Blackwater Indictment Alleges Grisly Tale

[SlightlyCatholic]

(CBS/AP) U.S. prosecutors say Blackwater Worldwide security guards used machine guns and grenade launchers in an attack on unarmed Iraqi civilians, some of whom had their hands up.

Prosecutors unsealed a 35-count indictment against the five guards Monday for a 2007 shooting in Baghdad. The guards surrendered in Utah, where they will argue the case should be tried.

The Justice Department charged the men with manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and using a machine gun in a crime of violence. The latter charge carries a 30-year mandatory prison sentence.

A sixth guard for the U.S. contractor admitted in a plea deal to killing at least one Iraqi in the shooting. His guilty plea, likewise, was unsealed Monday.

"The government alleges in the documents unsealed today that at least 34 unarmed Iraqi civilians, including women and children, were killed or injured without justification or provocation by these Blackwater security guards," national security prosecutor Pat Rowan said. Blackwater protects U.S. State Department personnel.

Witnesses said the heavily armed U.S. contractors opened fire unprovoked at a crowded intersection. Blackwater, the largest security contractor in Iraq, says its guards were ambushed by insurgents while responding to a car bombing.

"Prosecutors allege that the men shot and killed Iraqis 'upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion' - that's the language in the indictment," writes CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen. "But it also tells us what the defense is likely to be - that this was an accident triggered by scared young guards who were in over their heads in Iraq."

"We think it's pure and simple a case of self-defense," Paul Cassell, a Utah attorney on the defense team, said Monday as the guards were being booked. "Tragically people did die."

Hassan Jaber was wounded that day - shot in the arm and back as he tried to escape, reports CBS News correspondent Elizabeth Palmer from Baghdad. A year later, he says that today's arrests are a step in the right direction - but not justice. He says there were more than five guards firing that day.

Jaber, like other wounded victims, got $7,500 compensation from the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, which he used to pay for medical care. But, Palmer reports, his body is still full of shrapnel.

Though the case has already been assigned to U.S. District Judge Ricardo M. Urbina in Washington, attorneys want the case moved to Utah, where they would presumably find a more conservative jury pool and one more likely to support the Iraq war.

This is going to be a very dense, technical case with a ton of pre-trial issues that will have to be resolved before the first witness is called," writes Cohen. "The defendants are going to raise jurisdiction and venue questions and seek a ruling from the court that these domestic charges can't be brought against them for conduct in Iraq.

An afternoon court hearing was scheduled on whether to release the guards. Defense attorneys were filing court documents challenging the Justice Department's authority to prosecute the case. The law is murky on whether contractors can be charged in U.S. courts for crimes committed overseas.

The guards face the prospect of 30-year mandatory prison terms under the anti-machine gun law passed during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic.

The indicted guards are Donald Ball, a former Marine from West Valley City, Utah; Dustin Heard, a former Marine from Knoxville, Tenn.; Evan Liberty, a former Marine from Rochester, N.H.; Nick Slatten, a former Army sergeant from Sparta, Tenn.; and Paul Slough, an Army veteran from Keller, Texas.

The sixth guard was identified as Jeremy Ridgeway.

The case is complicated by the circumstances involving the Iraq war, which could affect legal strategy.

"The judge is going to have to be very careful not to allow this trial to become a trial about the larger U.S. role in Iraq," writes Cohen "I think defense attorneys would want to go in that direction and prosecutors of course want to separate out this event from all the other security issues in and around the Green Zone in Baghdad."

The shooting strained relations between the U.S. and Baghdad. The fledgling Iraqi government wanted Blackwater expelled from the country. It also sought the right to prosecute the men in Iraqi courts.

"The killers must pay for their crime against innocent civilians. Justice must be achieved so that we can have rest from the agony we are living in," said Khalid Ibrahim, a 40-year-old electrician who said his 78-year-old father, Ibrahim Abid, died in the shooting. "We know that the conviction of the people behind the shooting will not bring my father to life, but we will have peace in our minds and hearts."

Defense attorneys accused the Justice Department of bowing to Iraqi pressure.

"We are confident that any jury will see this for what it is: a politically motivated prosecution to appease the Iraqi government," said defense attorney Steven McCool, who represents Ball.

Based in Moyock, N.C., Blackwater is the largest security contractor in Iraq and provides heavily armed guards for diplomats. Since last year's shooting, the company has been a flash point in the debate over how heavily the U.S. relies on contractors in war zones.

A few things to discuss...

1) If domestic charges can't be brought against the defendants, then what law are they under? As far as I know, they're not under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ either.

2) How responsible is the U.S. for the actions of these men (if they are indeed found guilty)? Are contractors basically mercenaries who are completely separate from military forces or are they actively issued orders from military commanders? Who do they really report to, if anyone?

3) I see a potentially large problem with this getting out into the international arena because it makes us seem like our military isn't strong enough on its own and we need what basically amounts to mercenaries to augment the fight. I'm not saying this is true by any means, but for many people appearances are no different from the truth (as they have no real access to the latter). Does it hurt our reputation as a nation to have these contractors indicted?

[03_SHOOTER]

To my understanding, Blackwater was under contract to the State Department to provide PPD (personal protection detail) for US contractors and dignitaries, so no, they are not operating under the DoD.

As far as this particular case is concerned, it's essentially a "he said, she said" situation where the Blackwater people are saying they were fired upon, and returned fire in self-defense, and the other side is claiming that they simply "went berserk" and started shooting for no reason.

[JohnP]

To my understanding, Blackwater was under contract to the State Department to provide PPD (personal protection detail) for US contractors and dignitaries, so no, they are not operating under the DoD.

As far as this particular case is concerned, it's essentially a "he said, she said" situation where the Blackwater people are saying they were fired upon, and returned fire in self-defense, and the other side is claiming that they simple "went berserk" and started shooting for no reason.

As a former "Contractor" for the DOJ in the late 90's - I was a civilian contracted by a US Agency. I was in a country that wasn't completely pacified and subject to snipers, random checks, and ethnic cleansing. We were not allowed to carry weapons but they could be bought in a regular market as easily as you bought the vegetables. If you violated any local law, you were subject to that nation's law.

These men came under a different set of rules for their ROE. (Changing this January with the new SOFA.) If it was a bad shoot, it was a bad shoot and the men should face penalties for it. If it was a good shoot, then they should be aquitted.

Tim - the United States, by all means should handle this case. If it is above the board and with no hidden agendas, will exonerate the US as a nation of rules, laws and justice.

[JohnP]

A few things to discuss...

1) If domestic charges can't be brought against the defendants, then what law are they under? As far as I know, they're not under the jurisdiction of the UCMJ either.

2) How responsible is the U.S. for the actions of these men (if they are indeed found guilty)? Are contractors basically mercenaries who are completely separate from military forces or are they actively issued orders from military commanders? Who do they really report to, if anyone?

3) I see a potentially large problem with this getting out into the international arena because it makes us seem like our military isn't strong enough on its own and we need what basically amounts to mercenaries to augment the fight. I'm not saying this is true by any means, but for many people appearances are no different from the truth (as they have no real access to the latter). Does it hurt our reputation as a nation to have these contractors indicted?

Tim - This site is for the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the House of Representives. It is regard to its findings in October 2007. It's not current, but it will give you some ideas on how contract security shouldn't work.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20071001121609.pdf

[txb&b]

Tim - since the commonly accepted definition of mercenary is "one serving merely for pay or sordid advantage", I really take offense to that word being used to describe Blackwater contractors. Maybe you should do a little research about the kind of men who work for Blackwater. The Washington Post article below might give you some insight:

My Husband Was a Blackwater Hero (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802283.html)

By Marybeth Laguna
Sunday, November 30, 2008; Page B03

My husband, Art Laguna, was a hero. He was a man of honor -- he kept his word and he valued truth and honesty, and he expected no less from anyone else. His life was spent in service to his country and his family.

Here at home, Art served as a sheriff's reserve deputy. He was a volunteer helicopter pilot and flew medical evacuation missions with the California National Guard out of Sacramento 's Mather Field. He was the father of four and grandfather of six.

Art was proud of his three-decade career with the U.S. Army and the National Guard. He served in Iraq three times and he deployed once to Bosnia. In 1998, he was awarded a medal of valor from the California Department of Corrections for piloting a National Guard helicopter that helped save a California man who'd been stranded by floodwaters on the roof of his car. And last June, the military awarded him the Legion of Merit for exceptional conduct in the performance of outstanding services and achievements. I accepted this most recent honor on his behalf.

And this past week, as our family gathered around the table to give thanks for our blessings, one very important blessing was missing. Art was killed last year in Iraq when the helicopter he was piloting was shot down while assisting a U.S. Embassy convoy that had come under fire in a violent Sunni neighborhood in central Baghdad.

Art could have chosen a safer profession. He knew that -- and so did I. But from the time he was a child, all he'd ever wanted to do was to fly and to help people. At the time of his death, he was flying rescue missions into Iraq's most dangerous areas to help evacuate teams of U.S. government employees who had come under attack.

Since the horrible day in January 2007 when the telephone rang with the news that Art had been killed, I've experienced the breadth of emotions that anyone feels when they lose a loved one. There's intense pain, loss and grief. There's pride in his accomplishments, the choices he made and the way he lived his life. And, yes, there's anger.

My anger, however, doesn't come from the direction you might expect. I'm not angry at Art for the risks he took in life, or at the war that took that precious life. Instead, I too often find myself operating at a slow boil, sometimes exasperated and sometimes irate at those who never knew my husband or his colleagues, yet who insist on tarnishing their memories each day.

Because when Art died, he wasn't working for the military. He was working for Blackwater.

Art considered his job with the private security firm that protects U.S. diplomats in Iraq a continuation of his service to this country. He told me that he believed in the job and respected the mission. But somehow, this one word -- Blackwater -- gets in the way of a lucid, reasoned discussion.

Art first went to work for Blackwater in August 2006 and was on his second deployment with the company when he was killed. When I tell people these facts, they rarely express appreciation for his services. Instead, most suggest that he was crazy to go back. I've had people repeat the ridiculous urban legend that Blackwater instituted martial law in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina and ask me whether Art had been a part of that. At a recent social event, someone asked me whether Blackwater was the same company that "goes around shooting people." I've heard the news media and even elected officials casually throw around words such as "cowboy" and "mercenary" to describe men and women who voluntarily go into harm's way to protect others. Those caricatures are wrong. They might describe someone's antiwar agenda, but they don't describe my husband or his colleagues.

This public relations spin on contractors by antiwar activists has unfortunately gained traction, and the smearing got worse after an incident in September 2007, when a Blackwater team found itself in trouble and opened fire, tragically causing the deaths of several Iraqi civilians. What I know about this comes only from the media; the company said the security guards were responding to an ambush. But when this newspaper reported that federal prosecutors had sent letters to six Blackwater Worldwide security guards involved in that incident, there was a resurgence of unfair mischaracterizations of the company and its contractors.

I don't know the Blackwater men involved or the details of that day. But as the wife of someone who was deployed to a war zone four times, I do know that whether you're a member of the military or a private security contractor, if you think you're in trouble, you're going to protect yourself. I also know that, in addition to his prior extensive military experience, Blackwater required Art to go through rigorous training before sending him to Iraq. The same was true of all his colleagues.

Our all-volunteer military is overwhelmed and doesn't have enough soldiers with the experience it takes to guard the kinds of high-profile and highly targeted Americans who must travel around Iraq. That's why veterans working for contractors such as Blackwater, DynCorp, Triple Canopy and others are stepping up to serve their country again.

My husband and his fellow contractors answered a call. Art didn't do it for the money. He wanted to contribute in any way possible so that his kids and grandkids could continue to enjoy the American dream. He wanted to test himself and give back to his country using the training he'd received throughout his life.

Just like soldiers, security contractors based in Iraq face daily threats to their lives. Rather than demonizing these men and women, we should be thanking them for the essential service they provide. Whether they are working for Blackwater or directly for the U.S. military, they are all risking their lives to work for the United States. And they deserve our respect.

[SlightlyCatholic]

The findings are certainly very informative. Thank you for the link.

This citation in particular caught my attention:

This is an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week. Blackwater's contract to provide protective services to the State Department provides that Blackwater can engage in only defensive use of force. In over 80% of the shooting incidents, however, Blackwater reports that its forces fired the first shots.

It looks like (according to the report) they broke their own contract with the State Department, so why do they still have one with the U.S. government?

txb&b- the word "mercenary" was used in an interrogative sentence in my original post for the sole purpose of getting the opinions of those of you "in the know". I was not making any sort of judgment either way as the mercenary nature of Blackwater, I was merely probing the possibility therein pending verification by the "BTDT" personnel here. Please do not be offended, as I would never attempt to degrade or undermine anyone's service to the United States. I would like to thank you for your informative response and the information you provided for the benefit of myself and the other members of the forum.

[Des]

Wouldn't the MEJA laws apply? They were expanded in 2005 to include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas, and in 2007 the bill to expand them to includepersons who, while employed under a federal agency contract in, or in close proximity to, an area where the Armed Forces are conducting a contingency operation, engage in conduct that would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year if engaged in within U.S. jurisdiction, shall be punished as provided for that offense

[JohnP]

Wouldn't the MEJA laws apply? They were expanded in 2005 to include employees of any Federal agency supporting the mission of the Department of Defense overseas, and in 2007 the bill to expand them to include

According to what I've read, yes, they would be held responsible under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act and the US Code.

MEJA - http://www.pubklaw.com/hi/pl106-523.pdf

US Code - http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C212.txt

[Spider]

The findings are certainly very informative. Thank you for the link.

This citation in particular caught my attention:

This is an average of 1.4 shooting incidents per week. Blackwater's contract to provide protective services to the State Department provides that Blackwater can engage in only defensive use of force. In over 80% of the shooting incidents, however, Blackwater reports that its forces fired the first shots.


It looks like (according to the report) they broke their own contract with the State Department, so why do they still have one with the U.S. government?




Possibly, but maybe not. I have no idea of the specifics on the contract and the defensive actions mandated, but in legal terms self defence does not rule out pre-empting a threat and striking first if you have a reasonable and honest belief that you are about to be attacked.

[Woody]

First car they hit killing 3 civillians was considered a justified shooting under their rules of engagement .The rest were not even by their rules .Its lucky they are not facing an Iraq court.
The whole contractor business is very dodgy .Some are brave and honurable others are muppets .

[wukong]

Tim - since the commonly accepted definition of mercenary is "one serving merely for pay or sordid advantage", I really take offense to that word being used to describe Blackwater contractors. Maybe you should do a little research about the kind of men who work for Blackwater. The Washington Post article below might give you some insight:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mercenary

Mercenary Definition
: one that serves merely for wages ; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service


Blackwater charges the government $1,222 per day for the services of a private military contractor. This is equivalent to $445,000 per year, over six times more than the cost of an equivalent U.S. soldier.

Let's be honest here. If the Blackwater employee is willing to do the duty for the pay equivalent to a U.S. soldier, he may be a "patriot."

My husband and his fellow contractors answered a call. Art didn't do it for the money. He wanted to contribute in any way possible so that his kids and grandkids could continue to enjoy the American dream. He wanted to test himself and give back to his country using the training he'd received throughout his life.

I'm completely out of towels. No matter in how he is wrapped in the flag; under common usage he's a merc.

[Javier]

I recommend to you this book: Blackwater (Jeremy Scahill)...:sleepy:

[03_SHOOTER]

Let's be honest here. If the Blackwater employee is willing to do the duty for the pay equivalent to a U.S. soldier, he may be a "patriot."

While we're being honest here, don't forget that the vast majority of the Blackwater contractors are former members of the Armed Forces, and specifically Special Forces, Delta, Seals, AFSOC, etc., and are Veterans of Desert Storm or even the GWOT. Simply put, they've already served this country in uniform, and are now doing so for the State Department.

[PhilK]

While we're being honest here, don't forget that the vast majority of the Blackwater contractors are former members of the Armed Forces, and specifically Special Forces, Delta, Seals, AFSOC, etc., and are Veterans of Desert Storm or even the GWOT. Simply put, they've already served this country in uniform, and are now doing so for the State Department.

They are not working for the State Department, they are working for Blackwater who happens to have a Government contract. Not the same thing.

The minute they draw their check directly from the State Department or DoD I will consider them government employees, until then they are on the same page as mercenaries in my book.

[03_SHOOTER]

They are not working for the State Department, they are working for Blackwater who happens to have a Government contract. Not the same thing.

The minute they draw their check directly from the State Department or DoD I will consider them government employees, until then they are on the same page as mercenaries in my book.

Well Phil, I could say the same thing about you. Do YOU not have a contract? Does that make you a "mercenary"? Also I didn't say they were drawing a check from the government, I said that they were serving the country by protecting State Department personnel.

As to the whole "mercenary" question, you are entitled to your opinion, but the fact remains that if it weren't for Mr. Bill gutting the military, and Congress steadfastly refusing to expand it again, there wouldn't be a need for Blackwater to pull security for our Diplomats and "VIP's". As far as I'm concerned, they're as far from "mercenaries" as it gets since they're working for us, doing a job we're apparently incapable, or unwilling to do ourselves through conventional means, they're not selling themselves out to the highest bidder in the same way that Mike Hoare and Simon Mann did, but perhaps most importantly, they're not running around the world fighting other peoples wars for them.

Then again, to be completely honest about it, I've never figured out what the "big deal" about mercenaries is anyway. If that's what somebody wants to do with their life, that's their business. They accept the contract, they know and accept the risks of doing a job that nobody else is willing to do, and they're paid accordingly. Were not Claire Chennault and the rest of the Flying Tigers "mercenaries"? What about Frank Tinker and the rest of the pilots who flew for the Spanish government during the Spanish Civil War?

[JohnP]

They are not working for the State Department, they are working for Blackwater who happens to have a Government contract. Not the same thing.

The minute they draw their check directly from the State Department or DoD I will consider them government employees, until then they are on the same page as mercenaries in my book.

My check didn't come from either. I guess, I too, was a lawless mercenary, who goes into foreign lands for the highest bidder....Oh wait, one of my contracts was to train the Haitian Police force at Fort Leonard Wood, MO.

The problem nowadays is the thick gray line that pervades our society, our economy, and our ability to train other countries in how to be a gentler, kinder, and more civil liberties oriented country, just like ours....<sarcasm added for effect.>


We have so many irons in the fire that we can't brand our own cattle correctly. I don't want to go on a rant here, but, our military is cut down so far to the bone that it has to task the Guard and Reserve to fill its ranks. The people of the United States want their borders secure, their gas cheap and the freedom to go anywhere in the world without fear. We want this all done without spending, without increasing taxes and without using our military to influence or enforce our domain. We have become the gentle giant who never asks, never demands and rarely is provoked into a long term sanction either economic or military without backing down 1st, with our hats in our hands stating "by your leave, sir." We want to be strong and forceful; we want to be the leader of the "free-world"; we want to be a just and loving parent that spats the little hand of the baby that spits on mommy and kicks the preacher in the knee on Sunday. We want everything we’ve every had; the freedom to move with impunity around the world, never apologizing, and going into every nation with the audacity of stating, "We Are Americans, That's Why!" All the while we subvert ourselves from within, picking at the sores on our haunches like chickens in a locked hen house; slapping at the liberals, the conservatives, “Republicrats” and anyone else who stands up and tries to make a statement.

But then again, that's my opinion. I may be wrong. (With my humblest apologies to Dennis Miller.)

[HairyEyeball]

Unfortunately, this is 'one of those words' freighted with emotional baggage. The dictionary definition of the word is clear. Anything beyond that is judgmental. Anyone who sells his talents or services for a paycheck is, essentially, fulfilling the definition of prostitute - but the 'baggage' attached to the term precludes its use, except in the narrowest sense: Its use, not its meaning.

And while 03 mentioned wet willie's gutting of the military and congressional inaction as the cause of a need for 'hired guns', let us not forget the 'conditioning' of the populace by the 'education' establishment and the lamestream, drive-by media, without which there might well be a surfeit of volunteers to staff a Reagan-era military, rendering paramilitary 'civilian contractors' unnecessary in all but a few specialized areas.

[03_SHOOTER]

But then again, that's my opinion. I may be wrong. (With my humblest apologies to Dennis Miller.)

Well Brother, you're not alone. This reminds me of an essay I wrote a while back that addresses these same issues.

America the Gutless?

I’m not really sure when it happened, I’m not even really sure how it happened, but the fact of the matter is that it has happened, America has become, by and far, gutless. I know that’s a pretty harsh thing to say today, especially with so many of out finest and bravest spilling their blood and their youth in the soil of foreign countries all over the world fighting terrorism. Pick up any newspaper, listen to any of the broadcast news reports on television or the radio and all we see and hear are people lining up far and wide screaming at the top of their lungs for an end to the GWOT, that it’s not worth it, that the only reason we were attacked in the first place is because of our own “meddling” in the affairs of others, on and on and on.

Perhaps it was the lessons of WWII that “taught” these people that the cost of warfare, for any reason is simply too high. We were led into WWII by FDR because, not unlike 9-11, we were viciously attacked without warning by an enemy that believed we had somehow “wronged” them. The Greatest Generation went off to war, and in less than 4 years they defeated two of the worlds “Superpowers” as well as several lesser ones, but the cost was high, very high. As a result of WWII we took on such a large amount of financial debt that some say that we’re still paying for it, but more importantly we paid an even higher cost in human lives and suffering with the death or injury of over 1.6 million of our own citizens.

Less than a decade after WWII, we again sent our best and brightest off to fight in some distant land, this time to a place called Korea, this time led by FDR’s former Vice President, Harry S. Truman. This time however is was starkly different. Perhaps it was because Korea didn’t actually attack us, perhaps it was because Congress didn’t actually declare War on Korea like they had on Japan, perhaps it was because the people here at home weren’t forced to make the sacrifices that they had during WWII, or perhaps it was because the wounds of WWII were still very fresh in peoples minds, but public support for our men fighting on the frozen ground of Korea wasn’t nearly as fervent as it had been for their fathers and older brothers less than a decade before. To compound the problem, while our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines were fighting and dying in Korea, President Truman was setting the stage for out next, and perhaps most divisive, “Police Action” in yet another far off land that most people had never heard of; Vietnam.

Just over 10 years after the “cease fire” in Korea, once again our bravest and finest were officially sent off, en mass, to fight, and once again many in the country couldn’t find the intestinal fortitude to support them fully and unconditionally. Vietnam quickly became an anathema for America with the nation fully divided between those who supported not only the troops, but also the mission, and those who honestly felt that there was nothing in that fetid little strip of land in SE Asia worth the first drop of American blood. The former group were mostly those who had served in WWII and Korea, and their children who were taught that it didn’t really matter if you understood it or not but when your country called, you answered. The latter group were primarily the children or orphans of those veterans, and understandably the widows of fallen fighting men of both previous wars who questioned why, once again, it was necessary for us to send our bravest and finest off to fight in some distant land for a people who they had never heard of, who had never done anything to us, or simply weren’t deserving of our help, and whose attitude was that it was their problem, let them deal with it. Worse yet, when we finally did finish our mission in Vietnam and came home victorious in 1973, the gutless wonders couldn’t accept the fact that we’d actually won, despite their protestations, they invented the lie that we somehow ‘lost’, and they still tell that same lie to this day!

Now, here we are, in the early years of the 21st Century, and once again we find out troops in harms way, in foreign lands, fighting and dying for a cause that, if you believe the alphabet soup news organizations, the vast majority of Americans find to be without merit. They parrot the words of Usama Bin Laden, the very mastermind behind the attack on 9-11 as reasons why we shouldn’t be in Afghanistan and Iraq. They once again openly attack our Commander In Chief, call him a liar, and demand his impeachment, yet they ignore the fact that it was his predecessor, and his 8 years of irresponsibility that led directly to the attacks of 9-11. Where are the calls for charges to be filed against Bill Clinton for criminal culpability in the attacks of 9-11? No, they won’t do that, they’d much rather defile the memory and sacrifices of their own sons and daughters and call them folly. They claim that we, the United States of America, are the root cause of all of the ills of the world and want us to tuck tail and run from an enemy that in 4.5 years has inflicted fewer casualties than almost any one day’s fighting in WWII, and they call themselves patriots. These “Americans” are what many of my generation call “gutless wonders”, they have no morals, they have no intestinal fortitude, they have no knowledge of the true causes of terrorism, and can’t be bothered to research it because it’s so much easier to believe the talking heads on the idiot box. They refuse to acknowledge that there are people out there in the world who would gladly kill them and their entire families in the name of their religion if they were given half a chance, and rail against those who are willingly spilling their blood to prevent that very thing from happening, …again.

Were the consequences to not only our nation, but to it’s people (including the gutless wonders) so abhorrent to me, I would say stop the fighting and bring the troops home now, but not because I agree with the traitors in our midst, but so that we would again be attacked and hopefully our enemy would strike in the middle of a “victory rally” for all of the gutless wonders that actively seek our failure as a nation in order to remove them and the plague of defeatism that they carry from our country. A wise man once said that “Dissent is Patriotism”, but the difference is that the dissent he was referring to didn’t include intentionally trying to harm your own nation, or the thoughtless betrayal of that nation on the alter of ‘peace at any cost’.

[PhilK]

Well Phil, I could say the same thing about you. Do YOU not have a contract?

No, I don't.

Does that make you a "mercenary"?

No, it doesn't.

[SlightlyCatholic]

When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II opposed the war. For that reason, many Catholics were opposed to the war and felt that it was unnecessary. Would you say that those American Catholics are gutless?

I don't know about you, but I don't think I need to like every conflict the U.S. enters or initiates. I'm no treehugger, it just seems like you're saying that a requirement for good citizenship in the U.S. is to agree with every conflict the President sends us into. Because of my religious beliefs, I would listen to the Vatican before I would listen to the POTUS and I don't see where that would make me any less of a citizen. I still pay taxes, obey the local law enforcement, and put DMV registration stickers on my car.

Call me unpatriotic, I just think there's more to life than rigid nationalism and those who choose to have loyalties that don't completely parallel those of the United States shouldn't be branded as enemies to America.

[03_SHOOTER]

No, I don't.

Really? So you just showed up one day and said "I want to play Soldier"?

[03_SHOOTER]

When Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq, Pope John Paul II opposed the war. For that reason, many Catholics were opposed to the war and felt that it was unnecessary. Would you say that those American Catholics are gutless?

Yes. Feeling that it's unnecessary and opposing it after the decision has been made, and troops are in harms way, are two entirely different things.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I need to like every conflict the U.S. enters or initiates. I'm no treehugger, it just seems like you're saying that a requirement for good citizenship in the U.S. is to agree with every conflict the President sends us into.

I didn't say you had to agree with it, the point is that once the decision has been made to go, and we have Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines in harms way, the time for "dissent" is over, so even if you don't like it, or agree with it, once that decision has been made, keep it to yourself.

Because of my religious beliefs, I would listen to the Vatican before I would listen to the POTUS and I don't see where that would make me any less of a citizen. I still pay taxes, obey the local law enforcement, and put DMV registration stickers on my car.

Well Tim, if you'd rather listen to the Pope, then I suggest you move to Vatican City and join THEIR military. Oh, that's right, the Vatican doesn't have a military, they have to use Swiss mercenaries! If you're going to be an Officer in the United States Armed Forces, then you'd better be prepared to accept the Orders of POTUS, whether you agree with them or not, and to keep your "opinions" about those Orders to yourself.

Call me unpatriotic, I just think there's more to life than rigid nationalism and those who choose to have loyalties that don't completely parallel those of the United States shouldn't be branded as enemies to America.

This is a primary example of what is so terribly wrong with America today. If you can't comprehend the difference between patriotism and providing aid and comfort to the enemy by standing out in the streets, waving signs, and screaming at the top of your lungs that POTUS is a "war criminal", or even saying the same things on Moron.org, the Daily Kooks, and the rest of the sites that are infested with worthless, gutless, cheese-eating, barking moonbat, surrender monkeys and traitors, then there's nothing else for us to talk about.

[HairyEyeball]

Once again, facts will not stand in the way of opinion: It was Congress, not the President, who approved (what passed for) a declaration of war, against those who 'initiated' it - radical islamofascists. And nobody gives a tinker's dam whether or not you - or the people who are fighting it - 'likes' a war, in point of fact anyone who 'likes' war is an idiot, especially someone who's had the experience.

You may be familiar with the concept that a man cannot serve two masters, and with the admonition to 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's'. You may evenbe aware that one of this Pope's predecessors had the option to save a few thousand (or more) lives, but chose not to 'offend' Hitler. What, I wonder, was the Pope of the era's opinion on the American Revolution - and was it, perhaps, influenced by his opinion of the Anglican Church?

The fact remains that the Vatican was not attacked - yet - and we were. Where your loyalty lies is a personal choice, and you appear to have made it. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact, better men than you'll ever be - we call them 'patriots' - have sacrificed life and limb, fortune and future to allow you the liberty to equivocate, to call yourself 'a good citizen' because you merely go through the motions of obeying regulations of questionable licitness.

You've chalked out your position, now deal with the consequences.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Yes. Feeling that it's unnecessary and opposing it after the decision has been made, and troops are in harms way, are two entirely different things.

The Pope first expressed his sentiments on the invasion two days before it occurred.

Well Tim, if you'd rather listen to the Pope, then I suggest you move to Vatican City and join THEIR military. Oh, that's right, the Vatican doesn't have a military, they have to use Swiss mercenaries! If you're going to be an Officer in the United States Armed Forces, then you'd better be prepared to accept the Orders of POTUS, whether you agree with them or not, and to keep your "opinions" about those Orders to yourself.

I'm well aware of that and understand that as an Officer I would be bound by certain rules. However, I'm speaking as a U.S. citizen who happens to be Catholic.

This is a primary example of what is so terribly wrong with America today. If you can't comprehend the difference between patriotism and providing aid and comfort to the enemy by standing out in the streets, waving signs, and screaming at the top of your lungs that POTUS is a "war criminal", or even saying the same things on Moron.org, the Daily Kooks, and the rest of the sites that are infested with worthless, gutless, cheese-eating, barking moonbat, surrender monkeys and traitors, then there's nothing else for us to talk about.

What I understand is that you have a very polarized view of patriotism and honestly, I don't think it's that clear cut. If my faith tells me not to go to war, that's what conscientious objector status is for. Nobody can or should make me support or agree with any war as an American citizen.

[PhilK]

Really? So you just showed up one day and said "I want to play Soldier"?

I didn't say I was never under a contract...I just said I am not under one now.

Allow me connect the dots for you:

I enlisted, signed a contract.

I then went to college and entered the ROTC program, the Texas Army National Guard said they would pay for my schooling if I committed to six years of service. I signed that contract with the TXARNG.

Over four years ago, that contract came to an end and my obiligation to the TXARNG came to an end. So, I am not currently under a contract nor have an ETS date. I do have a mandatory removal date when I reach 65, but I can resign, or retire at any point from now until then.

So...no...I am not under any current contract.

Any other questions?

[SlightlyCatholic]

You may evenbe aware that one of this Pope's predecessors had the option to save a few thousand (or more) lives, but chose not to 'offend' Hitler.

This is a myth that has never been historically proven, although it gets used fairly often as cannon fodder.

The fact remains that the Vatican was not attacked - yet - and we were. Where your loyalty lies is a personal choice, and you appear to have made it. Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact, better men than you'll ever be - we call them 'patriots' - have sacrificed life and limb, fortune and future to allow you the liberty to equivocate, to call yourself 'a good citizen' because you merely go through the motions of obeying regulations of questionable licitness.

Thank you for the well placed ad hominem attack. You can judge my character when you get to know me. I support all our Armed Services and the men and women who serve the country honorably. All I'm saying is that I shouldn't be labeled as any less of a man (or citizen) for following my conscience (informed by my faith) and choosing to not support and/or participate in one of our nation's conflicts.

[HairyEyeball]

Ignoring the fact that you wouldn't recognize an ad hominem if it jumped up and slapped you, please reconcile:

If my faith tells me not to go to war, that's what conscientious objector status is for.

with your previously stated 'intent'

...I'm looking at being a Chaplain...

Do you plan on serving only in 'peacetime', or only during conflicts you happen to deem worthy of you?

I'm not 'judging' your character, merely observing.

[Javelin66]

As a chaplain (and therefore a non-comabatant), being a conscientious objector will not necessarily preclude you from deploying in time of war.

[SlightlyCatholic]

I think I need to clarify something...

I want to serve this country as a Chaplain. I would be honored to go into harm's way with servicemembers in our military as their Chaplain. All I'm saying is that someone should be able to disagree with the decisions our nation's leaders make without being called unpatriotic. To demonstrate this, I used the example as a person of faith whose faith tells them that they should not be participating in a conflict. That's all I'm saying here. I do not intend to take conscientious objector status myself should I end up serving as a Chaplain. If I am a Chaplain and the Vatican should state that the conflict I am deployed to is unjust, I will "render unto Caesar" my duty to go with those men and women I will have sworn to serve and counsel.

Ignoring the fact that you wouldn't recognize an ad hominem if it jumped up and slapped you, please reconcile:

Well, this one actually tried to punch me in the face but it missed.

Whether or not you choose to acknowledge the fact, better men than you'll ever be - we call them 'patriots' - have sacrificed life and limb, fortune and future to allow you the liberty to equivocate, to call yourself 'a good citizen' because you merely go through the motions of obeying regulations of questionable licitness.

If you're going to belittle me, at least have the spherical genitals to admit it.

[03_SHOOTER]

What I understand is that you have a very polarized view of patriotism and honestly, I don't think it's that clear cut.

Then if I may be so bold as to suggest, you might want to figure it out PDQ before you sign your name on the dotted line.

If my faith tells me not to go to war, that's what conscientious objector status is for.

And that's where the "gutless" part comes in. If you feel that this country isn't worth fighting for, then by all means, avail yourself of any of our easily accessible ports of embarkation, and depart from our presence. France might be a good destination.

Nobody can or should make me support or agree with any war as an American citizen.

Nobody is asking you to support anything except the troops in the field, and if you're going to stand around, pissing and moaning about the war once the troops are in the field, you are in fact giving aid and comfort to the enemy just as assuredly as happened during Vietnam. How in the Hell do you think it makes them feel when they get a chance to watch video from here in the States and all they see are a bunch of sniveling sacks of feces, who sleep comfortably in their beds every night, making complete fools of themselves protesting, while the very men they're protesting are sleeping on the cold ground? Why don't you ask HairyEyeball how he felt about it? Better yet, why don't we ask ANY of the Veterans who have spent time in Afghanistan or Iraq how they felt about seeing those asshats protesting the war while they were over there fighting it? I can't speak for them, but of the men I know here, in the home of the 82nd Airborne Division and Special Forces, every one that I have spoken to says essentially the same thing, and since this is a PG Forum, I can't repeat it here, but suffice to say they hold them in complete contempt.

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!

These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and success of liberty.

[03_SHOOTER]

Any other questions?

Yes. Your "dog tag" says National Guard, so are you, or are you not currently a serving member of the National Guard?

[PhilK]

Yes. Your "dog tag" says National Guard, so are you, or are you not currently a serving member of the National Guard?

I am currently serving. I am stationed at Camp Mabry, and get to comute down there everyday.

[wukong]

I'm well aware of that and understand that as an Officer I would be bound by certain rules.

Tim, Your responsibility as an officer is loyalty and duty to your superiors. Your duty is to express honest opinion on a subject up to the point that your superior cuts off the debate. Your superior is responsible for letting you know when he no longer want a dissenting opinion. Your loyalty is to execute lawful orders despite your opinion.

[HairyEyeball]

Once again, you completely and intentionally miss the point, and since you requested it in open forum: I have no interest in 'belittling' you, you have repeatedly displayed the fact that you're beneath contempt. You're an arrogant, posturing pissant hiding behind your religion when it suits your purposes, a moral coward too wrapped up in your own little world to admit the existence of documented facts - such as the one you so cavalierly dismiss above - when it impinges on your personal warped reality.

Despite the fact that you have occasionally shown flashes of potential, the fact remains that you are only comfortable squatting on your little anthill, deluded into believing it's some sort of 'moral high ground', secure in an arrogance that is surpassed only by your ignorance.

[03_SHOOTER]

I am currently serving. I am stationed at Camp Mabry, and get to comute down there everyday.

OK, then how is it that you are serving sans contract?

[PhilK]

OK, then how is it that you are serving sans contract?

con·tract

1 a: a binding agreement between two or more persons or parties ; especially : one legally enforceable

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contract

At this point in my career, I do not have a "binding agreement". If I decided to resign my commission today I could drop the paper work and essentially walk out. I could have done that at any time over the past 4+ years and I can still do it over the next 10+ years.

On the other hand, the Army could walk in today and tell me they no longer needed my service and tell me to get out, and I would not be able to legally fight it.

The only binding thing on my part is the oath that I took. Now, if you want to call that a contract, then we can do that. But I think it would be cheapening it a bit, would you say?

Oath

1 a (1): a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says (2): a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one's words

b: something (as a promise) corroborated by an oath

[JohnP]

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and is "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).
As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is essentially motivated by money, the term "mercenary" frequently carries negative connotations, though that can be a compliment in some contexts. There is a blur in the distinction between a "mercenary" and a "foreign volunteer", when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance, the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not mercenaries under the laws of war, since although they may meet many of the requirements of Article 47 of the 1949 Additional Protocol I, they are exempt under clauses 47(a)(c)(d)(e)&(f); some journalists describe them as mercenaries regardless.
The Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77) provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, though not endorsed by some countries, including the United States. The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

[JohnP]

On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34, the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention[6]. Article 1 contains the definition of a mercenary. Article 1.1 is similar to Article 47 of Protocol I, however Article 1.2 broadens the definition to include a non-national recruited to overthrow a "Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or Undermin[e] the territorial integrity of a State;" and "Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation..." — under Article 1.2 a person does not have to take a direct part in the hostilities in a planned coup d'état to be a mercenary.
Critics have argued that the convention and APGC77 Art. 47 are designed to cover the activities of mercenaries in post-colonial Africa and do not address adequately the use of private military companies (PMCs) by sovereign states[7].
The situation during the Iraq War and the continuing occupation of Iraq after the United Nations Security Council sanctioned hand-over of power to the Iraqi government shows the difficulty of defining a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, no U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could be classified as a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). With the hand-over of power to the Iraqi government, if one does not consider the coalition forces to be continuing parties to the conflict in Iraq, but that their soldiers are sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces (APGC77 Art 47.f), then, unless U.S. citizens working as armed guards are lawfully certified residents of Iraq, i.e., a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d), and they are involved in a fire-fight in the continuing conflict, they are mercenary soldiers. However, those who acknowledge the United States and other coalition forces as continuing parties to the conflict might insist that U.S. armed guards cannot be called mercenaries (APGC77 Art 47.d).


Any questions?

[JohnP]

Kerry: Dump Blackwater

By William Matthews - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Dec 18, 2008 11:27:04 EST

The incoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is urging the State Department to fire Blackwater Worldwide, State’s private security contractor in Iraq.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who will become committee chairman in January, said Wednesday that “the era of Blackwater must finally end.”

Kerry’s comments came after the release of an internal State Department report that said Blackwater might lose its license to operate in Iraq.

Blackwater has been under fire for several years for the abuses committed by some of its employees in Iraq. In the most egregious case, five Blackwater security guards have been indicted for the deaths of 17 Iraqis, who were killed in 2007 by gunshots fired into their cars in a busy traffic circle in Baghdad. Blackwater guards were escorting State Department officials at the time. A sixth Blackwater guard has pleaded guilty in the case.

Kerry and Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., urged Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last summer to search for an alternative to Blackwater, in part because if Blackwater is evicted from Iraq, the State Department would lack protection for its personnel in Iraq.

In a statement issued by his Senate office, Kerry said that “even the Bush Administration acknowledges that outsourcing overseas security to private firms like Blackwater is a mistake.

“It will benefit the incoming [Barack Obama] administration to have reassurance from the State Department that Blackwater’s contract should not be renewed,” Kerry said.

Should Rice not move against Blackwater, the matter will be left to her likely successor, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., who in February cosponsored legislation to ban the use of private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[03_SHOOTER]

At this point in my career, I do not have a "binding agreement". If I decided to resign my commission today I could drop the paper work and essentially walk out. I could have done that at any time over the past 4+ years and I can still do it over the next 10+ years.

On the other hand, the Army could walk in today and tell me they no longer needed my service and tell me to get out, and I would not be able to legally fight it.

The only binding thing on my part is the oath that I took. Now, if you want to call that a contract, then we can do that. But I think it would be cheapening it a bit, would you say?

Phil, the fact that you're still a serving Officer, and receiving pay means that you are in fact under contract (and will remain so until you are officially fully Retired). The fact that the terms of the contract are "loose" does not negate the fact that you are still under contract.

As far as your last, I could not disagree more, but then again, I come from a time and place where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars were involved, and the only "contract" was a mans word and a handshake (his Oath). It's really unfortunate that most people today have no concept of it any more.

[Billyd]

Actually, 03, this is more of an "At Will" employment rather than a contract. Either party can walk away from the agreement since the terms of the contract have been fulfilled.

[JohnP]

Actually, 03, this is more of an "At Will" employment rather than a contract. Either party can walk away from the agreement since the terms of the contract have been fulfilled.


I'm sure my boss wouldn't want that deal with me. :)


How does that work with maintaining a budget? Or is it that you're filling the slot, and since you're doing a good job we'll keep you? No stress to maintain performance, is there?

[Billyd]

I'm sure my boss wouldn't want that deal with me. :)


How does that work with maintaining a budget? Or is it that you're filling the slot, and since you're doing a good job we'll keep you? No stress to maintain performance, is there?


Pretty much. I was using that more as an example than anything else. The way they would ask him to leave is to pass him over for promotion (based on his performance) or he could resign. So, yes he will need to maintain performance levels to earn the promotion.

[SlightlyCatholic]

Once again, you completely and intentionally miss the point, and since you requested it in open forum: I have no interest in 'belittling' you, you have repeatedly displayed the fact that you're beneath contempt. You're an arrogant, posturing pissant hiding behind your religion when it suits your purposes, a moral coward too wrapped up in your own little world to admit the existence of documented facts - such as the one you so cavalierly dismiss above - when it impinges on your personal warped reality.

Despite the fact that you have occasionally shown flashes of potential, the fact remains that you are only comfortable squatting on your little anthill, deluded into believing it's some sort of 'moral high ground', secure in an arrogance that is surpassed only by your ignorance.

I don't think someone went to anger management class today...:lookaround:

I'll pray for you, Hairy. God bless you.:satisfied:

[PhilK]

As far as your last, I could not disagree more, but then again, I come from a time and place where hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars were involved, and the only "contract" was a mans word and a handshake (his Oath). It's really unfortunate that most people today have no concept of it any more.

Actually I totally understand the concept. I just don't equate me giving you my word with a contract.

A contract means that I will do something because there is a piece of paper saying that I will do it and it is expected of me, because it is now my job.

Me giving you my word (or taking an Oath) means that my personal honor is at stake and I will do the very best and accomplish the task I have set out to do.

I work in a section that I see contracts broken or amended all the time. So contracts don't mean much to me. A man's word still has weight in these parts and can mean more then any piece of paper.

[PhilK]

How does that work with maintaining a budget? Or is it that you're filling the slot, and since you're doing a good job we'll keep you? No stress to maintain performance, is there?

It is all based on authorizations. We might be authorized 100 Majors, but only have 50 on our books so we have room for people to promote and the budget guys never blink.

BUT...

Just because there are only 50 Majors and 100 slots doesn't mean that if you are sub-par you can't be shown the door. Officer Evaluation Reports can start weighing in and if you get passed over twice for the next promotion you might as well get out.

[03_SHOOTER]

Actually, 03, this is more of an "At Will" employment rather than a contract. Either party can walk away from the agreement since the terms of the contract have been fulfilled.

I understand that Billyd, but since he is an Officer, he is still contracturally bound, to one degree or another, until he is officially Retired and taken off of the roles.

[03_SHOOTER]

I don't think someone went to anger management class today...:lookaround:

Hairy TEACHES the "Anger Management Class" Tim. He teaches them that when you're angry with someone, it's better to verbalize it that it is to SHOOT THEM. :)

[03_SHOOTER]

Actually I totally understand the concept. I just don't equate me giving you my word with a contract.

A contract means that I will do something because there is a piece of paper saying that I will do it and it is expected of me, because it is now my job.

Me giving you my word (or taking an Oath) means that my personal honor is at stake and I will do the very best and accomplish the task I have set out to do.

I work in a section that I see contracts broken or amended all the time. So contracts don't mean much to me. A man's word still has weight in these parts and can mean more then any piece of paper.

I look at it a bit differently PhilK. If I give you my word that I'm going to build a house for you, for a certain amount of money, then I AM going to build a house for you and I expect to be paid the amount we agreed to. The only purpose of the words on the paper is to specifically spell out exactly what kind of house I'm going to build, how big it's going to be, what materials are going to be used, what amenities are going be to included, and how much you're going to pay me (draws), and when. The "contract" is my word, the "specifications" of the contract are what is on the paper.

[HairyEyeball]

Kerry: Dump Blackwater

By William Matthews - Staff writer
Posted : Thursday Dec 18, 2008 11:27:04 EST

Works for me. Fire Blackwater, then send Hanoi John, the Hildebeast, and a few dozen State Department officials and Foreign Relations Committee members - House and Senate - on 'factoid-finding missions' to Iraq and Afghanistan. And cue the laugh track.