![]() |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]()
Post
#1
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 976 Joined: 16-September 04 From: Near my daughters, Lansdale PA Member No.: 6,668 ![]() |
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/
These are the guys in Iraq now, but you read about them or hear about them on the news and it seems pletty clear you are looking at an extraterritorial strike team. They have military grade weapons and do not answer to the police or army. the US State dept is supposed to hold their leash but are not watching them. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#2
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
You may want to review the history of the British East India Company :)
~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#3
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 ![]() |
I'm pretty sure you've been scooped a long time ago, but it's a continually evolving situation, so that's okay.
Blackwater and other military contractors are basically armies for hire, yes. And they will be doing increasing domestic work as well, simply because they're cheaper for the taxpayer than an actual federal employee. It won't be long before we see Blackwater and its ilk providing deadly force protection over things like nuclear plants, places where we need strong protection against 'terrorists', but it isn't cost effective to actually set an army post there. Whether Blackwater and the like are required to follow the rules of military justice depends solely on their contract. Unless otherwise specified, the only laws they are bound by are the laws of that country, and there they oftentimes get exceptions as a government contractor (for instance, they get access to hardware that I as a Joe consumer can't buy). Oftentimes they don't work under the supervision of a current federal employee, but I don't think doing otherwise would significantly help. How good or bad these guys can be depends almost completely on the contract. Like Ron Paul has said, if there were a $1b reward for finding Bin Laden, Bin Laden would be found by now, probably by people like this, and would cost the taxpayers $49b than it has so far. If these guys are required by contract to make sure they follow reasonable standards of law and ethics, they will do so because every level of the organization knows to do otherwise is to lose the contract (as opposed to federal employees, who think 'it's your job, if you want to do that stupid thing, go for it'.) As long as the company seriously pays out for dead soldiers (or dead civilians) they will make darn sure they invest in the best medical and safety equipment they can. Unfortunately, if they're not restricted in their contract as such, they can, and will be economically pushed to, provide unethical methods to reach their goals. So the problem ultimately leads not to the contractors, who most certainly do good work and save American lives, but to the people who need to define the rules of the game properly. To take it a step farther, on the one hand having them reduces government accountability to citizens, since it can pay these people to do things the gov't itself cannot or should not do. That certainly is a bad thing. Accountability is important. However I suspect that loophole will be closed soon, since Bush is using it to get around Congress. Additionally (wishful thinking) this may be a step towards empowering the individual again, and resurrecting the rights of citizens to form militias for their own defense and train and equip themselves against times of trouble. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#4
|
|
Creating a god with his own hands ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,405 Joined: 30-September 02 From: 0:0:0:0:0:0:0:1 Member No.: 3,364 ![]() |
what we need is a Battletech-style Mercenary Regulatory Commission.
not that it would work in most 3rd world areas. but it would help make mercs a shade whiter than they currently are. if you want the scoop on mercs, I would suggest the book "Corporate Warriors" and all the wikipedia articles on "Executive Outcomes", "Triple Canopy", and the revolution in Sierra Leone. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#5
|
|
Running Target ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 ![]() |
The most interesting part of the Blackwater company to me is the founder. A billionaire from his father's auto parts company, he went Special Forces (Navy SEAL, I think) and then formed his own mercenary company. If someone put that in a game, we'd call Bullshit so fast it wouldn't even be funny.
I heard an interesting report on Blackwater on NPR not too long ago, by the author of an article on them in the National Review (if memory serves). It said that a lot of SF people have gone to Blackwater because the pay is better (natch), but now Blackwater is facing a lot of competition from what they call "Two men and a laptop" companies which are basically fronts which bid on the jobs and staff up after they get them. Now that's Shadowrun. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#6
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 ![]() |
I hadn't heard about the "two men and a laptop" bidders. The problem with those people is they're likely not going to pay death benefits, so the people they hire are going to be less skilled (skilled people know when to walk away from a job), more poorly equipped, with less medical equipment available, and likely less responsible. It goes back to what I said, unless the contract or law specifies what the company is responsible for, they won't take responsibility for it.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#7
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
You really think they'll take responsibility for it if contract or law specifies it?
~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#8
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 ![]() |
Yes, because otherwise they lose the contract. I may be biased, since so much of my day to day work has to do with forming contracts on behalf of the government. I've seen a lot of sloppy contracts put together and, in general, contractors will do the bare minimum to get paid. But all contractors want to get paid, so if they want to stay in business, they make sure they do that bare minimum.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#9
|
|
Great Dragon ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 ![]() |
The way I see it Blackwater allows the President to put more fighters in Iraq without nearly as much political fallout when they get killed as would apply for the US military.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#10
|
|||
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
Punishment is very effective in discouraging punished conditions. However, the punished condition is not failing to uphold the contract or law, it is being identified as failing to uphold the contract or law. ~J |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#11
|
|
Runner ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 2,650 Joined: 21-July 07 Member No.: 12,328 ![]() |
I honestly think it is faintly absurd that government employees are being protected in hostile environments by private security contractors.
I know that if I was being dispatched to Afghanistan, I'd prefer a military security detail to a private sector one - while it may not be the case for a really high profile client, I'd feel like I had more chance of being part of the team. Plus the rates private security contractors are being paid is eye watering - it would seem much more effecitve to invest in your own military. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#12
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 ![]() |
Yes it is fairly absurd. Actually you would want a Blackwater team guarding you, statistically you will be safer. No one Blackwater has been guarding has been killed in Iraq. And they are actually cheaper. When you factor in all of the costs the military pays for outside of salary Blackwater is cheaper. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#13
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 976 Joined: 16-September 04 From: Near my daughters, Lansdale PA Member No.: 6,668 ![]() |
This is not just a corporate army Nezumi, that is what may have been reported before. the new element coming out is that they are not bound by local laws. They are not bound by the military code. They are operating in a field free of control. Only if they screw up enough to cause their corporate masters' grief are they in trouble. Smaller events are trickling out now.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#14
|
|
Manus Celer Dei ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,008 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 ![]() |
Still not new, see again John Company.
~J |
|
|
![]()
Post
#15
|
|||||
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 ![]() |
That is true. And identifying these things should be part of the contract (which is why you create and enforce a method of redressing grievances). Granted, Blackwater could still kill civilians and quietly bury them in the middle of the desert, engaging in crimes which would never be pinned to them, but that generally doesn't make a lot of business sense. Basically, if the contract says 'don't break local laws', the contractor will want to avoid breaking local laws, even when he doesn't believe he'll be caught, because it's just an unnecessary risk (assuming the 'in breach of contract' clause is sufficiently damaging, of course.) Since the contract doesn't really put the company in a place where it benefits from breaking local laws, and breaking laws is punished with sufficient financial damage, the corporation will invest in making sure no laws are broken. Two guys and a laptop corporations may operate differently, however, since they basically realize if they lose the contract they can just claim bankruptcy and start again where they left off. The punishment for non-compliance has no bite. Blackwater definitely IS cheaper. Why? They don't have as much overhead as government and focus a lot more on efficiency. Blackwater doesn't provide training, education assistance or guaranteed long-term medical care for its employees. It doesn't do R&D on new weapons systems. It doesn't have to support a top-heavy infrastructure and isn't bogged down with an annual budget approval process. That means it can cut costs significantly. Even though a GI makes less, he costs the taxpayer more than a Blackwater employee just because all the background work is done quicker and cheaper. DLN - I've not seen anything indicating that any mercenary organization is given diplomatic immunity or any similar power while operating overseas. So there's no reason to assume they are immune to prosecution from local laws. However, because they are men with big guns supported by the strongest military in the world on a job to kill bad guys, a lot of local governments may decide that pressing charges simply won't be effective or wise. In which case, they are still legally requires to follow local law, they just are unlikely to face punishment for breaking it. Some mercenary operations must obey military judicial code. It depends on the contract. AFAIK, the hired cooks and latrine diggers do not. Hired guards may or may not depending on the particular situation. That IS a problem, since everyone holding a gun in the name of the United States should be responsible to the US for acting in a responsible and dignified manner. Obviously they are not bound by US law, with a few exceptions (crimes while in an embassy, working abroad in order to have sex with a minor, etc.) and there's no reason they should be. |
||||
|
|||||
![]()
Post
#16
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 ![]() |
Every mercenary in Iraq right now is completely immune to any prosecution under Iraqi law. Blackwater could walk down the street and shoot everyone they see and it would be legal.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#17
|
|||
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,546 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 ![]() |
Source? |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#18
|
|||
Immoral Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 15,247 Joined: 29-March 02 From: Grimy Pete's Bar & Laundromat Member No.: 2,486 ![]() |
I'd love to see actual proof of that statement. Any prosecution covers a lot more territory than just killing people. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#19
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 ![]() |
the key there is "under Iraq law". i believe the contractors are subject to UCMJ, under which they may be remanded to Iraqi courts--but Iraq doesn't have first claim.
|
|
|
![]()
Post
#20
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 ![]() |
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/2...ith_Annex_A.pdf When the CPA gave up power to the Iraq government the government never rescinded the order. It's still in effect. See section 2 in the above link. And from the last order the CPA gave, the order turning over power and rescinding a bunch of orders, there is this gem. http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/2..._Directives.pdf
Every mercenary and foreign soldier in Iraq has total immunity from any and all persecution under Iraq law. The most the Iraqi government can do is rescind the firms license and ask them to leave. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#21
|
|||
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 ![]() |
Nope. No one who is not actually in the military is culpable under UCMJ. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#22
|
|||
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 ![]() |
that has never been true. civilians operating with the US military in time of war have always been subject to UCMJ, according to article 2, paragraph 10 of the UCMJ. as this article shows, the paragraph has been extended to cover civilians operating with the US military in combat zones, regardless of whether or not war has actually been declared. |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#23
|
|
Moving Target ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 418 Joined: 20-September 07 Member No.: 13,346 ![]() |
It doesn't actually do anything. None of the security personnel (such as Blackwater) actually fall under it. They are under the auspices of the State department and don't count as "serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field." The only time Blackwater is subject to the UCMJ is when they are actually on a US military base or embassy.
At least according to a JAG buddy. When a Blackwater guy sodomized a 12 year old Afghanistan boy to death in front of the boys father all they coudl do was get him fired. The Blackwater guy apparently "slipped on the stairs" on the way back though. Oh and that was about 2 months ago, well after congress changed the UCMJ. |
|
|
![]()
Post
#24
|
|||
Genuine Artificial Intelligence ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 4,019 Joined: 12-June 03 Member No.: 4,715 ![]() |
Did he land on some bullets? |
||
|
|||
![]()
Post
#25
|
|
Immortal Elf ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 11,410 Joined: 1-October 03 From: Pittsburgh Member No.: 5,670 ![]() |
you're making it sound like there is no law at all that applies to civilian contractors. while it may be true that many civilian contractors effectively operate outside the law a lot of the time, it's pretty easy to get them into someone's jurisdiction if enough of a stink is made about their actions.
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th May 2025 - 07:51 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.