Darius11 12 #1 August 25, 2009 http://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/news/2009-08-07/ex-employees-claim-blackwater-pimped-out-young-iraqi-girls/ This interviwe is what made me search for the link above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0NZOw5tnGY This also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. How should Blackwater be treated? Do you view Blackwater as something to be ashamed of? Or are you proud of them? I agree with Jeremy I think they are unconstitutional, and Un-American. Not to mention any armed group who is overly religious worries me. Oh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too?I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #2 August 25, 2009 I think use of mercenaries, in general, are a bad idea. I think using them in a COIN environment is an especially horrible idea. On the one hand, you have members of the US military who are motivated to end the war successfully so that they aren't leaving their families every other year to go to some shithole in the Middle East where people are trying to blow them up. On the other hand, you have the mercs of Xe/Blackwater, who depend on the conflict continuing for their paycheck and fell under pretty much no legal rules whatsoever. Which of these two groups is more likely to contribute to successfully ending the COIN fight in our favor? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #3 August 25, 2009 QuoteThis also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. We've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. QuoteHow should Blackwater be treated? Like any other company that has broken the law - prosecute the ones that do the crime. QuoteI agree with Jeremy I think they are unconstitutional, and Un-American. Not to mention any armed group who is overly religious worries me. Odd - you only seem to have that problem when they're Westerners or Israelis. QuoteOh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? Wrong again - contractors are NOT immune to prosecution.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #4 August 25, 2009 QuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. Odd thing to say in a war without battle lines? QuoteLike any other company that has broken the law - prosecute the ones that do the crime. Blackwaters products is violence, and executing military-Like operations.’ Also they can not be prosecuted for their crimes. QuoteOdd - you only seem to have that problem when they're Westerners or Israelis. I am a US citizen and find it odd that hypocrisy is so accepted by my fellow citizens. If we call others barbaric or fault them for the way they do things? Should we at least not follow our own advice? If you didn;t know i was born in Iran would you even say that? Says more about you then me bro. QuoteWrong again - contractors are NOT immune to prosecution. Read again QuoteOh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? We bring them back and give them 6 months for murder. Yea thats fair.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,123 #5 August 25, 2009 QuoteLike any other company that has broken the law - prosecute the ones that do the crime. Which raises an interesting question I don't have an answer for. Hopefully one of the legal scholars on this board cna help me. Can US courts process cases against US citizens for crimes committed in other countries? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #6 August 25, 2009 I'm no legal scholar, but if I recall correctly for the case of Iraq, it depends on what the SOFA (or whatever other document supports troops and their civilian support being in the country) says. For example, the current Iraqi security agreement which allows US troops to be in Iraq says that US troops can be prosecuted by an Iraqi court if they commit a crime there under certain circumstances (not being on duty at the time of the crime, etc.). I'm pretty sure when we first invaded, Blackwater fell under the same rules as US troops, which basically meant that they'd be tried by a US court if they did something illegal. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #7 August 25, 2009 QuoteI agree with Jeremy I think they are unconstitutional, and Un-American. Can you elaborate on this statement so I can understand it better?www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #8 August 25, 2009 QuoteOdd thing to say in a war without battle lines? How is this odd? Battle lines are not what are used to determine offensive troops from security_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #9 August 25, 2009 Unconstitutional because we believe in a system of checks and balances. This is a military operation paid for with our tax dollars, that answers to one branch, and is not supervised. Blackwater is our insurgency. Un-American because I believe we stand for justice or at least say we do. To immune a mercenary group from prosecution simply because they are Christian or American is hypocrisy. We believe in law, and no one is above it, or at least that’s what we strive for as would any other civil society. Other problem- When we pay our troops what we do and then offer Blackwater operatives huge salaries to be our privet army we lose the very people we trained in our military. It is counter-productive. We offer more money, and less laws, and regulation so we lose solders real solders to them as well.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #10 August 25, 2009 QuoteUnconstitutional because we believe in a system of checks and balances. This is a military operation paid for with our tax dollars, that answers to one branch, and is not supervised. It looks like it is actually answering to another branch. There's trials being held by the courts. If you are referring "answering to one branch" as taking orders from one branch, you have described practically every govt job, contract, ect ect. QuoteTo immune a mercenary group from prosecution simply because they are Christian or American is hypocrisy. How are they immune?_____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #11 August 25, 2009 http://washingtonindependent.com/23037/are-iraq-contractors-subject-to-us-law Read the above to get an idea of the cluster fuck the Bush administration has caused purposely so the blackwater guys can do what they wish. If we do not respect the UN, and at the same time state that no US contractors can be tried by the Iraqi or any foreign court, and at the same time know that they are immune from US law as it only pertains to within the us boarders. Then who do they answer to? No one.I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nanook 1 #12 August 25, 2009 QuoteIf we do not respect the UN, and at the same time state that no US contractors can be tried by the Iraqi or any foreign court, and at the same time know that they are immune from US law as it only pertains to within the us boarders. Then who do they answer to? No one. I read the article and some things need to be cleared up first: This is said by the article to describe what Iraq consider as their definition on which they can exercise jurisdiction. Quote“United States contractors” and “United States contractor employees” mean non-Iraqi persons or legal entities, and their employees, who are citizens of the United States or a third country and who are in Iraq to supply goods, services, and security in Iraq to or on behalf of the United States Forces under a contract or subcontract with or for the United States Forces. This article seems to contradict itself. It quotes part of a law that answers the question it asks. Then the article says "I don't think so" and "Maybe not" and doesn't point out a loophole. Either its an article that requires a insider common belief of fans' assumptions as a core support, or a seriously bad written piece._____________________________ "The trouble with quotes on the internet is that you can never know if they are genuine" - Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #13 August 25, 2009 QuoteUnconstitutional because we believe in a system of checks and balances. This is a military operation paid for with our tax dollars, that answers to one branch, and is not supervised. Blackwater is our insurgency. Un-American because I believe we stand for justice or at least say we do. To immune a mercenary group from prosecution simply because they are Christian or American is hypocrisy. We believe in law, and no one is above it, or at least that’s what we strive for as would any other civil society. Other problem- When we pay our troops what we do and then offer Blackwater operatives huge salaries to be our privet army we lose the very people we trained in our military. It is counter-productive. We offer more money, and less laws, and regulation so we lose solders real solders to them as well. Thanks for the reply Darius. I don't have a single problem with private armies. Mainly because of what occured in Sierra Leone. But I'm just discussing private armies. Not Blackwater specifically.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #14 August 26, 2009 QuoteQuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. Odd thing to say in a war without battle lines? Not odd at all, *IF* you know what you're talking about. QuoteQuoteLike any other company that has broken the law - prosecute the ones that do the crime. QuoteBlackwaters products is violence, and executing military-Like operations.’ Hyperbole. QuoteAlso they can not be prosecuted for their crimes. YES, THEY FUCKING CAN - how many more times do you have to be told that? QuoteQuoteOdd - you only seem to have that problem when they're Westerners or Israelis. I am a US citizen and find it odd that hypocrisy is so accepted by my fellow citizens. If we call others barbaric or fault them for the way they do things? Should we at least not follow our own advice? When you apply it equally to both sides, and not just the USA and Israel while giving the other side a free pass. QuoteIf you didn;t know i was born in Iran would you even say that? Says more about you then me bro. I don't give a flying fuck WHERE you were born, Dar - all I have to do is look at your posting history. QuoteQuoteWrong again - contractors are NOT immune to prosecution. Read again QuoteOh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? Still wrong - dude, I *AM* a contractor, remember?? We do *NOT* get a 'free pass'. QuoteWe bring them back and give them 6 months for murder. Yea thats fair. And a local here got 90 days for shooting his sister in an 'honor killing'. Your point?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #15 August 26, 2009 QuoteRead the above to get an idea of the cluster fuck the Bush administration has caused purposely so the blackwater guys can do what they wish. More hyperbole. Military Extradition Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Care to remind us WHO was President in 2000, Darius? QuoteIf we do not respect the UN Does anyone? Quote, and at the same time state that no US contractors can be tried by the Iraqi or any foreign court, and at the same time know that they are immune from US law as it only pertains to within the us boarders. Good thing that's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for SEVERAL YEARS.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jgoose71 0 #16 August 26, 2009 Quotehttp://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/news/2009-08-07/ex-employees-claim-blackwater-pimped-out-young-iraqi-girls/ This interviwe is what made me search for the link above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0NZOw5tnGY This also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. How should Blackwater be treated? Do you view Blackwater as something to be ashamed of? Or are you proud of them? I agree with Jeremy I think they are unconstitutional, and Un-American. Not to mention any armed group who is overly religious worries me. Oh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? Xe/Blackwater is neither something to be ashamed of or proud of. People like to bash Blackwater because the owner is Christian and he got lots of funding under Bush. It's typical. Blackwater did help fill a void that the hollowed out military could not take care of. The problem came when they got to big to fast. In the beginning to be a Blackwater employee a person had to be an ex-SEAL/SAS/Delta force, etc. As the demands on them grew they lowered their hiring standards to ex- army rangers, airborne, until finally they were hiring any ex grunt off the street. A lot of these guys that they were now hiring had an ax to grind. That is when their problems started. You hire an ex gang-banger who has a couple of years in the infantry who just wants to shoot someone, and this is what you get. The military can't handle all of the demands put on them so Organizations like Blackwater are needed. The problems come when they grow to fast in the interest of earning a buck."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #17 August 26, 2009 QuoteDo you view Blackwater as something to be ashamed of? Or are you proud of them? In some cases, imo, "pride" or "shame" is irrelevant. Are they effectively and efficiently executing the job needed? Are their choices and actions in the interest of US strategic interests or counter to them in the short- or long-run? For me, the So what? Who cares? is: A strong, civilian-controlled military – both “civilian-controlled” and “strong” being critical components – is vital, imo. Is the phenomenon of Blackwater, et al., a result of down-sizing the volunteer military that began in the 1990s? (Yes, Hessians fought in American Revolution; more recent history please.) Is it an artifact of the privatization of everything? Do PMSC act in the strategic interests of the US and what happens when the strategic interests of the US are counter the short term interests of Xe/Blackwater, etc? If one sees value and importance of the US military for force projection globally – & I do – whether for national security, in support of allies, stability operations (per DoDD 3000.05), reconstruction, or humanitarian endeavors, is the reliance on private military security contractors eroding that capability? QuoteOh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? There are a number of US Laws under which PMSC contracted to the US Government *could* be prosecuted domestically. As Mike [mnealtx] pointed out, the most likely one is the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) of 2000 (18 U.S.C. § 3261). In 2005, MEJA was amended to include contractors of any USG agency or Department. Prosecutors, in many cases, have discretion as to whether they will or will not pursue prosecution. That extends to a lot of areas not just PMSC. In 2007, contractors “accompanying” US military in “contingency operations” were also made subject to the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). [redlegphi] is correct that the US-Iraqi Status of Forces agreement (SOFA) enables the potential prosecution of US nationals in Iraq, under Iraqi law, as well. Contractors and their hired legal representation objected to inclusion of that. And I don't blame them -- given a choice between being tried in US and Iraq, I'm going with US every time. Quotehttp://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/news/2009-08-07/ex-employees-claim-blackwater-pimped-out-young-iraqi-girls/ I'd like to discuss this charge more. I probably won't have time until Thursday ... but would like to hear others thoughts on this charge? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #18 August 26, 2009 Quote Quote This also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. We've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. My recollection is a lil’ different - the findings of those discussions were not as clear-cut as you assert. Trying to argue that Private Military Security Contractors (PMSC) don’t “in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities” in counterinsurgencies (as you know, there is no Maginot line or Fulda Gap in an insurgency) is darned tough. E.g., see COL John Toolan, USMC, comments on the actions and effects of then-Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004 and more expansively and authoritatively than Mr. Scahill, Big Boy Rules: America's Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq. Some of the activities of Crescent Security, another PMSC, make Xe/Blackwater look like boy scouts, comparatively. If I had to argue it, it’s the loophole of citizenship (“national of a Party”) that may get Xe (nee Blackwater), etc. off on a technicality. Ironic? The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) – the professional association of private security contractors – has put forward a Code of Conduct for a number of reasons, substantively to try to self-police their own industry because some recognize that activities/poor choices that draw attention to their industry are likely to result in regulations that they don’t want. They are call on their own members to act responsibly. I.e., if one doesn't like regulation, hold responsible those who mess up in the first place (& very rarely is it the first, second, third, ... tenth time that leads to regulation), responsibility, eh? Blackwater is no longer a member of IPOA. IPOA started an internal investigation of their activities, i.e., other PMSC were concerned about Blackwater’s actions. The IPOA President, Doug Brooks, has spoken publically about the need to self-police when PMSC behave badly. Perhaps the more interesting question, to me at least, is why do you – specific and general “you” – so strongly object to PMSC being identified as mercenaries, even colloquially? Is it just pedantic? (Goodness knows, I can understand pedanticism for precision and accuracy – see my objections to misuse of “theory.” ) Notionally, is there something that is perceived to illegitimate the political-military action if mercenaries are used? ‘Cause after all, as “St Carl” quipped, war is politics by another name … & Galula wrote “Insurgency is the pursuit of policy of a party inside a country by every means.” Or for all the advocates of privatization, what is reasoning beyond lack of advocacy for privatizing the combatant military? (For those who aren’t advocates of privatization of everything, it’s a non sequitor.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #19 August 26, 2009 Quote I think use of mercenaries, in general, are a bad idea. I think using them in a COIN environment is an especially horrible idea. On the one hand, you have members of the US military who are motivated to end the war successfully so that they aren't leaving their families every other year to go to some shithole in the Middle East where people are trying to blow them up. On the other hand, you have the mercs of Xe/Blackwater, who depend on the conflict continuing for their paycheck and fell under pretty much no legal rules whatsoever. Which of these two groups is more likely to contribute to successfully ending the COIN fight in our favor? You scenario reminds me of the economic model written about in a column by one of my favorites national security wonks, Ralph Peters: “TROUBLE FOR HIRE: THE MERCENARIES WHO MURDER IN YOUR NAME,” (all caps in the original – apologies) “And who gets the blame? [for poor choices/actions of Blackwater, etc - nerdgirl] Our troops. Iraqis just see all of the pale faces with guns as Americans. They don’t differentiate between the honorable men and women in uniform and the narcissistic killers who adorn themselves with knives and cop-killer side arms - and who look like rejects from professional wrestling. “And, as any soldier in Iraq can tell you, one contractor shoot-’em-up can ruin months of progress. (Of course, the contractors don’t make money off of progress - a peaceful Iraq would be terrible for business.)” I don’t agree with everything of Peters writes/says … but he’s a very smart man and usually intellectually provocative. (For those whom it matters, he’s also a retired US Army LTC, who supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.) In a COIN scenario I disagree to the extent that paying members of the *population* (like we did in Iraq, i.e., Sons of Iraq) can be tactically, operationally, and strategically beneficial to COIN efforts. (But that’s not really what you meant, I bet? ) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #20 August 26, 2009 A lot of it has to do with the connotations of the word and how people react to it sans any other evidence - we've already seen plenty of that in this thread. The other is that they were hired to be security details, not to join the infantry in the line of battle. IOW, they were HIRED to be a DEFENSIVE asset, not an offensive asset - which makes the "hired to *FIGHT* in an armed conflict" point in your other post, moot. Splitting hairs? Perhaps - but I think it is an important distinction.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #21 August 26, 2009 QuoteA lot of it has to do with the connotations of the word and how people react to it sans any other evidence - we've already seen plenty of that in this thread. That's fair enough. Are you going to take that consideration into account for other issues? QuoteThe other is that they were hired to be security details, not to join the infantry in the line of battle. IOW, they were HIRED to be a DEFENSIVE asset, not an offensive asset - which makes the "hired to *FIGHT* in an armed conflict" point in your other post, moot. Security and stability operations may include both offensive and defensive components. Transition and reconstruction are supposed to be more defensive. Uniformed military are deployed to do or to support such operations, per DoDD 3000.05. One knows in reality that even such notionally defensive operations aren't always free from hostilities. And that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. The metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #22 August 26, 2009 QuoteI don't have a single problem with private armies. Mainly because of what occured in Sierra Leone. But I'm just discussing private armies. Not Blackwater specifically. Would you write more about what you see as the successful use of PMSC in Sierra Leone? And why was that such a case? (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you ... more curious w/r/t your line of thinking.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #23 August 26, 2009 QuoteOne knows in reality that even such notionally defensive operations aren't always free from hostilities. I'm aware of that - that is also why I think it important that the distinction be made. QuoteAnd that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. Nothing explicitly mentioned, no. Do you consider a convoy driver for KBR to be "taking a direct part in the hostilities" just because he is there - you may have a different outlook. QuoteThe metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites redlegphi 0 #24 August 26, 2009 Quote In a COIN scenario I disagree to the extent that paying members of the *population* (like we did in Iraq, i.e., Sons of Iraq) can be tactically, operationally, and strategically beneficial to COIN efforts. (But that’s not really what you meant, I bet? ) /Marg I was thinking more of "our" mercenaries. I hadn't really thought of the Sons of Iraq in that way, but I guess they technically are. I think the difference there is that when the Sons of Iraq go home at night, they're still on the battlefield. The only way they and their families will get peace in their lives is if they aren't causing their community to turn into more of a violent shithole. So I'd much rather have the Sons of Iraq on my side than Blackwater. Just my two cents though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites nerdgirl 0 #25 August 26, 2009 QuoteAnd that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. Nothing explicitly mentioned, no. Do you consider a convoy driver for KBR to be "taking a direct part in the hostilities" just because he is there - you may have a different outlook. Responding as if there was a question mark there: as I've written before - no. That's also something of a red herring to this conversation. A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field. But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring. And that's one of the reasons why I consistently differentiate private military contractors from private military security contactors. QuoteQuoteThe metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets. Or it serves as an artificial attempt to apply a constraint that is distracting in an insurgency. Or pedantically one might say it's imprecise and inaccurate, like confusing bullets with casings. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #15 August 26, 2009 QuoteRead the above to get an idea of the cluster fuck the Bush administration has caused purposely so the blackwater guys can do what they wish. More hyperbole. Military Extradition Jurisdiction Act of 2000. Care to remind us WHO was President in 2000, Darius? QuoteIf we do not respect the UN Does anyone? Quote, and at the same time state that no US contractors can be tried by the Iraqi or any foreign court, and at the same time know that they are immune from US law as it only pertains to within the us boarders. Good thing that's not the case anymore, and hasn't been for SEVERAL YEARS.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #16 August 26, 2009 Quotehttp://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/news/2009-08-07/ex-employees-claim-blackwater-pimped-out-young-iraqi-girls/ This interviwe is what made me search for the link above. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0NZOw5tnGY This also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. How should Blackwater be treated? Do you view Blackwater as something to be ashamed of? Or are you proud of them? I agree with Jeremy I think they are unconstitutional, and Un-American. Not to mention any armed group who is overly religious worries me. Oh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? Xe/Blackwater is neither something to be ashamed of or proud of. People like to bash Blackwater because the owner is Christian and he got lots of funding under Bush. It's typical. Blackwater did help fill a void that the hollowed out military could not take care of. The problem came when they got to big to fast. In the beginning to be a Blackwater employee a person had to be an ex-SEAL/SAS/Delta force, etc. As the demands on them grew they lowered their hiring standards to ex- army rangers, airborne, until finally they were hiring any ex grunt off the street. A lot of these guys that they were now hiring had an ax to grind. That is when their problems started. You hire an ex gang-banger who has a couple of years in the infantry who just wants to shoot someone, and this is what you get. The military can't handle all of the demands put on them so Organizations like Blackwater are needed. The problems come when they grow to fast in the interest of earning a buck."There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #17 August 26, 2009 QuoteDo you view Blackwater as something to be ashamed of? Or are you proud of them? In some cases, imo, "pride" or "shame" is irrelevant. Are they effectively and efficiently executing the job needed? Are their choices and actions in the interest of US strategic interests or counter to them in the short- or long-run? For me, the So what? Who cares? is: A strong, civilian-controlled military – both “civilian-controlled” and “strong” being critical components – is vital, imo. Is the phenomenon of Blackwater, et al., a result of down-sizing the volunteer military that began in the 1990s? (Yes, Hessians fought in American Revolution; more recent history please.) Is it an artifact of the privatization of everything? Do PMSC act in the strategic interests of the US and what happens when the strategic interests of the US are counter the short term interests of Xe/Blackwater, etc? If one sees value and importance of the US military for force projection globally – & I do – whether for national security, in support of allies, stability operations (per DoDD 3000.05), reconstruction, or humanitarian endeavors, is the reliance on private military security contractors eroding that capability? QuoteOh and thanks to Bush they can not be prosecuted for their crimes by the people they did the crimes too? There are a number of US Laws under which PMSC contracted to the US Government *could* be prosecuted domestically. As Mike [mnealtx] pointed out, the most likely one is the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) of 2000 (18 U.S.C. § 3261). In 2005, MEJA was amended to include contractors of any USG agency or Department. Prosecutors, in many cases, have discretion as to whether they will or will not pursue prosecution. That extends to a lot of areas not just PMSC. In 2007, contractors “accompanying” US military in “contingency operations” were also made subject to the US Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). [redlegphi] is correct that the US-Iraqi Status of Forces agreement (SOFA) enables the potential prosecution of US nationals in Iraq, under Iraqi law, as well. Contractors and their hired legal representation objected to inclusion of that. And I don't blame them -- given a choice between being tried in US and Iraq, I'm going with US every time. Quotehttp://www.geopoliticalmonitor.com/content/news/2009-08-07/ex-employees-claim-blackwater-pimped-out-young-iraqi-girls/ I'd like to discuss this charge more. I probably won't have time until Thursday ... but would like to hear others thoughts on this charge? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #18 August 26, 2009 Quote Quote This also reminded me of the thread I made long ago questioning the morality of someone who Chooses too get paid to kill. We've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries. My recollection is a lil’ different - the findings of those discussions were not as clear-cut as you assert. Trying to argue that Private Military Security Contractors (PMSC) don’t “in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities” in counterinsurgencies (as you know, there is no Maginot line or Fulda Gap in an insurgency) is darned tough. E.g., see COL John Toolan, USMC, comments on the actions and effects of then-Blackwater contractors in Fallujah in 2004 and more expansively and authoritatively than Mr. Scahill, Big Boy Rules: America's Mercenaries Fighting in Iraq. Some of the activities of Crescent Security, another PMSC, make Xe/Blackwater look like boy scouts, comparatively. If I had to argue it, it’s the loophole of citizenship (“national of a Party”) that may get Xe (nee Blackwater), etc. off on a technicality. Ironic? The International Peace Operations Association (IPOA) – the professional association of private security contractors – has put forward a Code of Conduct for a number of reasons, substantively to try to self-police their own industry because some recognize that activities/poor choices that draw attention to their industry are likely to result in regulations that they don’t want. They are call on their own members to act responsibly. I.e., if one doesn't like regulation, hold responsible those who mess up in the first place (& very rarely is it the first, second, third, ... tenth time that leads to regulation), responsibility, eh? Blackwater is no longer a member of IPOA. IPOA started an internal investigation of their activities, i.e., other PMSC were concerned about Blackwater’s actions. The IPOA President, Doug Brooks, has spoken publically about the need to self-police when PMSC behave badly. Perhaps the more interesting question, to me at least, is why do you – specific and general “you” – so strongly object to PMSC being identified as mercenaries, even colloquially? Is it just pedantic? (Goodness knows, I can understand pedanticism for precision and accuracy – see my objections to misuse of “theory.” ) Notionally, is there something that is perceived to illegitimate the political-military action if mercenaries are used? ‘Cause after all, as “St Carl” quipped, war is politics by another name … & Galula wrote “Insurgency is the pursuit of policy of a party inside a country by every means.” Or for all the advocates of privatization, what is reasoning beyond lack of advocacy for privatizing the combatant military? (For those who aren’t advocates of privatization of everything, it’s a non sequitor.) VR/Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #19 August 26, 2009 Quote I think use of mercenaries, in general, are a bad idea. I think using them in a COIN environment is an especially horrible idea. On the one hand, you have members of the US military who are motivated to end the war successfully so that they aren't leaving their families every other year to go to some shithole in the Middle East where people are trying to blow them up. On the other hand, you have the mercs of Xe/Blackwater, who depend on the conflict continuing for their paycheck and fell under pretty much no legal rules whatsoever. Which of these two groups is more likely to contribute to successfully ending the COIN fight in our favor? You scenario reminds me of the economic model written about in a column by one of my favorites national security wonks, Ralph Peters: “TROUBLE FOR HIRE: THE MERCENARIES WHO MURDER IN YOUR NAME,” (all caps in the original – apologies) “And who gets the blame? [for poor choices/actions of Blackwater, etc - nerdgirl] Our troops. Iraqis just see all of the pale faces with guns as Americans. They don’t differentiate between the honorable men and women in uniform and the narcissistic killers who adorn themselves with knives and cop-killer side arms - and who look like rejects from professional wrestling. “And, as any soldier in Iraq can tell you, one contractor shoot-’em-up can ruin months of progress. (Of course, the contractors don’t make money off of progress - a peaceful Iraq would be terrible for business.)” I don’t agree with everything of Peters writes/says … but he’s a very smart man and usually intellectually provocative. (For those whom it matters, he’s also a retired US Army LTC, who supported the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.) In a COIN scenario I disagree to the extent that paying members of the *population* (like we did in Iraq, i.e., Sons of Iraq) can be tactically, operationally, and strategically beneficial to COIN efforts. (But that’s not really what you meant, I bet? ) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #20 August 26, 2009 A lot of it has to do with the connotations of the word and how people react to it sans any other evidence - we've already seen plenty of that in this thread. The other is that they were hired to be security details, not to join the infantry in the line of battle. IOW, they were HIRED to be a DEFENSIVE asset, not an offensive asset - which makes the "hired to *FIGHT* in an armed conflict" point in your other post, moot. Splitting hairs? Perhaps - but I think it is an important distinction.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #21 August 26, 2009 QuoteA lot of it has to do with the connotations of the word and how people react to it sans any other evidence - we've already seen plenty of that in this thread. That's fair enough. Are you going to take that consideration into account for other issues? QuoteThe other is that they were hired to be security details, not to join the infantry in the line of battle. IOW, they were HIRED to be a DEFENSIVE asset, not an offensive asset - which makes the "hired to *FIGHT* in an armed conflict" point in your other post, moot. Security and stability operations may include both offensive and defensive components. Transition and reconstruction are supposed to be more defensive. Uniformed military are deployed to do or to support such operations, per DoDD 3000.05. One knows in reality that even such notionally defensive operations aren't always free from hostilities. And that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. The metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #22 August 26, 2009 QuoteI don't have a single problem with private armies. Mainly because of what occured in Sierra Leone. But I'm just discussing private armies. Not Blackwater specifically. Would you write more about what you see as the successful use of PMSC in Sierra Leone? And why was that such a case? (I'm not disagreeing or agreeing with you ... more curious w/r/t your line of thinking.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 August 26, 2009 QuoteOne knows in reality that even such notionally defensive operations aren't always free from hostilities. I'm aware of that - that is also why I think it important that the distinction be made. QuoteAnd that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. Nothing explicitly mentioned, no. Do you consider a convoy driver for KBR to be "taking a direct part in the hostilities" just because he is there - you may have a different outlook. QuoteThe metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
redlegphi 0 #24 August 26, 2009 Quote In a COIN scenario I disagree to the extent that paying members of the *population* (like we did in Iraq, i.e., Sons of Iraq) can be tactically, operationally, and strategically beneficial to COIN efforts. (But that’s not really what you meant, I bet? ) /Marg I was thinking more of "our" mercenaries. I hadn't really thought of the Sons of Iraq in that way, but I guess they technically are. I think the difference there is that when the Sons of Iraq go home at night, they're still on the battlefield. The only way they and their families will get peace in their lives is if they aren't causing their community to turn into more of a violent shithole. So I'd much rather have the Sons of Iraq on my side than Blackwater. Just my two cents though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #25 August 26, 2009 QuoteAnd that's the criteria: "take a direct part in the hostilities." Nothing about defensive versus offensive. Nothing explicitly mentioned, no. Do you consider a convoy driver for KBR to be "taking a direct part in the hostilities" just because he is there - you may have a different outlook. Responding as if there was a question mark there: as I've written before - no. That's also something of a red herring to this conversation. A private contractor not engaged in hostilities is not a mercenary ... nor is the guy employed at dining hall, the Dairy Queen, or BK at Bagram Air Field. But none of those folks are the ones about whom we are writing, i.e., it's the red herring. And that's one of the reasons why I consistently differentiate private military contractors from private military security contactors. QuoteQuoteThe metric of "Infantry in line of battle" is artificial. There is no "line of battle" in an insurgency. It seems that you are forcing artifical constraints, to me. It serves as a term of art for explaining to those with no experience the difference between offensive and defensive assets. Or it serves as an artificial attempt to apply a constraint that is distracting in an insurgency. Or pedantically one might say it's imprecise and inaccurate, like confusing bullets with casings. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
