Private armys, real life gets closer to SR Options

[nezumi]

[Emperor Tippy]

[mfb]

a legal haze is not the same as a complete lack of jurisdiction. it just means no decision has been made as to what jurisdiction they fall under. up till now, there hasn't been any pressure to make a decision. as long as they keep their heads down, no pressure will be applied. more screwups like the one last month will increase pressure, and a decision will be made.

[Emperor Tippy]

Actually the Supreme court has ruled both ways in a bunch of tight opinions. A US citizen committing a crime against a US citizen can be charged under US law even if said crime was legal in the country it happened in. The US can make a treaty with another nation that makes it a crime for a US citizen to do somethign illegal in the US but legal in that country and allows them to be tried under US law in US courts.

Any crime committed on a military base or embassy falls under US jurisdiction regardless of the citizenship of any of the parties involved. And IIRC if its on a military base the UCMJ applies.

Whether or not a US citizen doing something that is legal in a foreign country with which the US doesn't have one of those treaties is culpable under US law has never been decided.

[Emperor Tippy]

Oh, and according to a July 2007 report from the Congressional Research Service the Iraqi government still has no authority over private security firms contracted by the U.S. government.

[nezumi]

Like I said, people have been put in jail for going overseas with the intention of seeking out child prostitution, regardless as to the nation they're going to. People have been put in jail for computer crime against US interests while the person in question was overseas.

Given that Iraq under the CPA is basically under the control of the US and Britain, I think it could be argued that US citizens there would fall under US or British law (if we ever get to the point of someone pressing the point).

[Emperor Tippy]

[Asheron]

According to "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)" http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm (scroll all the way to the bottom) , Blackwater's contractors could theoretically be declared mercenaries and tried as common criminals, because mercenaries don't get any protection under international law.

A couple of Brits and an American were executed as mercenaries in 1976 for their roles in the Angolan civil war http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/s...000/2520575.stm

Unfortuntately, Blackwater contractors are a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). so they might not be designated as mercenaries.

I'm sure any outcome in the forseeable future will be bogged down in legal, moral, and political quagmires.

[Emperor Tippy]

They can't be designated as mercenaries for exactly that reason.

And even if they were they can't be tried for war crimes or anything else by any international body. The US doesn't recognize any of them as having any jurisdiction over any US citizen.

[Kagetenshi]

[Emperor Tippy]

Put it this way, any international body that holds an American citizen against their will, tries them for a crime, and either puts them to death or imprisons them is considered a terrorist organization by the US. If any person related to the organization enters the US or any nation with which the US has an extradition treaty they are to be arrested and held for kidnapping and any other applicable crimes.

So if the ICC and UN want to be labeled as terrorist organizations and have their prisoner forcible extradited from their care they are free to prosecute an american citizen for war crimes.

[Asheron]

Americans have been executed as mercenaries before (check my previous post for an example), and PMCs should be illegal under the Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1892:

"'an individual employed by the Pinkerton Detective Agency, or similar organization, may not be employed by the government of the United States.' GAO wrote that in 1978, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the statute to mean that an organization was similar to the Pinkerton Detective Agency if it offered for hire the services of 'mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards.'"

http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298370.htm
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0806/082306m1.htm

According to the GAO website (first link):

"Additionally, an interim amendment to Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) parts 212, 225, and 252, published in the Federal Register on June 16, 2006, states that although contingency contractor personnel may be authorized to use force as part of security responsibilities, they are prohibited from participating in direct combat activities. The amendment, which is intended to conform the DFARS to DoDI No. 3020.41, states as follows:


Private security contractor personnel are also authorized to use deadly force when necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/persons, consistent with the mission statement contained in their contract. It is the responsibility of the combatant commander to ensure that the private security contract mission statements do not authorize the performance of any inherently Governmental military functions, such as preemptive attacks, or any other types of attacks. Otherwise, civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces lose their law of war protections from direct attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities."

and

"If consistent with applicable U.S., [host nation], and international law, and relevant SOFAs [status of forces agreements] or other international agreements and this Instruction, a defense contractor may be authorized to provide security services for other than uniquely military functions. Contracts for security services shall contain provisions informing the contractor of any known or potentially hazardous situations. Whether a particular use of contract security personnel to protect military assets is permissible is dependent on the facts and requires legal analysis. Variables such as the nature of the operation, the type of conflict, any applicable status agreement related to the presence of U.S. forces, and the nature of the activity being protected require case-by-case determinations. The use of force by contingency contractor personnel is often strictly limited by laws and not protected by SOFA provisions. Contingency contractor personnel providing security services and who exceed the limits imposed by applicable law may be subject to prosecution."

Unfortunately, it seems that the government decided security contracts don't violate the Anti Pinkerton Act because "GAO rejected the protester's argument. It cited a passage in Instruction 3020, on contractor personnel accompanying the U.S. armed forces, which specifies that contractors operating near major combat operations can be authorized to guard military supply routes, facilities, personnel or property" (second link, very bottom)

Sorry for the extra long post!

[Emperor Tippy]

Americans have been executed as mercenaries in the past, yes. But after the ICC was created the US went positively draconian. Any nation that doesn't ratify a treaty with the US saying that it won't turn over American citizens to the ICC loses all military aid or financial aid that the US gives it (with a few exceptions). And the real gem is the so called Hague Invasion act. It authorizes and encourages the president to forcibly extract any American citizen being held or tried by the ICC.

Attempting to try an American citizen under the ICC would be a bad idea of the highest order.

[Lindt]

And this mess is why layers should be shot on sight.

IMO, Blackwater is a Merc. organization and should be treated as such, next question please.

[mfb]

well, that's the thing. they are being treated as such. this is how the US treats them. it's not like Blackwater's a special case, they just happen to be the most well-known name.

[hyzmarca]

The Hauge Invasion Act was a brilliant idea, though on principal I'd just bomb the place to the ground now without waiting for some ICC prosecutor to get uppity. The institution itself is innately evil in the same sense that Asmodeus, Lord of the Nine Hells, is innately evil. While the ICC pretends to have the interests of peace and justice at heart, its sole purpose for existing is to sow dischord and strife, to flame the fires of war, to turn brother against brother and parent against child, to create and encourage genocides, ensuring that that death tolls are as high as is possible and to entice the weak-willed to the rape of children, predatory cannibalism, and the greatest depths of depravity.

In short, the purpose of the ICC is to manufacture genocides and other grave crimes by instigating and inflaming conflicts in Africa for the express purpose of keeping the African people down and preventing a peaceful united Africa from threatening European hegemony in the Eastern Hemisphere.

[nezumi]

Alright, I'll bite, why do you say that?

[hyzmarca]

The Lord's Resistance Army is a Christian paramilitary revolutionary organization, founded by Joseph Kony, that has been in conflict with the government of Uganda for 20 years with the propose of establishing a Christian theocratic state. Over these two decades, they've done the same twisted shit that every paramilitary resistance organization in Africa does, the forcible conscription of minors, systematic slaughter and mutilation of civilians in remote villages, systematic rape, sexual slavery, that sort of thing. Nothing particularly original, but very annoying nonetheless.

Anyway, Kony is tired of fighting, anyone would be after 20 years of getting nowhere, so he and his top Lieutenants have been attempting to negotiate peace with the government of Uganda and they are all willing to stand trial and admit their crimes in a traditional judicial ritual called Mato Oput, which will probably result in forgiveness rather than punishment. This is what the vast majority of Ugandans want, even those who have been victimized by the LRA, simply because they want to end the violence and get on with their lives.

The one and only obstacle to this is the ICC, which has filed indictments against LRA leaders and refuses to resend them, citing the backwards theory that European justice is somehow superior to African justice as their justification for intentionally damaging the peace process.

With an organization like the ICC around, peace and reconciliation are impossible. It refuses to accept anything less than the draconian punishments it provides and by doing so ensures that those who are most violent will fight as hard as they can to retain their power. And they know this. And they don't care. Or, more realistically, it is the entire point.

And, let's face it, the only people that are going to be targeted are Black Africans. No White person is ever going to stand trial before the ICC, simply because Africa is where all of the genocides are happening. It is just European colonialism in another form. The poor negros can't do anything without a White massah looking over their shoulders. That is the sentiment that created the ICC. And the ICC has every intention to metaphorically whip Uganda until they're all screaming "Tobyyyyyyy!!!!!!!".

[Wounded Ronin]

There are really only two more valid comments which may be added to this thread forever more. Those comments are:

1.) Pinkert0w3d!

and

2.) Hyzmarca wins this thread.

[SuperFly]

I'm pretty shocked that nobody knew about Blackwater until they started making the headlines for bogus investigations meant to take the heat off Bush & Co's fuck-ups. When I was in Falluja in '04/'05, Blackwater was all over the place, and had been there for some years.

It's a pity that they're now being crucified by the media and it looks like they'll be hung out to dry by the government after they've done so many things for this establishment that regular forces 'aren't allowed to'. Many of them are prior servicemen who don't mind risking their lives, but want to see a worthwhile paycheck for the effort.

A friend from high school was also part of Blackwater after serving two tours with the Rangers, he died stopping a mobile IED from killing the rest of his squad.

[mfb]

yeah... i mean, no offense to anyone, but how are there people who are just finding out about this? i remember them getting pretty heavy coverage back when the 'war' first got rolling, and they haven't exactly been low-profile in the time since.

[Emperor Tippy]

[nezumi]

Why? Because there's a large contingent of people who only learn what the idiot box tells them. So until they see some women on TV showing a few unfired 7.62 cartridges saying Blackwater shot those bullets through her house, they have no idea that group even existed.

[Kagetenshi]

[hyzmarca]

National armies aren't allowed to fire expanding ammunition. The reason for this is that Imperial Germany had recently adopted FMJ Spitzer rounds for its standard ammunition while Britain was adopting "Dum Dum" bullets which has exposed lead tips to aid expansion, making them significantly more lethal. The Germans found themselves at a disadvantage in the event of a conflict with Britain and wanted to even the playing field, insisting that expanding rounds by banned.


Sometimes, the reasons why national armies aren't allowed to do something are idiotic.