Blackwater held accountable for vital missions
To the editor:
John L. Smith's Tuesday column, ("Under Blackwater, our troops would finally make a killing for killing") was emblematic of the type of extreme misinformation that surrounds Blackwater's important work for the U.S. government in Iraq.
While the errors contained in the column are many, they can be summed up in the following excerpt: "Blackwater personnel receive superior pay and benefits with much less important duty. They often have better equipment at their disposal. And then there are the rules. There really are none."
Blackwater protects U.S. officials so the military can focus on its mission. During our 17,000 missions in Iraq, 27 of our personnel have lost their lives. However, no individual we have protected has been killed or seriously injured. We consider our responsibility to protect U.S. government employees, members of Congress and other diplomats in Iraq to be a very important duty.
When you compare military compensation -- which includes base pay plus housing, tax benefits, education assistance, bonuses, retirement benefits and other benefits -- to the compensation offered Blackwater contractors (base pay only), the two are essentially equal.
As for the rules, Blackwater operates under detailed contracts with the U.S. government that provide intensive government oversight, direction and control. Blackwater's contracts with the U.S. government dictate almost every aspect of operation and contract performance, including the hiring, vetting guidelines, background checks, screening, training standards, rules of force and standards of conduct.
While opinions on Blackwater may differ, your readers deserve the facts.
Anne E. Tyrrell
WASHINGTON, D.C.
THE WRITER IS DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR BLACKWATER WORLDWIDE.
Cutting corners
To the editor:
It's interesting that so many airlines have had to cancel flights and ground planes due to their failure to uphold safety protocols. They have either ignored or bypassed the regulations to properly inspect their equipment, potentially putting at risk the lives of millions of people throughout the world.
And for what? To avoid having to reduce the number of flights they can offer? Hmmm. Isn't that what they've just done?
They are in far worse shape now than they would have been if they would have just done it right the first time.
Lee Phillips
LAS VEGAS
Equal treatment
To the editor:
I read in Monday's Review-Journal that illegal immigrants from Central America are treated in a very inhumane way in Mexico, where violations of their civil rights are par for the course.
Imagine for a moment if we were to treat illegal Mexican immigrants the same way. There would be hell to pay, and some very loud complaints at the United Nations and, of course, in the court of world opinion.
Lest we forget, the Mexican "authorities" can mistreat in many horrible ways the Central Americans because Mexico is a "law-abiding and sovereign nation."
I say what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Don Mendez
KINGMAN, ARIZ.
Boondoggle, Part I
To the editor:
Regarding the Las Vegas Monorail: The only people who are making money off this boondoggle are those on the payroll. It has never, and never will, break even.
If they build an extension to McCarran International Airport, ridership will probably increase, but costs will skyrocket.
Here's the problem: The monorail folks are going to come calling for taxpayer money. Taxpayers -- you and I -- will become the ones who start paying for this loser.
If you were arriving at McCarran, would you take the monorail? Tourists simply aren't going to ride the monorail to someplace that gets them, and their luggage, within only a half-mile of their resort.
The Las Vegas Monorail should be required to use whatever funds it has left to dismantle this huge future eyesore. It's time to put this elephant down.
J.R. Malefyt
LAS VEGAS
Boondoggle, Part II
To the editor:
One has to question who was responsible for organizing the Clark County Democratic Convention. The initial caucus experience was a fiasco; the first scheduled Democratic Convention had to be rescheduled; and finally, my experience with the recessed Democratic Convention patterned the first two experiences.
As an alternate delegate, having not received an official credential in the mail, I was advised by my precinct captain to call the appropriate headquarters to take care of the problem. Personal information was requested and given. I was assured that I would be on the "flag list" when I arrived to vote on Saturday morning, April 12, at the Thomas & Mack Center. Needless to say, I was not listed anywhere.
The people of Nevada should question whether the caucus process is an actual representation of their voting status.
Laura MacDonald
LAS VEGAS
