Corporate outsourcing and the use of deadly force

by: Darcy Burner

Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 02:27


I grew up, as many of you know, in a military family.  In my family - as in most military families - there is a deep loyalty to the United States: the well-being of our country comes concretely before our families and very lives.

It is appropriate that when our country of, by, and for the people authorizes the use of deadly force, it is only to those whose loyalty to our country comes before any other loyalties they have.

Except that, as you know, that's not now the case.  Now we have people using deadly force in our names whose loyalty is instead to corporations, most notoriously Blackwater.

It's high time we picked a fight over this.

Darcy Burner :: Corporate outsourcing and the use of deadly force
Blackwater's contract was just renewed by the State Department. The supplemental appropriation that's about to be brought up before the House includes ongoing funding for Blackwater's activities in Iraq. If we're going to fight this, we need to fight it now.

It is not just that too many of Blackwater's employees in Iraq conduct themselves in ways that are counterproductive and deeply immoral. It is not just that there is no accountability for the company or its employees either in Iraq or here. And it is not just that the Iraqis have clearly and unambiguously called for Blackwater to leave.

Blackwater is a threat to the core underpinnings of our democracy. Who is this private army loyal to? Because they aren't ours. They don't wear our flags on their clothing -- they wear the symbol of Blackwater.

In October 2007, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that the work of these contractors in Iraq was `at cross-purposes to our larger mission in Iraq', and that `right now those missions are in conflict ...'.

If ever there was a core government function that should not be contracted out, it is the right to use deadly force in our names.

There's a bill in the House (that was identified in the Responsible Plan) which would phase out the use of military security contractors.  H.R. 4102, the Stop Outsourcing Security Act,  currently has 27 sponsors.  The Senate equivalent, S. 2398, currently has 2 sponsors.  I've listed them below.  If your representative or senators aren't on these lists, it's probably time you asked them to be.

Current House sponsors:
Rep Schakowsky, Jan (Sponsor)
Rep Allen, Thomas H. [ME-1]
Rep Baldwin, Tammy [WI-2]
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]
Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1]
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5]
Rep Filner, Bob [CA-51]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Gonzalez, Charles A. [TX-20]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22]
Rep Hirono, Mazie K. [HI-2]
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]
Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16]
Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Oberstar, James L. [MN-8]
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]
Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]
Rep Rahall, Nick J., II [WV-3]
Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15]
Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]
Rep Wu, David [OR-1]

Current Senate sponsors:
Bernie Sanders (Sponsor)
Hillary Rodham Clinton

There are many, many battles we have ahead of us to get our country back on track. We recently chalked up a win on retroactive immunity and FISA. Let's win another.


Tags: , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
this is a good bill (4.00 / 4)
National Defense just shouldn't be left to mercenaries.

I have another additional Clinton plan that I found excellent (and let's just ignore the primary for a second, this is just on policy and this is so much needed).

Stop Outsourcing National Security is what I'll title it for lack of a better term.

But this is seriously needed, especially on economic (industrial) espionage (2nd biggest threat according to the FBI!) and losing critical manufacturing that is in the national interest.  We must have policy that is in the US national interest in addition to working America's interests and currently selling off critical assets, know how, is assuredly not!

It kind of goes along with the use of private contractors (mercenaries) in the military.

Glad to see this legislation is supported by you Ms. Burner.

oops, one thing Clinton says in her speech I disagree with.  She claims this is not about economic theory and I disagree with that.  Making sure the US does not outsource or sell off critical assets, infrastructure, manufacturing, know how that is vital to our national defense, also is in line with more modifications of economic (trade theory) esp the Horizon Project (Ralph Gomory's work), that actually would assist the US is keeping economically strong as well.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist


Thank you for this. (4.00 / 1)


Montani semper liberi

Every time I turn around... (4.00 / 4)
More and more I think you, Darcy, are going to be a legislator for the ages.

I hope my children find themselves wondering what it was like before Darcy Burner was in Congress.

Thank you for your leadership. Please keep it up once you've been elected.  

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA


Thank you! (4.00 / 2)
What you see is what you will get -- for better or for worse, depending upon your perspective. :-)

[ Parent ]
Great work, Darcy. (0.00 / 0)
I will do so.

We need you in Washington (D.C.).  Soon.


[ Parent ]
Excellent (4.00 / 2)
Couldn't agree more. Is there anything we can do?


Yes - ask your Representatives to cosponsor the bill (4.00 / 5)
We need to get a substantially larger list of cosponsors onto the bill in order to move it. Contact your Representatives and (a) ask them to sign on or (b) thank them if they have.

[ Parent ]
I'll be sure and talk to Sam Farr (4.00 / 1)
(CA-17) about cosponsoring, he should be willing to put his name to this excellent bill.

And it's so wonderful to see you taking leadership on the war. I was proud to have volunteered for you last time around when I still lived in Seattle - wish I could do the same this year!


[ Parent ]
I'd love to ask my Congresscritter to help (0.00 / 0)
But I doubt Reichert would, don't you? :)

Having said that, how likely do you think it is that Cantwell and Murray will sign on? I would think Sen. Murray would be all over this given her support for the military, but Sen. Cantwell hasn't been particularly reliable of late.

Best wishes to you, Darcy. My husband and I are Eastsiders who are 100% behind you!


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox