OK, so we all know the public is upset with President Bush. But the new Reuters/Zogby poll shows that the public thinks even less of Congress. Why aren't we covering that more prominently?
I really think there is something in this poll that we should pay attention to. The pollsters said the mood of the country is "darker than dark." Interesting that the poll comes out a day after the stock market rushed forward a few hundred points. Inflation and unemployment still remain fairly low, productivity increased last month and the feds said yesterday that
the Consumer Price Index (CPI) dropped last month. (By the way, you can get the local CPI for many major metro areas
by clicking here. Click on the map found on the right-hand side of the page that I link to.)
Reuters says:
A paltry 11 percent rated Congress
positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.
The Reuters/Zogby Index, a new measure of the mood of the
country, dropped from 100 to 98.8 in the last month on worries
about the economy and fears of a recession, pollster John Zogby said.
"Since the last time we polled we have had the mortgage
crisis, and we are hearing the recession word a whole lot more
than we've heard it in the past," Zogby said.
"There are things that happened in the September polling
that drove the number down a bit, and they are mostly economic
worries," he added.
The Index, which debuts this month, combines responses to
10 questions on Americans' views about their leaders, the
direction of their country and their personal situations.
Polling for the Index began in July, and that month's results
provide the benchmark score of 100.
A score above 100 indicates the country's mood has improved
since July. A score below 100, like the one recorded in
September, shows the nation's mood getting worse. The RZI,
which will be released the third Wednesday of each month, had
remained at 100 in August.
"The public mood is not just dark. What's darker than
dark?" Zogby said. "The mood is getting ugly."
The national survey of 1,011 likely voters, taken September
13 through September 16, found barely one-quarter of Americans,
or 27 percent, believe the country is headed in the right
direction. Nearly 62 percent think the country is on the wrong
track.
About two-thirds of Americans think the value of their
homes will stay the same or drop in the next year, and about
one-third expect a recession in the next year amid a housing
slump and credit crunch.
The poll also found little confidence in U.S. foreign or
economic policy, with 68 percent of Americans rating economic
policy as just fair or poor and 73 percent calling foreign
policy either fair or poor.
How could you use your online journalism sites to give voice to the concerns that people have about Congress? What if you used your backpack journalists to follow a Congressperson around for a day or two and record what people say to him/her? I suspect a lot of people think their Congressperson is just fine. It's the rest of Congress that they think should get tossed out. It may just be the "institution" of government that angers people. You have to wonder: If there is that much discontent, how could it be possible for any senator or congressperson to be elected president?
This Wednesday, I spent most of the day teaching a high school journalism
class. I was struck by the outright display of anger and contempt the
students had for President Bush. When I pushed harder to find out
exactly what they were so angry about, they couldn't get very specific
except to mention Iraq and use words like "hate" and "stupid." I
have not seen anything like that since the '70s.
Private Security in Iraq
The public may be asking who these private security companies are that have tens of thousands of employees working in Iraq. The question moved to the front burner this week
when the Iraq government temporarily banned the North Carolina and Illinois-based
Blackwater USA after a shooting incident occurred, claiming civilians' lives in Baghdad.
Blackwater is one of the main private security companies working in Iraq.
Click here to see CNN's behind-the-scenes look at Blackwater. The other companies include
DynCorp International,
Triple Canopy and U.K.-based
Aegis.
Private security companies provide more manpower in Iraq than any of the allied nations except the U.S.
There are no iron-clad, government-supplied figures on how many private security employees are working in Iraq. The guesses range from 48,000 to less than half that.
Last summer, the
U.S. Government Accountability Office pegged the estimate at 181 security companies with 48,000 employees in Iraq. That figure doubled from what was found in a 2005 study.
A year later in July 2007, the
Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimated [PDF] there were
30,000 private security workers.
The CRS told Congress:
The numbers employed under U.S. government contracts in Iraq for functions once carried out by the U.S. military are but estimates. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 individuals perform protective security functions for private firms under U.S. government contracts. Of these, a little over 2,500 were serving under Department of State contracts as of May 2007. ... The great majority of the remainder are most likely under DOD contracts, although at least one other U.S. agency has contracted for private security personnel at some point.
The International Peace Operations
Association (IPOA), a trade group in Washington, D.C., that represents
companies doing business in Iraq, estimates the number to be even lower,
at around
20,000 workers.
Of course not all of the workers are American. The IPOA says only 10 percent of the private security workers in Iraq are American. The rest come from Iraq and elsewhere.
In fact, in this year's Congressional research briefing to Congress, you can read more about where the private contract workers come from.
Here are some fast facts taken from the briefing:
- Most individuals hired by the companies providing security services under U.S. government contracts or subcontracts are Iraqis, and a good number are third-country nationals.
- Of the 182,000 total contractors cited above, some 118,000 (i.e., about two-thirds) are Iraqis, and some 43,000 (about one-quarter) are third-country nationals.
- Only some 21,000 (a little over one-eighth) are Americans, according to the same news article.10 According to a DOD official, just 17% of the total 127,000 individuals working under DOD contracts or subcontracts in Iraq (i.e., somewhat over 21,000) are U.S. citizens, although the proportion may be different for private security contractors.
- Citizens of Chile, Fiji, Nepal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and other countries reportedly carry arms under private security contracts.
- Peter Singer of the Brookings Institution estimates that citizens of some 30 countries are employed by private security companies in Iraq.
Private Security in Wartime -- The history, the rules
The Congressional Research Service points out that the U.S. is unusually dependent on private contractors in Iraq compared to how other conflicts and wars have been fought. As the Congressional Research Service report points out, Congress has generally been comfortable with private contractors running food and laundry services for the military.
But in Iraq, things have changed. Private security contractors have now assumed a much larger role, partly because the U.S. is short on troops. And, of course, the private contractors -- while carrying guns and performing extremely dangerous work -- do not show up on the U.S. military casualty or deployment figures.
In July, the CRS reported to Congress:
From the information available in published sources, this apparently is the first time that the United States has depended on contractors to provide such extensive security in a hostile environment, although it has previously contracted for more limited security services in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and elsewhere.
In Iraq, private firms known as Private Security Companies (PSC) are currently providing security services such as the protection of individuals, non- military transport convoys, buildings and other economic infrastructure, as well as the training of Iraqi police and military personnel.
By providing security for reconstruction and stabilization efforts, private contractors contribute an essential service to U.S. and international efforts to bring peace to Iraq, according to many analysts and policymakers. Nonetheless, the use of armed contractors raises several concerns, including transparency and accountability.
Transparency issues include the lack of public information on the terms of their contracts, including their costs and the standards governing their hiring and performance, as well as the background and training of those hired under contract. The apparent lack of a practical means to hold contractors accountable under U.S. law for abuses and other transgressions, and the possibility that they could be prosecuted by foreign courts, is also a source of concern.
Contractors working with the U.S. military (or with any of the coalition forces) in Iraq are non-combatants who have no combat immunity under international law if they engage in hostilities, and whose conduct may be attributable to the United States. Section 522 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY2007 (P.L. 109-364) makes military contractors supporting the Armed Forces in Iraq subject to court-martial, but until the Department of Defense publishes implementing regulations, it is more likely that contractors who commit crimes in Iraq would be prosecuted under criminal statutes that apply extraterritorially or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States, or by means of the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).
Iraqi courts do not have jurisdiction to prosecute contractors without the permission of the relevant member country of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq. It is possible that some
contractors may remain outside the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, civil or military, for
improper conduct in Iraq. contractors
How Many Private Contractors Have Died in Iraq?
Information from the July congressional briefing says:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers data reportedly show that an increasing proportion of registered supply convoys has been attacked, rising from 5.5% in 2005 to 14.7% for 2007 through May 10 (i.e., about the first 18 weeks of 2007).
Of those involved in the 12,860 Corps-registered convoys that transported supplies in Iraq from August 2004 through May 10, 2007, some 132 “security employees and drivers” were killed and 416 were wounded, according to a report on that data. (The cause of death and injury was not reported, however, and may include accidents and well as shooting deaths. The totals for all convey may well be substantially higher as there are likely deaths and injuries associated with convoys that are not registered with the Corps’ Reconstruction Logistics Directorate.)
Convoy-related deaths appear to be a significant portion of total private contractor deaths. An earlier news report cited Department of Labor statistics showing 917 private contractors have died and more than 12,000 have been wounded in battle or in job-related accidents in the four years since the war (i.e., March 2003 through March 2007); of these, some 146 died and another 3,430 were wounded or injured in the first three months of 2007. During that same period, some 244 U.S. soldiers died, according to the news report.
What Is a Private Contractor's Protection under the Geneva Conventions?
The CRS says:
The Geneva Conventions and other laws of war do not appear to forbid the use of civilian contractors in a civil police role in occupied territory, in which case they might be authorized to use force when absolutely necessary to defend persons or property. Given the fluid nature of the current security situation in Iraq, it may sometimes be difficult to discern whether civilian security guards are performing law-enforcement duties or are engaged in combat. If their activity amounts to combat, they would become lawful targets for enemy forces during the fighting if captured by an enemy government (if one should emerge), could potentially be prosecuted as criminals for their hostile acts.
On the other hand, if the conflict in Iraq is a non-international armed conflict within the meaning of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (CA3), customary international law would no longer distinguish between “unlawful” and “lawful combatants.” Contractors captured by enemy forces who had engaged in hostilities would be entitled to the minimum set of standards set forth in CA3, but their right to engage in hostilities in the first place would likely be determined in accordance with the prevailing local law. In this case, Iraqi law, including CPA orders that have not been rescinded, apply.
Are the Security Workers “Mercenaries”?
According to Congressional testimony, employees of companies like Blackwater earn about $500 a day working in Iraq. The U.S. government paid more than twice that amount per day per employee. Are these security workers "mercenaries?" The briefing that CRS gave Congress appears to answer that question with a qualified "yes":
Mercenaries are persons who are not members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict but participate in combat for personal gain. They may be authorized to fight by a party to the conflict, but their allegiance to that party is conditioned on monetary payment rather than obedience and loyalty.
For this reason, mercenaries are sometimes treated as “unlawful combatants” or “unprivileged belligerents,” even though their employment is not strictly prohibited by international law. As discussed above, they may not qualify for POW treatment under GPW, and of those meeting the definition of “mercenary” under the 1977 Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, 60 are explicitly denied combatant status. Because mercenaries are not entitled to combat immunity, they may be tried, and if found guilty, punished for their hostile actions (including by the death penalty), even if such actions would be lawful under the law of war if committed by a soldier. Soldiers with a nationality other than that of the party on whose side they fight are not automatically considered mercenaries.
Article 47 of Protocol I defines a mercenary as follows:
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.
Under this definition, it appears that contractor personnel who are not U.S. nationals, the nationals of other coalition allies or Iraqi nationals, and who were hired to — and in fact do — take part in hostilities might be considered to be mercenaries, assuming the definition in Protocol I applies as customary international law in the context of the current hostilities in Iraq. On the other hand, it is not altogether clear what constitutes “direct participation in an armed conflict,” and some of the other requirements are inherently difficult to prove, particularly the element of motivation.
There are many Blackwater critics, including private documentaries.
Click here for a sample.
This is a 10-minute excerpt from the documentary "Iraq for Sale."
YouTube is loaded with videos of what are purported to be Blackwater employees working in Iraq. This is
Blackwater's media page, which includes lots of links.
The End of the Paid News Sites
We may, one day, look back on this week and see it as the week something big happened in online news sites.
The New York Times started giving away previously for-pay online content this week, and
Rupert Murdoch indicated that
The Wall Street Journal's online version may soon be free once he completes his purchase of the
Journal. The decision to "go free" is not final yet, partially because the
Journal still has just shy of a million subscribers who are willing to pay. But Murdoch said he is leaning that way.
The big factor that sets apart
The Wall Street Journal from other publications is that many subscribers pay for the
Journal with their business accounts rather than with money from their own pockets. Advertisers are willing to pay top-dollar to be on the for-pay
Journal site because the readership is loyal and tends to read the site more in-depth, according to an internal Dow Jones review
of WSJ.com. Lehman Brothers estimates
that the average page view on WSJ.com commands four times the ad
revenue of a page view on
The New York Times site, which has more readers (see chart below.)
I am especially pleased that the
Times has made the last 20 years of its online newspaper archive available to the public. The
Times will open its archives from 1987 to the
present, as well as its 1851 to 1922 archive. The
Times will still charge for some material from the
period 1923 to 1986.
In announcing its change,
the Times says:
The Financial Times still charges for access to selected material online. ...
The
Los Angeles Times tried that model in 2005, charging for access to its
arts section, but quickly dropped it after experiencing a sharp decline
in Web traffic.
These are trying times, as you probably know, for online sites. As the
Wall Street Journal itself
points out:
Last month some newspaper groups, including
McClatchy Co. and Hearst Corp. newspapers, saw traffic to their Web sites fall while
Yahoo News and
Time Warner Inc.'s CNN Web sites posted strong growth, according to Nielsen/NetRatings.
The rate of growth of online-newspaper ads dropped to
19.3% during the second quarter of 2007, down from a growth rate of
33.2% during the second quarter of 2006, according to the Newspaper
Association of America.
The slowing growth online coincides with accelerating
declines in newspapers' print-ad revenue, casting doubt on whether
newspapers will ever be able to offset their losses in print with gains
on the Internet. Online ads still make up a small portion of total
newspaper revenues, just 7% of the $11.3 billion total print- and
online-newspaper ad revenues during the second quarter.
Still, given the downward spiral of print revenues,
most newspaper executives feel they have no choice but to grab as big a
slice of the online-ad pie as they can.
The Times is the latest in a string of papers to
abandon attempts to generate subscription revenue online. Slate, the
online magazine now owned by Washington Post Co., started out as a free site owned by Microsoft
Corp. in 1996, only to charge a $19.95 subscription fee two years later
and then drop the fee a year after that, citing the boom in online
advertising. Tribune Co.'s Los Angeles Times, after a two-year experiment, stopped charging for online access to its entertainment listings in 2005.
![[chart]](http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/MK-AL922B_PAIDV_20070918211641.gif)
Wall Street Journal
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.
Editor's
Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story
excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as
original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly
from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided
whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends on the
accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and
inaccuracies found will be corrected.
If you're as naive as your writing suggests, I don't...
