House passes bill to prosecute contractors.
By on Oct 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
House passes bill to prosecute contractors.
Today, the House voted 389-30 to “make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts. It was the first major legislation of its kind to pass since a deadly shootout last month involving Blackwater employees.” The Senate plans to follow with similar legislation soon. The White House opposes the bill, arguing it would “intolerable consequences” on national security.
UPDATE: The Gavel has more.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Bush Legacy
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
DADT
Economy
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Franken
Global Warming
Guantanamo
Health Care
International Relations
Iran
Iraq
Justice
Krauthammer
Kyl
LGBT
Limbaugh
McCain
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Rove
Sanford
Sotomayor
Steele
Supreme Court
Terrorism
ThinkProgress
Tiller
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
I'm sure Chimpy will veto this one, too. It messes with his private army.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmThe tide is turning
October 4th, 2007 at 12:15 pmWow, congress actually did something. And this passed the House with a veto-proof majority.
I'm shocked.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmToday, the House voted 389-30 to “make all private contractors working in Iraq and other combat zones subject to prosecution by U.S. courts.
Hmm...sounds fairly "veto-proof" to me...let's just hope the Senate votes in the same spirit.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmI’m sure Chimpy will veto this one, too. It messes with his private army.
Comment by Leftside Annie — October 4, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
If it passes the Senate with 67 votes now, it is tough luck for Chimpy's veto.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmIn a war zone, you can't make one side accountable to rules, while the other side is not. Al Quieda insurgents are not subject to US government rules of engagement. Even the US military is subject to their own court system.
Once again, Dems are trying to undermine the war effort to cause us to lose, which has been their intended goal all along.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:18 pmAs I think about it, I am willing to bet that this "law" is unconstitutional, and should be vetoed or dismissed with a mere signing statement for judicial review.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pmHoly Accountibility, Batman!
Who'da thunk?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:19 pmAnd who will be appointed to oversee the contractors, Halliburton, Blackwater? Remember Bunny who tried to reveal the sweetheart deal to the public but got canned after like 25 years of excellent service. Just once could we have some NON beholden to Bush person in charge !
October 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmWayne, I agree - however, we've all seen it happen in the very recent past where Republican senators have been turned by a secret visit from Darth.... look what happened with Senator Warner and his support for Sen. Webb's bill.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmNice tiny step..Now let's see if they back it up and do anything.....May I throw this one out to ya all......What about the most important thing to date they have not done....We the people want true accountability...Impeachment.....Untill then they still will no longer get my vote's...How about making them show up for hearing's.?...Well?...Word's and tiny little appeasment's are not working for me as long as the lier's, murder's and thieve's are still distroying our country and the world, one innocent at a time.....Blessings
October 4th, 2007 at 12:24 pmWhat are these "intolerable consequences?" Is it too much to ask for some specifics instead of these vague mutterings?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmCan't force the AG's office to prosecute Blackwater, though. Can't even keep Bush from nullifying the bill thru a signing statement.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pmBut, but, but we only kill for jeezus.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:30 pmthe White House said. "The bill would have unintended and intolerable consequences for crucial and necessary national security activities and operations."...
...because, after all, we are dependent on criminal activities going unpunished for our foreign policy to continue.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pmNext we need a law prohibiting any American from raising or billeting a mercenary army within the united states. Lets call it the Prince Prohibition Statute.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:32 pm389-30? Wow -- enough Repubs jumped off the Bush ship this time to get something done. Wonder how Cheney will get 'em back in line?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmOur entire foreign policy is one big criminal act. It's no wonder that the ability of Blackwater and others to continue their thuggery is so essential.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pmCan’t force the AG’s office to prosecute Blackwater, though. Can’t even keep Bush from nullifying the bill thru a signing statement.
Comment by Wilco — October 4, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Which he will probably do. It's a pity that no matter how much abuse of power and trampling of the constitution (you know, the "god d*mn piece of paper") goes on, these criminals will continue on their merry way because impeachment is "off the table."
October 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pmBaboom in a big bipartisan way!!!!
October 4th, 2007 at 12:37 pmthese criminals will continue on their merry way because impeachment is “off the table.â€
Comment by missmolly — October 4, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Yeah, Nancy is still afraid of Tables. Pathetic.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmDoes the wording in this bill limit Blackwater's accountability soley to Iraq and other combat zones? Does this mean that when they extricate someone to a secure location that all bets are off? What about if they get trigger happy down in New Orleans? Not a designated "combat zone", eh?
October 4th, 2007 at 12:42 pmGood legislation but the real motive is to shift the blame from administration onto the contractors.
Does the legislation exempt Haliburton 'cause Dick and his buddies do not go to jail.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:50 pmIs there a list of the 30 Representatives who voted against this bill? It's always helpful to identify our most irredeemably corrupt members of Congress, and then work for their defeat.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:53 pm"Blackwater's founder and CEO Erik Prince told a House committee Tuesday the company supports Price's measure."
Looks like a slam dunk. Uhh...maybe a better metaphor would be appropriate....
October 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pmComment by Leftside Annie — October 4, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Yeah, I never underestimate the ability of the Senate Republicans to put party before Country.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pmBTW, Whatever happened to the resolution the Iraqis passed about getting Blackwater the hell out of their country? or did they officially give in and say Blackwater could stay in the end?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm"Can’t force the AG’s office to prosecute Blackwater, though. Can’t even keep Bush from nullifying the bill thru a signing statement."
wilco
this is exactly what will happen. Bush will make a floursh of saying no one is above the law, then attach a signing statement that offers exceptions to the law in times of war, and executives of said companies will be held faultless in any case.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pm#27...which will be upheld by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pmAnd when GW666 vetos this, the repukes will not vote to override it, it's just how the repukes operate. Vote on it to pass, then vote against the override, it is the, "Look I have morals too." to get re-elected, then it's the, "Can't go against the Pres" cause the voters aren't paying attention.
Where's Jake (Rory) today, is he changing names again because everyone figured out the name change?
Buck Fush
October 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmBTW, Whatever happened to the resolution the Iraqis passed about getting Blackwater the hell out of their country? or did they officially give in and say Blackwater could stay in the end?
Comment by Menehune — October 4, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
We got them back by arresting an Iraqi MP.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmThe problem is will the Bill be enforced? The GAO is trying to audit over charges by Halliburton and its subsidiaries and the head person is squashing the clerks doing the work.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pmTS Chimpya! Looks like you're losing control over everything now. Your little House of cards is coming tumbling down right before your very eyes. Paraguay should be looking mighty enticing to you these days.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:28 pmtoasterhead: Didn't the Iraqi parliament vote unanimously to evict us out of their country just prior to their August vacation?? No doubt they've also evicted Blackwater as well. Who the hell do we think we are overriding their wishes? No doubt Blackwater Prince has kickback ties to Bush's Horror House.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pm#29: GW666 is very apt. Like it.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmWhat the people need to figure out is how to get to see Bush's infamous "signing statements" (aka his exempting himself from the reaches of the law just signed). I believe this is tantamount to criminal behavior at this point. The people need to see his whimpy chicken$hit signing statements in order for them to truly realize what a profoundly psychiatrically compromised commander in chief we really have here.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pmBy the end of his term, GW666 (thanks Buckie Boy!) Bush will be pleading "temporary insanity" in order to get out of jail free and not pass go but exile himself straight to the Bush compound in Paraguay.
October 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pm#35, Veritas: Ask and you shall receive. Here's an index to Bush's signing statements:
http://www.coherentbabble.com/signingstatements/TOCindex.htm
October 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm#36 We could only hope and could he please take Cheney ?
October 4th, 2007 at 1:54 pm23 @12:53:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll940.xml
October 4th, 2007 at 1:58 pmBout time, but how are witnesses and testimony going to be handled, as most of them are in Iraq???
October 4th, 2007 at 2:31 pmIs there a list of the 30 Representatives who voted against this bill? It’s always helpful to identify our most irredeemably corrupt members of Congress, and then work for their defeat.
Comment by Jim — October 4, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
I'd be shocked if they're not all Elephants
October 4th, 2007 at 2:44 pmWow, another veto proof majority. Good for Congress. It looks like the Republics may have finally learned an important lesson"
you can only thumb your nose at your constituents for so long before they start thumbing their noses back at you.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:47 pmAnd when GW666 vetos this, the repukes will not vote to override it, it’s just how the repukes operate. Vote on it to pass, then vote against the override, it is the, “Look I have morals too.†to get re-elected, then it’s the, “Can’t go against the Pres†cause the voters aren’t paying attention.
They will do this at their own peril. They are already in a lot of trouble with their constituents. If they turn around and not vote to override a veto, that is a tv ad waiting to happen and their worst nightmare.
October 4th, 2007 at 2:51 pmLook at representative X. He voted to XXXXX and then when it came time to override a veto he reversed his vote and voted once again with the Bush Crime Family.
Add some creepy music and ugly pictures of representative X and you have a very effective TV ad.
Horay!!! Finallly congress shows some backbone!!!
Hope this means an end to the Blackwater contracts....and fines to Halliburton
October 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pmIs there a list of the 30 Representatives who voted against this bill? It’s always helpful to identify our most irredeemably corrupt members of Congress, and then work for their defeat.
Comment by Jim — October 4, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
-----------------------------------------
Your wish is my command. Here are the reps who voted "nay":
Alexander (R-LA)
October 4th, 2007 at 3:50 pmBaker (R-LA)
Barton (R-TX)
Boustany (R-LA)
Broun (R-GA)
Burgess (R-TX)
Buyer (R-IN)
Cannon (R-UT)
Deal (R-GA)
Doolittle (R-CA)
Franks (R-AZ)
Hastert (R-IL)
Hoekstra (R-MI)
Hunter (R-CA)
Johnson, Sam (R-TX)
Lamborn (R-CO)
Linder (R-GA)
McCrery (R-LA)
Miller, Jeff (R-FL)
Miller, Gary (R-CA)
Pitts (R-PA)
Price (R-GA)
Renzi (R-AZ)
Rogers (R-AL)
Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Sessions (R-TX)
Shadegg (R-AZ)
Tancredo (R-CO)
Westmoreland (R-GA)
Young (R-AK)
>Can’t force the AG’s office to prosecute Blackwater, though.
In a year it wont matter. Even though hes not running this next election will be another referendum on bush and everything he's associated with. Thats why Chimpy is persona non grata on the republican campaign trail. The only politicians taking pictures when chimpy comes to town are the republicans opponents. Hilary has high negatives, but not as high as bush's, and every flip flopping republican out there will be in his shadow.
Did you see on the Colbert report tonight how THompson had to ASK the crowd to give him appaluse? ahahahahhaah. this is the righttards supposed saviour.. someone give the man a viagra, colbert is more popular..with republicans.. colbert got more of a response from the staff in bill-ows studiio than thompson did with his own handpicked crowd! saaaad
October 5th, 2007 at 4:25 am