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.
Full Version: Private armys
You may want to review the history of the British East India Company 
~J
~J
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You really think they'll take responsibility for it if contract or law specifies it?
~J
~J
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.
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.
| QUOTE (nezumi) |
| But all contractors want to get paid, so if they want to stay in business, they make sure they do that bare minimum. |
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
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Cthulhudreams) |
| 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. |
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.
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.
Still not new, see again John Company.
~J
~J
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi) | ||
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 |
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) |
| 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. |
Source?
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) |
| 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. |
I'd love to see actual proof of that statement. Any prosecution covers a lot more territory than just killing people.
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.
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
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
| QUOTE |
| "8) CPA Order Number 17 (Revised), Status of Coalition Provisional Authority, MNF-Iraq, Certain Missions and Personnel in Iraq This Order shall not apply to Order Number 17. |
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.
| QUOTE (mfb) |
| 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. |
Nope. No one who is not actually in the military is culpable under UCMJ.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) |
| Nope. No one who is not actually in the military is culpable under UCMJ. |
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.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) |
| The Blackwater guy apparently "slipped on the stairs" on the way back though. |
Did he land on some bullets?
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.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy @ Oct 3 2007, 02:17 PM) |
| 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. |
The CPA met its dissolution in 2004, therefore its agreements and laws no longer stand. Check out the home page:
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/
Anyone can be put under UCMJ if the government extends to them the contractual opportunity to do so. There is no restriction that people under the UCMJ be military employees, in a war zone, or even American citizens.
It is possible that the current contractors are working under contracts which are far too open-ended, that fail to put reasonable limits on their actions. This is especially true if, at the time, the theater they were operating in had no effective rule of law (which may be the case under the now-defunct CPA). However, if you write appropriate contracts, if you are in a nation which has not been intentionally meddled with to make huge legal holes for security contractors, Blackwater is not some sort of big, bad, scary threat (at least no more so than any other group of big, bad, scary, armed men paid by an overbearing, imperialistic government).
| QUOTE (nezumi) | ||
The CPA met its dissolution in 2004, therefore its agreements and laws no longer stand. Check out the home page: http://www.iraqcoalition.org/ Anyone can be put under UCMJ if the government extends to them the contractual opportunity to do so. There is no restriction that people under the UCMJ be military employees, in a war zone, or even American citizens. |
Read the last order of the CPA. Order 17 is still in effect. Under current Iraqi law they have immunity. I provided the relevant quote once already.
http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/2..._Directives.pdf
| QUOTE |
"8) CPA Order Number 17 (Revised), Status of Coalition Provisional Authority, MNF-Iraq, Certain Missions and Personnel in Iraq This Order shall not apply to Order Number 17. |
mfb, no law really does apply to most of the security firms in Iraq. Iraqi law doesn't apply, the supreme court is hazy on whether US law can apply to US citizens for actions taken outside of the US. The UCMJ doesn't apply because they work through the state department. They aren't serving with the military and they aren't accompanying the military. They are serving with and accompanying the State Department.
Moon-Hawk, he apparently broke his neck.
It's stupid, it's asinine, but the security firms and their employees have immunity for anything and everything they do in Iraq. Lot's of legal wrangling went into their contracts and how they were hired to ensure that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
| QUOTE |
| 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. |
Computer crimes are covered under several different international treaties. So is child prostitution.
| QUOTE |
| 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). |
Iraq isn't under the CPA. It is a sovereign nation. Whether or not it can revoke order 17 is unknown but it is known that they have never even tried and it is still in force, meaning full immunity under Iraqi law.
Even though Iraq can't enforce any law that the US doesn't agree with (Blackwater is more than capable of taking out the entire Iraqi military on their own) they still technically count as sovereign.
And no US citizen can be charged with war crimes or crimes agaisnt humanity either. The US doesn't recognize any international body as having any authority over any US citizen.
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.
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.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (Emperor Tippy) |
| And no US citizen can be charged with war crimes or crimes agaisnt humanity either. |
Yes, actually, they can. The US may not recognize the charge, and may not respond to requests for extradition for trial, but any legal organization (there's probably a better term, but it's tired) may charge any individual with anything. Enforcement is the sticking point.
~J
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.
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.
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!
"'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!
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.
Attempting to try an American citizen under the ICC would be a bad idea of the highest order.
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.
IMO, Blackwater is a Merc. organization and should be treated as such, next question please.
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.
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.
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.
Alright, I'll bite, why do you say that?
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!!!!!!!".
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!!!!!!!".
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.
1.) Pinkert0w3d!
and
2.) Hyzmarca wins this thread.
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.
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.
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.
| QUOTE (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. |
Yeah, I find it surprising as well. It hasn't been a secret that they were over their or what they were doing.
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.
| QUOTE (SuperFly) |
| after they've done so many things for this establishment that regular forces 'aren't allowed to'. |
In general, when national armies aren't allowed to do things, there are reasons for it.
~J
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.
Sometimes, the reasons why national armies aren't allowed to do something are idiotic.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.