Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day Three, Wednesday PM Two (Thirteen)

[This post is rescued liveblogging materials that the Toobz Godz would not let me include in the last post. It picks up midway through the Defendants’ questioning of Letitiia Peplau, a Social Psychologist and an expert witness on the benefits of marriage. Nicole Moss is doing the questioning for the defendants. This overlaps slightly with the last thread to give some context. Moss is trying to introduce data from Belgium and the Netherlands to suggest that not really that many gays and lesbians want to get married. She then tries to attack the MA survey which showed a lot of people did get want to get married.]

[Objection: Ms. Peplau not a demographer]

Walker: Ask the bottom line question?

Moss; Assuming my math is correct. If numbers showed that 5% of gay and lesbian indivs and 43% had taken advantage of marriage, significant difference?

Peplau: Absolutely.

Moss: Data for Netherlands.

Peplau: Can I just make sue I’m with you on these data. You’re not saying that only 5% of homosexuals got married. What you’re saying is that all married indivs in Belgium, only 5% of them are homosexual.

Moss: No, I’m saying 5% of homosexuals are married. I asked you to assume that 2% are homosexuals.

Peplau: You’re saying 5% are married, compared to 43% of homosexuals.

Moss: You would agree that significant difference in percentage of population that is choosing to take advantage.

Peplau: I’d be struck by difference with analyses about MA that have chosen to get marriage. Americans are one of the most pro-family people around. Americans are enthusiasts of marriage.

Moss shows Netherlands data (after saying that govt “very nicely gave data in English”) 5% versus 40-someting.

Moss: Would you agree that purpose of marriage to make sure that children not born outside of marrirage? So that children born from sexual relations of men and women not born outside of marriage.

[Object, beyond scope]

Moss: Well, she’s testified that gay and lesbians are similarly situated, are they similarly situated to accidentally having children out of wedlock.

Moss: Would you agree that gays and lesbians do not accidentally have children?

Peplau: Except in MA, all children born to same sex couples are born out of lesbians. Are you asking whether two lesbians can accidentally impregnate each other? Not to my knowledge.

[hilarity all around]

Peplau: I would agree that same sex couples do not have accidental pregnancies.

Peplau: A book review.

Moss: On romantic marriages. A growing body of research shows asexual lesbian relationships not uncommon.

Peplau: We have documented examples of lesbian relationships not characterized by genital sexual activities. A lot is based on male ideas of sexuality, as if there isn’t a penis involved there’s not a sexual activity. Many lesbians repport that other things that might be considered sexual, such as cuddling or kissing, but that does not have a genital component.

[I wonder if Moss has a study of how much sexual activity goes down after they get married.]

Moss: You’re not an expert in social meaning of marriage?

Peplau: I have cited data from Gallup showing that a large number of Americans say they will get married. I have not conducted studies in which I have tried to assess attitudes of Americans about basis of marriage. It really depends. I have done studies about attitudes of division of labor. By social meaning, if you mean the kind of things sociologists do, I’m not by training a sociologist. I’ve relied on other sources of empirical data.

Moss: You have not done any research into relative benefits of DPs and same sex or hetero marriage. The only empirical research that you’ve pointed to on same sex couples is MA survey.

Peplau: I have drawn conclusions on much broader lit. I’m drawing on a great knowledge base. But in terms of studies specifically of effects of same sex civil marriage.

Moss: MA study. It’s not a representative sample.What do you mean?

Peplau: A rep sample would mean reflective of entire pop. There may be different or similar opinions among the people who did not get informed about survey or chose not to answer.

Moss: This particular survey recruited by gay rights advocacy group.

Peplau: This was done online. They went to group that had large email list. Assumed that among that list there would be some indivs who had gotten married. The way Department of Health chose to collect info.

Moss; Indivs from gay rights advocacy group, who responded. Top 10 reasons why they go married was have society know about legal relationships.

Peplau: I’m not sure that’s the wording.

Moss: If you turn to tab 12. 4 in 10 reported wanted to have society know about gay and lesbian marriages. That was one of top 3 reasons why got married.

Peplau: They were asked multiple reasons, 93% said love and commitment, Second was legal recognition of their relationship. 40% of unrepresentative sample said social visibility was one of the reasons for them.

Moss; it was 90% white.

Peplau: I don’t know what demos of lesbian and gay men in MA.

Moss; Average age was 48 years old.

Peplau: Again, I don’t know what to make out of that. THat was what they found.

Moss; Significantly higher than most same sex couples in US.

Peplau: I’m trying, there may be data from census about average age of same sex couples is in US, I don’t know what those data are. I don’t know how to make comparisons that you’re driving at. I don’t know the answer to that.

Moss; 85% had at least a college, 55% had grad education.

Peplau: lesbians and gay men on average have higher level of education but these are higher.

Moss: 32% earned more than 110,000.

Peplau: when we say not representative. Part of what we mean may differ from state.

Moss; In terms of how the survey was conducted. It was based on self-reporting by these individuals.

Peplau: Survey studies are self-report studies. You ask people a question and they answer.

Moss: And like all surveys, open to self-reporting bias.

[Like the 75% of married men who say they care about monogomy? Do we know whether they practice it?]

Moss: We don’t know about self-reporting bias?

Peplau: We don’t know about that with this report. In general, researchers have worried about being more likely to get happy couples who want to brag about relationship, or miserable couples who want to complain about partners.

Moss; We do know that recruitment came through gay advocacy. Top 3 reasons was having relationships more visible.

Peplau: Debate about same sex marriage, widely talked about. Wouldn’t surprise me that in state that is one of the first states to permit same sex marriage. Part of what they were doing was participating in private activity that would be known to other people.

Moss: Those facts tell us something about those who chose to respond to this survey.

Peplau: They told us about those who responded.

Moss; You said wouldn’t harm same sex. You focused on increased divorce rates. You have not offered opinions or undertaken extensive analysis about whether or not it might harm institution of marriage apart from individual marrirages.

Peplau: Entry into marriage and existing through divorce or dissolution. Those speak to very important measures of health of marriage. There are certainly others.

Moss: Your statement: Public acceptance of divorce is growing, growing emphasis on personal fulfillment has eroded commitment to marriage. Another thing is that state no fault divorce laws make it easier to end relationships.

Peplau: Try to understand factors that led to enormous divorce rate, peaked in 80s and has leveled off. Factors during reasonably long period that contributed to fairly high divorce rate.

Moss: those include growing emphasis on individualism and personal fulfillment.

Peplau: Part of what they have suggested is that in earlier time when more important part of marriage is economic unit, to meet basic needs for survival, over time we have come to expect personal fulfillment. Marriage is not only where laundry is done and someone pays the bills. It is a place where we develop personal potential. Increase in emphasis has set very high expectations for marriage. Shifting values may have been one of many factors. None of these factors is due to gay civil rights movement. Increase in divorce rate indepdent of push for marriage equality.

Moss; Turning to page 13. 4 years of data.

Peplau: 4 years before and 4 years after same sex marraige in MA.

Moss; Not a lot of data.

Peplau: 8 years of data, only 4 years since marriage has begun, only bc those are the most recent govt stats available.

Moss: In 2004, highest divorce rate.

Peplau: What I would say about these data is that there is almost no change.

[Moss looks back at her co-counsel, who is rocking back and forth in his chair]

Peplau: I think this is haphazard variation in the data. I don’t take those as serious indicators. Aside from what looks like impact of gay people getting married in first year, numbers look the same to me.

Moss: Comprehensive marriage and divorce rates in neighboring states.

Peplau: Only point I was trying to make was that it would be informative to look at that state. I don’t make any claims beyond that.

Moss; Last two years of data, divorce goes up.

Peplau: And still winding up lower than in years leading up to gay marriage. We could try to make something of difference between 2.2 and 2.3. If we want to look at minor changes in divorce, my interpretation is it’s the same.

Moss: it would be helpful to have several more years of data.

Peplau: I’m sure we will have that data soon.

Moss; As to whether gay marraige will affect marriage over time?

Peplau Could you repeat the question?

Moss; Whether same sex marriage would have any effect on individualism over time is something you could only speculate about.

Peplau: The question is whether I think same sex marriage.

Moss [VERY SNOTTY]: Well, really, have you studied that question so you could offer an expert opinion on it? [leaning back on her elbow again]

Peplau: My opinion is based on a lot of evidence. All of the evidence are on the side of no harm. And then on the side of what theory that might do harm, there’s nothing. I have no confidence in that conclusion. But it is the case that that is not based on empirical study on how same sex marriage will affect attitudes toward individualism over time.

Dusseault; Enforceable trust. Greater degree of enforceable trust in marriage or DP?

Peplau: Marriage.

Dusseault: Greater barriers to exit in marriage or DP.

Peplau: Marriage.

Dussealt: Ms. Moss, exclusivity. That was done 25 years ago. There was no marraige available for same sex couples.

Peplau: Nor were there domestic partnerships.

Dusseault: Any effect had nothing to do with behavior

Dusseault: In state of CA, any restriction to couples who don’t want exclusive relationship to marry.

Peplau: There is none.

Dusseault: Why focus on US?

Peplau: We’re focusing on changes to law in CA and US. It seems to me most directly relevant data was from another state.

Dusseault: Any idea whether the 43% of those in Moss’ Belgium data included all that were married?

Peplau: Percent of indivs that were married.

Dusseault; How long opposite sex marriage legal in Blegium.

Peplau: I assume for a long time.

Dusseault: Same sex couples have great emphasis on indivs than opposite sex.

It’s BEER THIRTY!!!

Walker: SCOTUS has given us guidance, we may have issues beyond remote access. To these proceedings that we’ll have to take up. My inclination without hearing from counsel, that we put that aside from time being. We seem to be moving along well. Don’t want to do anything to alter how we’re proceeding. We will not have remote access. We’ll have to deal with other issues in due time.

Walker: Cooper, Understand you asked about the responses to proposed change in local rule. And responses wrt broadcasting or webcasting these proceedings.

Cooper: I believe my colleagues have taken advantage of that.

Walker: there were quite a number. My understanding from clerk, your team had requested to copy some of them.Maybe you should chat with your colleague. I’ll be guided by whatever you advise, you should either copy all or none or make them all part of the record. In view of the volume I wonder what value they may have.

Cooper: Court has selection of comments.

Walker I put all the lawyer comments on. But none from indivs.

Cooper: If we do conclude that someting we’d like to ask clerk to make part of public record.

Walker: Stewart.

Stewart: Wanted to make sure that Tam did get into record. I’m told that they weren’t transcribed. I’d like to make sure deposition excerpts are part of the record.

Walker: helpful if you give line items. Whose our first witness tomorrow. Eagen. First witness. Suppose we can get through three of these tomorrow.

Boies: We hope those three will not take whole day.

Walker: that would be good progress. We are moving along, which is what we all want to do.

Share this entry

Liveblogging Prop 8 Trial: Day 3, Wednesday PM One (Twelve)

I’m about to pick up the liveblogging of the Prop 8 trial from Teddy, who has earned a big break (and who is off to the court room for a spell). We’re in the middle of expert testimony–I believe that’s what we’ve got coming up after this lunch break.

Letitia Ann Peplau: Bachelor in Psych from Brown, PhD social Psych from Harvard. Research on heterosexual and same sex couples. Some studies that have involved marriage.

Christopher Dusseault (from plaintiffs).

Peplau: Four opinions. One, for those who enter into marriage, associated with benefits. Research of gay and lesbian couples remarkable similarities with heterosexual couples. When permitted to enter into civil marriage, will likely have same benefits as heterosexual couples. Permitting same sex marriage will not be harmful to heterosexual marriage.

Peplau: Americans very enthusiastic about marriage. Most Americans view marriage as one of most important relationships in life. Gallup poll, 91% reported that they have been married or planned to get married.

Dussealt: Any evidence that lesbians and gay men feel the same way.

Peplau: in most states, a hypothetical. Study by Kaiser Family Foundation, would you like to marry? Majority of gay men said they would like to get married. (study admitted)

Dusseault: Domestic partnerships valued as much as gay marriage?

Peplau: Researchers into prefer marriage or domestic partnership. These researchers asked, across all states that permit domestic partnerships. What percentage took advantage. Then, MA, where marriage available. What they found was that 10-12% took option of domestic partnership. Something like 37% of couples get married in MA. 3X as likely to get married as enter into quasi-marital relationships.

Dusseault: Research regarding impact of marriage on health?

Read more

Share this entry

Congress Reviews the Taxpayers' Investment

One of the biggest stories at the North American International Auto Show yesterday was not the cars, but the congressional delegation — led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer — that came to the show. In addition to Pelosi and Hoyer, much of Michigan’s delegation (the only Republican was Fred Upton, though Candice Miller had intended to attend before bad roads got in the way), Ohio Representatives Tim Ryan and Betty Sutton, and Senators Byron Dorgan and Tom Carper attended the show. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood and Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis were there, too; and until last Thursday, Obama was planning to attend (until the Secret Service decided it would be a security nightmare).

In other words, there was a big presence of DC bigwigs at the auto show. As Pelosi, in particular, worked her way from the General Motors’ display (she got a close look at the Volt) to the Chrysler to the Ford one (she checked out the new Focus), the media followed along in a big pack, filming her chatting with the CEOs of America’s (and, in the case of GM and Chrysler, the taxpayers’) auto companies. In the YouTube above, she and Hoywer are talking to Ford CEO Alan Mulally.

The crowds and media attention their presence brought tells you something — that DC has been far too distant from America’s industrial base for far too long.

Indeed, some of the DC-MI folks I spoke to pointed out to me that the US car companies have not done a good job at reaching out to the press in recent years, and nor has DC shown much interest in exchange.  The hope was that yesterday’s visit may begin to change all that. (I know GM plans a series of Volt test drives for politicos at the DC auto show later this month.)

And, at the very least, Pelosi has promised to come back next year. Read more

Share this entry

Ford Wins NA Car and Truck of the Year

Greetings from the North American International Auto Show.

As I explained last week, I’m going to have a number of discussions about your taxpayer owned car company–GM–today.

But the big news of the morning is that Ford won both the North American car and truck of the year, with the Fusion Hybrid and the Transit Connect, respectively. I expect the sweep of the awards (it is just the third time one manufacturer has won both awards) will continue Ford’s success at changing its brand image.

The other big buzz this morning is the presence of a sizable congressional delegation, led by Nancy Pelosi, here to figure out what is going on with our auto industry. There’s a fair amount of discussion about that among both the car people and other journalists.

Share this entry

Back to the Land

Georgia Street Community GardenI often joke with Californians that even as their environmental regulations make MI’s main industry defunct (admittedly, largely because of the short sightedness of Michiganders), MI will take over CA’s role as the lead Ag state. CA, after all, is fighting water problems because of its own short-sightedness. We, on the other hand, have got water–lots of it. And MI is already the country’s second most diverse agricultural state. Add a few degrees of temperature due to climate change (ignoring the signs that global warming seems to be making a cold sink stretching from MI to MN), and MI could be downright bountiful.

But there’s a more serious side to it–the post-industrial side. Specifically, the increasingly urgent efforts to turn Detroit back into an agricultural bread basket.

“There’s so much land available and it’s begging to be used,” said Michael Score, president of the Hantz Farms, which is buying up abandoned sections of the city’s 139-square-mile landscape and plans to transform them into a large-scale commercial farm enterprise.

“Farming is how Detroit started,” Score said, “and farming is how Detroit can be saved.”

[snip]

In Detroit, hundreds of backyard gardens and scores of community gardens have blossomed and helped feed students in at least 40 schools and hundreds of families.

It is the size and scope of Hantz Farms that makes the project unique. Although company officials declined to pinpoint how many acres they might use, they have been quoted as saying that they plan to farm up to 5,000 acres within the Motor City’s limits in the coming years, raising organic lettuces, trees for biofuel and a variety of other things.

Detroit has long been a symbol of America’s industrial might. And yet, quickly, it has become a symbol not only of decay, but of the earth reclaiming the land. Frankly, I’m in favor of using Detroit’s vacant space for farming (though I prefer it to be organic, small scale farming). But if Detroit is the canary in the coal mine of industrial society, we need to start preparing to return to an agricultural way of life.

Photo credit:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jessicareeder/ / CC BY-SA 2.0

Share this entry

The New Robber Barons

image002Previously, Marcy Wheeler noted the unsavory blending of the private interests of health insurance companies with the power and hand of the US government:

It’s one thing to require a citizen to pay taxes–to pay into the commons. It’s another thing to require taxpayers to pay a private corporation, and to have up to 25% of that go to paying for luxuries like private jets and gyms for the company CEOs.

It’s the same kind of deal peasants made under feudalism: some proportion of their labor in exchange for protection (in this case, from bankruptcy from health problems, though the bill doesn’t actually require the private corporations to deliver that much protection).In this case, the federal government becomes an appendage to do collections for the corporations.

The reason this matters, though, is the power it gives the health care corporations. We can’t ditch Halliburton or Blackwater because they have become the sole primary contractor providing precisely the services they do. And so, like it or not, we’re dependent on them. And if we were to try to exercise oversight over them, we’d ultimately face the reality that we have no leverage over them, so we’d have to accept whatever they chose to provide. This bill gives the health care industry the leverage we’ve already given Halliburton and Blackwater.

Marcy termed this being “On The Road To Neo-feudalism” and then followed up with a subsequent post noting how much the concept was applicable to so much of the American life and economy, especially through the security/military/industial complex so intertwined with the US government.

Marcy Wheeler is not the only one recently noting the striking rise in power of corporate interests via the forceful hand of US governmental decree (usually at the direct behest of the corporate interests). Glenn Greenwald, expanding on previous work by Ed Kilgore, penned a dynamic description of the dirty little secret (only it is not little by any means) afoot in modern American socio-political existence:

But the most significant underlying division identified by Kilgore is the divergent views over the rapidly growing corporatism that defines our political system.

Kilgore doesn’t call it “corporatism” — the virtually complete dominance of government by large corporations, even a merger between the two — but that’s what he’s talking about. He puts it in slightly more palatable terms:

To put it simply, and perhaps over-simply, on a variety of fronts (most notably financial restructuring and health care reform, but arguably on climate change as well), the Obama administration has chosen the strategy of deploying regulated and subsidized private sector entities to achieve progressive policy results. This approach was a hallmark of the so-called Clintonian, “New Democrat” movement, and the broader international movement sometimes referred to as “the Third Way,” which often defended the use of private means for public ends.

As I’ve written for quite some time, I’ve honestly never understood how anyone could think that Obama was going to bring about some sort of “new” political approach or governing method when, as Kilgore notes, what he practices — politically and substantively — is the Third Way, DLC, triangulating corporatism of the Clinton era, just re-packaged with some sleeker and more Read more

Share this entry

The DOMA Decisions In The 9th Circuit

I have had several people ask me off blog about the “opinions” on the Defense Of Marriage Act (DOMA) that have surfaced recently in the 9th Circuit. I may write more later; but for now I want to lay out the sequence of facts and actions and start the discussion.

The current issue really took flight last month when 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski entered an order dated November 19, 2009 on the matter of Karen Golinski, a staff attorney for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Judicial branch employees such as Golinski are Federal employees and therefore have their benefits administered by the Office of Personnel Management (the same folks Obama and Harry Reid want to administer their poor excuse of a substitute for the Public Option). Based upon the OPM’s stated position, the contracted benefits carrier (Blue Cross/Blue Shield) refused to provide health benefits for her same sex legal spouse, Amy Cunninghis.

From Judge Kosinski’s November 19 Order:

Karen Golinski has been denied a benefit of federal employment because she married a woman rather than a man. I previously determined that violates this court’s guarantee of equal employment opportunity. To avoid a difficult constitutional problem, I harmonized the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 USC §7; the statutes creating the benefit program at issue, the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), 5 USC §8901 et seq.; and this court’s commitment to equal employment opportunity.

I then entered [an] order

No “party or individual aggrieved” by my decision appealed it.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AO) complied with my order and submitted Ms. Golinski’s form 2089 to the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Servie Benefit Plan, Ms. Golinski’s health insurance carrier. That’s as it should be; the AO is subject to the “supervision and direction” of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 28 USC §604(a), and I exercised authority delegated by the Judicial Conference when I ordered relief. After the AO submitted Ms. golinski’s form, I thought this matter had concluded.

The Executive Branch, acting through the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), thought otherwise. It directed the insurance carrier not to process Ms. Golinski’s form 2089, thwarting the relief I had ordered. (citations omitted)

That is the basic tale of Golinski and Kozinski. Since the November 19 Order the above language was taken from, the situation has become even more exacerbated by the intransigence of the Obama Administration and its OPM which, either comically or tragically depending on one’s view, is headed by John Berry who the Administration made a big show of touting as its highest ranking openly gay official.

The irony just oozes. After further refusal and contempt of his clear order, which the Administration never appealed, Read more

Share this entry

Blago Begins His Rahm Play

I’ve been noting for months that Rod Blagojevich would make a big deal out of the conversations his people had with Rahm about gaming the election for Rahm’s former seat. If for no other reason than Blago claims Rahm gave him the idea behind one of the charges, Blago has every incentive to embarrass Rahm thoroughly over the course of his trial.

And, not surprisingly, Blago has made the first move in that play.

Rod Blagojevich’s lawyers want the FBI to give up details of interviews conducted last year of President Obama, his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, White House adviser Valerie Jarrett and others as part of the investigation into the former governor.

In a Friday filing, Blagojevich attorneys also asked for information regarding first lady Michelle Obama. However, a source said late Friday that the FBI never interviewed the first lady.

Prosecutors may well delay (that’s certainly what Fitz did in the CIA Leak case, where he turned over materials on prosecution witnesses just weeks before the trial started).

But I can imagine that Obama would prefer to put off this little side show until health care gets done–if it does get done. And I imagine Blago knows that well.

Share this entry

Baucus’ Girlfriend Helped Arrange His Separation

Okay, this is just creepy, but creepy in terms that may impact politics more than Tiger Woods taking a hiatus from golf:

The Missoulian newspaper today disclosed that Sen. Max Baucus’s future girlfriend, Melodee Hanes, was involved in discussions with the senator’s divorce lawyer in 2007 while serving on the Montana Democrat’s Senate staff. The Montana newspaper quoted from billing records submitted by Baucus’s lawyer, Ronald F. Waterman, in Helena.

Main Justice obtained a copy of the billing records. Click here to see them.

The records show that Hanes – whom Baucus later recommended to the White House as a finalist for Montana’s U.S. Attorney – consulted with the divorce lawyer on such delicate matters as how to determine the value of the home Baucus shared with his then-wife, Wanda, in Washington’s exclusive Georgetown section.

Mind you, nothing about this development (unlike the fact that MaxTax nominated his girlfriend to be US Attorney and that he brought her on a trip to Dubai) is ethically scandalous. MaxTax just had his then State Director and now girlfriend handle discussions with the lawyers drawing up his separation agreement with his then wife.

Indeed, at one level this proves the point Baucus’ office has been making–that Baucus’ relationship with Hanes (which reportedly started in June 2008) had nothing to do with his split with his ex-wife.

But it is all rather, um, cozy.

Update: It gets creepier. Baucus’ then wife, Wanda, didn’t know that he was scheming on a separation at the time.

Wanda Baucus, the senator’s second wife, said Friday that she knew nothing about the 2007 meetings and that the couple had not at that point discussed getting a divorce.

“I think this whole thing is very sad. It’s not the way you do things,” she said in an interview.

[snip]

“Ending a 25-year marriage is a serious undertaking that should be discussed first within the family,” Wanda Baucus said. “There’s no justification for the staff being involved in such private matters.”

Which I guess means Baucus’ then State Director and now girlfriend knew that he was splitting before his then wife did.

Share this entry

ABC Returns the Blackwater Focus to Pakistan

ABC has now caught up to Jeremy Scahill. In this Blackwater installment, they describe sketchy details of two Blackwater operations in Afghanistan/Pakistan, one in 2003, and one in 2006.

CIA officials acknowledge that two private contractors were killed in Afghanistan in 2003 when they and other members of a CIA paramilitary team were in a firefight with Taliban fighters on a remote road.

In another case, in 2006, 12 Blackwater “tactical action operatives” were recruited for a secret raid into Pakistan by the U.S. military’s Joint Special Operations Command, according to a military intelligence planner. The target of the planned raid, code-named Vibrant Fury, was a suspected al Qaeda training camp, according to the planner, who said he did not know the outcome of the mission.

It’s not clear whether this on the record discussion of planning for an op in 2003 is the same one named above, in which two contractors (presumably BW) were killed. But note the explanation: a desire to avoid oversight.

A U.S. Army officer who ran human intelligence collections activities in Afghanistan in 2003, Tony Shaffer, says he never worked directly with Blackwater personnel but frequently encountered them in secret operations run by the military and the CIA.

“I actually met with the CIA and Blackwater operatives who were working together, totally hand in glove, to conduct operational planning and support of their objectives, which are paramilitary operations along the border,” said Shaffer, then a Major but now a Lieutenant Colonel who teaches at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies.

“The idea was to bring to bear additional resources for specific special operations missions,” he said. “The purpose for that, in my judgment, may have been to avoid some level of oversight.”

In 2006, the purpose of using BW was to provide forces that were otherwise unavailable because they were occupied in Iraq.

In the case of Operation Vibrant Fury, military personnel say the decision to request Blackwater personnel came after a request for military “tier one” operatives was denied.

Read more

Share this entry