the Green Zone who agrees with you.
He forgot wrote on Oct 3, 2007 5:14 PM:He forgot two words before appropriately...IN Blackwater acted INappropriately.
Karl wrote on Oct 3, 2007 5:42 PM:John, I will agree with your " assertions" if you provide reliable sources for your "facts".
John wrote on Oct 3, 2007 6:11 PM:Reardon - ask me if I care what our state department officials think. I think they should be fired. It seems you don't trust our own armed forces either. If you were in the Army you would be Buck Private Sector.
John wrote on Oct 3, 2007 6:15 PM:Karl - are you asking me to do your homework? OK - I'll bite. Which facts do you want me to provide references for?
Cal wrote on Oct 3, 2007 6:17 PM:We had Blackwater in the RV. Looks like they got it in Iraq and all over congress now.
Reardon wrote on Oct 3, 2007 6:47 PM:John: Served 26 years, thank you. Got a bit above Buck Private.
John wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:11 AM:Reardon - Thanks for your service. I'm happy the taxes I have paid during my career helped pay a small portion of your salary. I don't think our country's resources should be diverted to private contractors that compete with our own troops for funding. When I grew up in a military household I enjoyed pretty good health care provided by the army and navy. My father and grandfather were well cared for at Walter Reed. What has happened? I think privatization has been a mixed bag and we should be investing in our troops instead of corporate warriors. Most Blackwter employees are former miliary and law enforcement trained by our tax dollars. If you were in the service now, would you re-enlist or go to work for Blackwater? Hefty salary increase and immunity from prosecution. It's a no brainer and a huge incentive for our best to leave a military career to work for the private sector. It's a drain on our forces and bank account - and that is bad policy.-
Reardon wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:58 AM:To John: I would re-enlist -- Blackwater has damn little use for a submarine commander! Mid-way through my career I was offered my same salary, a complete scholarship to Law School at Berkley, and a partnership in a law firm -- and I turned it down and stayed in submarines. Some of us were simply born to serve our country in the military, but I don't denigrate civilians who repaired our ships, fixed our electronics or who protect our State Department people. Blackwater frees up Marines -- who usually protect Embassies -- to assault the bad guys. BTW, there are civilian CIA teams that are sometimes on site when the SEALS arrive. Do you disapprove of them also? They probably make a heck of a lot more than the SEALS do.
John wrote on Oct 4, 2007 10:38 AM:Reardon- I think you are defending a company with a record of wreckless abuse in Iraq that has undermined our efforts to win the war. We've replaced Marines with mercenaries and funded them with the money that should have gone to armor and miltary health care. You have torpedoed your morality. Nice shot commander!
Reardon wrote on Oct 4, 2007 2:04 PM:My morality is quite intact -- it is to WIN! (Losing lets even more immoral acts take place -- like Israel, relatively moral countries can win many times with little change, but they can only lose ONCE! You did not attack just Blackwater but all private weapon operations -- of which Blackwater is less than half. If they commit REALLY egregious sins, punish them, but in wartime where killing is the norm, the norms have wide throughways. There was a time when the “norm” was marching in straight lines wearing red coats. There was a time when "Gentlemen do not read other Gentlemen's mail." There was a time when submarines were considered unfair. There was a time...but there has never been a time when losing was considered “good.”
John wrote on Oct 4, 2007 5:54 PM:When you are fighting a war to free Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam, it is counterproductive to let private security guards kill civilians indiscriminantly as apparently took place in the recent Blackwater incident. You don't win hearts and minds when your diplomat's bodyguards cap women and kids. So what are you trying to WIN over there?
John wrote on Oct 4, 2007 6:11 PM:One last thought... After watching the Ken Burns documentary on WWII over the last couple of weeks, it occurs to me that we faced a MUCH more ruthless and evil enemy in Japan than we do now with the Iraqi people. Yet now we are paralyzed by an occupation we can't control with our military, relying on American security companies to fill in the gaps - and provide enhanced $ecurity $ervices. Money can buy you security - but as the Beatles say "it can't buy you love" - especially from the Iraqi people we are killing to free. We had a military in WWII that could do it all and saved the world. Now congress and the pentagon hire the private sector to do what our troops should be doing. But the troops don't get the funding or medical care they need, and there's not enough of them. Is it really cheaper to outsource this? It ain't right Reardon. If you support spending money on firms like Blackwater you are really just gipping the troops. BTW - My Submarine is yellow. Peace.
First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.
Today's Stories
Advertisement