Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) is drafting legislation to ban all mercenaries

Hoping to Keep the Fight Alive

By Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, October 7, 2007; Page A08

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) started pressing for greater congressional scrutiny of private contractors in Iraq not long after the war began. Last week she got lots of company.

The House on Thursday overwhelmingly passed legislation to hold firms such as Blackwater USA accountable under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act for possible criminal misconduct. Co-sponsored by Schakowsky, the bill included her proposal to require the Justice Department to disclose to Congress the number of complaints filed against contractors, the number of investigations it has initiated and the number of criminal cases it has opened, along with the results of those cases.

The 389 to 30 vote came despite White House opposition and amid rising alarm in Congress about potential contractor abuses after the Sept. 16 shooting by Blackwater personnel in Baghdad that left at least 14 Iraqi civilians dead.

Schakowsky saw the potential for scandal long ago. In April 2006, she wrote a letter to President Bush asking him to explain how his administration was holding private military contractors accountable. At that point, 25,000 U.S. contractors were employed in Iraq. Now the number is roughly 180,000.

"Finally it's really broken through," Schakowsky said of the expanding role of contractors. "And I think once the Pandora's box is opened here about what these people are doing, I don't think it's going to end."

Also, she said, the public is learning how far the U.S. role in Iraq extends beyond the 160,000-troop presence.

"We don't look at the number of contractors who are engaged in military activities, we don't count the deaths of contractors. We think about 1,000 have died," but the numbers aren't official. "We don't really even scrutinize the cost," Schakowsky said.

Now she wants to go further and is drafting legislation to phase out the use of private contractors for military-like activities. "Not KP duty," Schakowsky emphasized. The Blackwater incident "helps pave the way for us to say, 'There are functions that are inherently governmental. Carrying weapons and engaging in strictly military-like activities should be done by people who are clearly accountable employees of the United States.' "

more...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/06/AR2007100601057.html?hpid=topnews

Human beings are not daisies.

expressing their "ideas" and "ideals", even if recognized by themselves as unatainable. How dare they!

see as drivel, marks you out as someone without a conscience, as the term is normally understood.

Would that human beings WERE daisies in the matter of their vulnerability. Unfortunately, they are flesh and blood, with a heart and tear ducts. What are you? An automaton?

As logical and sane as it is.

activities within the United States. The president issued his directive about national emergencies. The Department of Homeland Security has put together a plan for response in case of a crisis or national emergency but has refused to allow members of Congress to see that plan. How much you wanna bet that includes the use of "contractors" for maintaining the peace instead of the National Guard or in addition to the National Guard. What contracts do Blackwater, Dyncore, etc have with DHS? What do they include and how does the government plan to use them? We need to know but so far I do not believe that any hearings have been scheduled on this.

...phase out the use of private contractors for military-like activities. "Not KP duty," Schakowsky emphasized. The Blackwater incident "helps pave the way for us to say, 'There are functions that are inherently governmental. Carrying weapons and engaging in strictly military-like activities should be done by people who are clearly accountable employees of the United States.' "

But I could be way off base.

DeFazio chases secret terror-crisis plan

Homeland security - After the White House denies access, the Web buzzes with conspiracy chatter
Saturday, July 28, 2007
JEFF KOSSEFF

The Oregonian Staff

WASHINGTON -- Peter DeFazio won't take no for an answer.
After conspiracy theorists fanned the Internet with their outrage, the Oregon congressman renewed his push Friday to gain access to the classified portion of a White House plan to operate the government after a terrorist attack.

This time, DeFazio is joined by two other Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee who wrote to a top Bush administration Homeland Security official requesting access to the information. The White House refused to provide it to DeFazio earlier this month, offering no explanation beyond national security concerns.

After The Oregonian reported the situation a week ago, the story spread rapidly across the Internet, linked from more than 250 blog postings and political Web sites.

"We can think of no basis for you to deny members of the Committee on Homeland Security the opportunity to review this document in a secure setting," states the letter signed by DeFazio; Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., chairman of the committee; and Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa., chairman of the Homeland Security oversight subcommittee.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/118559492719310.xml&coll=7

that bandwagon! :thumbsup: I'm coming to the conclusion that it's going to take all these small efforts to finally show the big picture to Americans in denial.

what is in that plan and WHO they are planning on using to CONTROL US in case of a national emergency!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I can not imagine how our entire citizenry aren't alarmed by this bullshit. Some believers are simply "Good Mericans".

jan is my rep. she had a town hall meeting during the break. if she were the speaker, and not just deputy whip, we would be having a different conversation here. but if she is putting this out there, it will happen. she would not be taking this on the road without nancy being behind it.

Carrying weapons and engaging in strictly military-like activities should be done by people who are clearly accountable employees of the United States.' "


Sorry Jan.

That phrase essentially calls for a Soviet Style republic.

Please. You all have done enough to strip our rights as a citizenry.

I'm no fan of weaponry, nor am I a fan of a government that takes away the only methods by which citizens can protect themselves from overzealous governments and the armies that run them.

Please read the Constitution.

Despite your signature tag, you will note that General Smedley Butler, giant though he was, did not start a chaotic, armed civil war.

On the other hand, there is an immense risk of a rogue federal government using mercenary forces to suppress the citizenry by whatever means it takes. No rules of engagement whatsoever.

from those who will take up weapons for exorbitant sums of money to subdue you (private citizen) than you ever will from an "army" of your fellow citizens, being paid squat, and ordered to attack you (their neighbor-brother/sisters-kin).

When American government purchases killers- to do their bidding- BECAUSE- the people (who ARE AMERICA) are not 'willing' to engage in 'war' in sufficient numbers to actually wage war, then please tell me, what the FUCK 'we' are doing?

"We"- through our funds, and impotent calls for an end, are financing, and facilitating an administration who are hiring hit men- (on OUR dime- and our grand children's dollars) to carry out military exercises for the financial gain of corporate cronies.

I'll take a soviet style republic over a pawn in an evil empire anyday-

Engaging in 'strictly military like activities'- is the KEY in your quoted sentence.

And if you aren't willing to bear your arms and be accountable to the laws of your country, you'd better read our constitution again yourself.

"Militia" was a word coined by our forefathers. However....

militia ≠ mercenary

Money is the difference. I don't think I want to live in a world where money is the decider of who gets killed.

I'd like to see her as Speaker or Majority Leader

not!

But, this is important for the long-term.