mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteNo doubt they are recruited for their ability to defend by singing Kumbaya in key, right?
Soon to be the new CIA policy.
If they can sing it in Pashtu/Dari with dialect, it might not only get them a job (if they can pass the background investigation for security clearance), it might get them up to $35K bonus.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
Here’s an example of a Xe (nee Blackwater) recruiting advertisement:
Here’s another one direct from the Xe website:
The recruitment advertisements quoted above suggests otherwise, unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing.
The criteria do not say anything about being “under chain of command.” Maybe it should – it’s just not there. That’s not a requirement. Maybe the requirements should be reviewed. Regardless there is both ambiguity and it’s not resolved, which remains the valid challenge to your absolute certain assertion.
Flipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command.
Now one might argue that Blackwater and other PMSC are para-military organizations … but that's not included in the Article 47 criteria either.
This is sarcasm (post #46)? *** And perhaps, instead of accusing someone with 20 years of experience WITH government contracts of throwing out a red herring, you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying.
I'm done.
In post #57 you acknowledge you were replying in anger at me (not at the argument). Xe recruiting for Select Program
Note: Marine Scout Snipers have been added as qualified applicants. They need to get spun up on advanced HG/Carbine shooting skills prior to attending the training, if selected.
From Black Ice: Select Programs Group, a division of Xe Services, is currently seeking candidates for mobile security positions supporting a USG client. The requirements for these positions are:
Minimum of 6 years experience with one of the following Military Units:
Navy SEALS
Army SF
75th Ranger Regiment
Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper
Air Force PJ/CCT
*Additional requirements include verifiable Hostile Environment experience and prior PSD experience. Candidates for this program must be prepared to submit electronic copies of their most current DD 214 and Resume.
All candidates for Select Programs Group must be eligible for a USG Secret clearance. Candidates who pass the initial screening will be subject to a rigorous Training/Selection/Vetting process. You must be physically fit and medically cleared for OCONUS deployments prior to attending training with Select Programs Group. The Firearms Qualifications that each candidate must successfully pass are advanced in nature. You must be prepared to demonstrate advanced shooting skills on Day 1 of the training course with Select Programs Group. The training is fast paced and is designed to prepare each student to successfully pass the client’s requirements for entry into this program. Select Programs Group has an excellent training program with world class instructors, a private training facility and an excellent success rate for students.
Select Programs Group offers flexible deployment schedules that range in length from 60-75 days deployed. We offer a competitive, progressive pay scale with merit based pay increases for time deployed with the client, advanced client sponsored training and seniority with Select Programs Group. We seek quiet professionals who are interested in a challenging and rewarding career opportunity supporting a critical overseas mission.
Select Programs Group has an immediate need for individuals ready to deploy. We are expanding our team and experiencing exciting growth opportunities in many of our overseas work locations. With Select Programs Group you will enjoy the benefits of working with a company that has a long and stable history with our clients and a progressive approach to the future.
If you are interested in this opportunity, please respond to the email address listed below with a short BIO and an electronic copy of your DD 214 and Resume.
[email protected] Or contact: Jamie at 252-435-0035
Here’s another one direct from the Xe website:
Special Programs Mobile Security Team MembersMore examples are available. Otoh, there are other positions available at Xe, such as “financial analyst” and “kitchen attendant” that don’t have those same kind of recruiting requirements.
1. Minimum of 6 years of active duty U.S. military experience in a Special Operations unit (SEAL, Special Forces, Ranger etc.)(National Guard/Reserve time does not count unless activated)
2. Possibility of 4 years of active duty U.S. military experience in a Special Operations unit with 2 years of private security experience.
3. Tactical experience overseas (High Threat Environment)
4. US citizen
5. Honorable Discharge
6. Valid US drivers license
7. Current US Passport
8. High school diploma
9. Currently hold or are able to get a Secret clearance. No negative history to include criminal, financial etc.
10. Flexible deployment and rotation schedule
To apply, please send your resume to [email protected]
QuoteAnd that is correct, I *am* saying that they were not hired for "skills and experience related to military combat" - the plain language of the contract shows that.
The recruitment advertisements quoted above suggests otherwise, unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing.
QuoteThere is ALSO the point that, under a STATE contract, they are NOT in the military chain of command. Kind of hard to be 'recruited to fight' when there's nobody in the chain of command that can give you that order.
The criteria do not say anything about being “under chain of command.” Maybe it should – it’s just not there. That’s not a requirement. Maybe the requirements should be reviewed. Regardless there is both ambiguity and it’s not resolved, which remains the valid challenge to your absolute certain assertion.
Flipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command.
Now one might argue that Blackwater and other PMSC are para-military organizations … but that's not included in the Article 47 criteria either.
QuoteNo - I answered sarcasm with sarcasm.
This is sarcasm (post #46)? *** And perhaps, instead of accusing someone with 20 years of experience WITH government contracts of throwing out a red herring, you might want to consider that they just MIGHT know what the fuck they're talking about, check your assumptions at the goddamn door and actually THINK about what they're saying.
I'm done.
You asserted that I did not check my assumptions and didn’t know what I was talking about (even tho’ I was working off of the Article 47 criteria, whereas you did not appear to be until post #67). How do you explain that “actually THINK about what they're saying” was not meant as an insult? Did you not mean to imply that I was not thinking about what I wrote?
QuoteIf you construe that as insulting you, that's your outlook.
If you can explain how that was not an insult, this argument may have some validity. As you’ve acknowledged it was written in anger at me, it’s a hard case.
QuoteIs the fact that you decided to insult my personal knowledge and experience as 'red herrings' and 'strawman arguments' somehow my fault?
Mike – I never mentioned *your* experience. I’ve challenged your arguments. I’ve been very explicit in challenging arguments.
Are you arguing now that no one can challenge your arguments because of your experience? (That seems to be one of the arguments that you and others make to criticize those who support policy regarding climate change.)
As long of what you I identified as red herrings and straw men were in fact that, then it’s valid critique of the argument. And it’s really not about you specifically (at least for me it isn’t. Really). I don’t know how to state that more plainly. It’s not sarcasm. It’s the issue not the person, whereas the quote from post #46 seems to pretty clearly be about the person – both your 20 years experience and the accusation of my not thinking.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
mnealtx 0
Quote
Here’s an example of a Xe (nee Blackwater) recruiting advertisement:
From Black Ice:
Here’s another one direct from the Xe website:
Good for them - ads and marketing != contracts.
QuoteQuoteAnd that is correct, I *am* saying that they were not hired for "skills and experience related to military combat" - the plain language of the contract shows that.
The recruitment advertisements quoted above suggests otherwise, unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing.
Recruitment != contract.
QuoteQuoteThere is ALSO the point that, under a STATE contract, they are NOT in the military chain of command. Kind of hard to be 'recruited to fight' when there's nobody in the chain of command that can give you that order.
The criteria do not say anything about being “under chain of command.” Maybe it should – it’s just not there. That’s not a requirement. Maybe the requirements should be reviewed. Regardless there is both ambiguity and it’s not resolved, which remains the valid challenge to your absolute certain assertion.
The criteria don't say "skills and experience related to military combat", either. If you're going to argue that I'm adding criteria, then you don't get to, either.
QuoteFlipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command.
No, it means they weren't under the command of the military, therefore they were NOT "recruited to fight in an armed conflict". You can't have it both ways - if they're hired to fight alongside the military, they have to be under the command of the military.
BW's contract was NOT with the military.
QuoteYou asserted that I did not check my assumptions and didn’t know what I was talking about (even tho’ I was working off of the Article 47 criteria, whereas you did not appear to be until post #67). How do you explain that “actually THINK about what they're saying” was not meant as an insult? Did you not mean to imply that I was not thinking about what I wrote?
No - I was implying that you were not thinking about what *I* wrote, when you casually implied it was red herrings and strawman arguments. You're also making false assumptions in regards to their actions fulfilling criteria under Art. 47. It's not 'some from menu A, some from menu B" - they have to fulfill ALL of them, and you can't use one criteria as a proof for another.
QuoteMike – I never mentioned *your* experience. I’ve challenged your arguments. I’ve been very explicit in challenging arguments.
No - I gave you factual information from my discussions with people that have actually DONE the job that BW was hired to do, and you dismissed them as 'false criteria', 'red herrings' and 'strawman arguments'.
QuoteAre you arguing now that no one can challenge your arguments because of your experience? (That seems to be one of the arguments that you and others make to criticize those who support policy regarding climate change.)
Nope - I'm saying that I'm speaking from personal knowledge, not theoretical.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
QuoteRecruitment != contract.
Recruitment does equal the Article 47 criteria.
It certainly does appear that recruiting criteria have included (for some put not all) "skills and experience related to military combat" ... unless unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing.
QuoteQuoteFlipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command.
No, it means they weren't under the command of the military, therefore they were NOT "recruited to fight in an armed conflict".
So by your argument none of the Taliban fighters detained were recruited to fight in an armed conflict, since they were not under military command? (It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted.)
QuoteBW's contract was NOT with the military.
That’s not a requirement of the criteria. One might arguye that it should be but it isn’t.
In cases, employees of Blackwater were recruited to fill positions based on skills and experience related to military combat, such as the State Dept BDS, that had traditionally/previously been filled by uniformed military servicemen with expectation of engaging in direct hostilities, and they did, "in fact, engage in direct hostilities." Criteria (a) and (b) satisfied. It's the citizenship technicality.
QuoteQuoteMike – I never mentioned *your* experience. I’ve challenged your arguments. I’ve been very explicit in challenging arguments.
No - I gave you factual information from my discussions with people that have actually DONE the job that BW was hired to do, and you dismissed them as 'false criteria', 'red herrings' and 'strawman arguments'.
How do you know I wasn’t either? (Assumptions?)
Which job were they doing? Blackwater has been hired to do a lot of different jobs. Some they have executed effectively and efficiently and that are clearly not ‘mercenary’ in nature or behavior … others, less so.
More importantly, my argument has been based on the Article 47 criteria, which until post #67 you weren’t using, e.g., “line of battle,” “offensive.” Whether or not some employees of Blackwater in some capacity have acted as mercenaries is not resolved either here or in the real world.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteRecruitment != contract.
Recruitment does equal the Article 47 criteria.
It certainly does appear that recruiting criteria have included (for some put not all) "skills and experience related to military combat" ... unless unless one argues that service as part of the Navy SEALS, Army SF, 75th Ranger Regiment, Marine Recon/MARSOC/ Marine Corps Scout Sniper, Air Force PJ/CCT in a verifiable hostile environment does not qualify as "skills and experience related to military combat," which I highly doubt that you are doing.
No - you're confusing a COMPANY recruiting for an open position with the gov't recruiting for a fighter.
QuoteQuoteFlipping it around, if one is not under chain of command of a military means that one is not fighting, then – by your own argument – all of the Taliban detainees and Afghan civilians who were classified as “enemy combatants” because they didn’t fulfill the criteria for another Geneva Convention Protocol weren’t fighting. They were not under a military chain of command.
No, it means they weren't under the command of the military, therefore they were NOT "recruited to fight in an armed conflict".
So by your argument none of the Taliban fighters detained were recruited to fight in an armed conflict, since they were not under military command? (It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted.)
Are we discussing Blackwater or the Taliban? Regardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries.
,QuoteQuoteBW's contract was NOT with the military.
That’s not a requirement of the criteria. One might arguye that it should be but it isn’t.
In cases, employees of Blackwater were recruited to fill positions based on skills and experience related to military combat,
The contract BW was working under says differently, and I'm pretty sure it holds trump.
Quotesuch as the State Dept BDS, that had traditionally/previously been filled by uniformed military servicemen with expectation of engaging in direct hostilities
Wrong. State provides protective details from it's own Special Agents.
Quoteand they did, "in fact, engage in direct hostilities."
Yes, they did. Just like a bouncer may get in a fight. Just like a policeman may get in a shootout. Just like the Secret Service may engage a threat.
That doesn't make any of the above 'mercenary actions'. It doesn't make the bouncer a legbreaker for the mob, it doesn't make the policeman a member of the New Centurions, and it doesn't make the Secret Service agent a government assassin.
QuoteCriteria (a) and (b) satisfied. It's the citizenship technicality.
A is *NOT* satisfied, which makes all the rest moot. The fact that "b" happened does NOT satisfy "a".
QuoteQuoteMike – I never mentioned *your* experience. I’ve challenged your arguments. I’ve been very explicit in challenging arguments.
No - I gave you factual information from my discussions with people that have actually DONE the job that BW was hired to do, and you dismissed them as 'false criteria', 'red herrings' and 'strawman arguments'.
How do you know I wasn’t either? (Assumptions?)
Which job were they doing? Blackwater has been hired to do a lot of different jobs. Some they have executed effectively and efficiently and that are clearly not ‘mercenary’ in nature or behavior … others, less so.
We have been discussing the contract BW was working on in Iraq during the time of the incident discussed - the Worldwide Personal Protective Services contract. If you've been talking about some OTHER contract BW may have, then let's move this to a different thread so we don't clutter this one up any more.
QuoteMore importantly, my argument has been based on the Article 47 criteria, which until post #67 you weren’t using, e.g., “line of battle,” “offensive.”
I'm sorry, can you show me where 47(a) mentions "skills and experiences related to military combat"? I can't seem to find it.
QuoteWhether or not some employees of Blackwater in some capacity have acted as mercenaries is not resolved either here or in the real world.
You still need to prove they were hired (sorry - recruited) to act in that manner. To date, you haven't. You can't use the fact that (b) happened as a proof of (a).
That said, there very well could be a contract out there that has BW working in direct support as augmentees for a Ranger platoon or SEAL detachment - THAT would be 'recruitment to fight in an armed conflict' and satisfy 47(a).
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
QuoteNo - you're confusing a COMPANY recruiting for an open position with the gov't recruiting for a fighter.
Verbatim from the recruitment advertisement linked & copied above: “supporting a USG client.” Then followed the position requirements for skill for skills and experience related to military combat.
Xe is recruiting for positions to support the USG with requirements for skills related to fighting to be deployed into combat areas (For other positions, they have other requirements.)
QuoteQuoteSo by your argument none of the Taliban fighters detained were recruited to fight in an armed conflict, since they were not under military command? (It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted.)
Are we discussing Blackwater or the Taliban?
We were writing about the lack of “chain of command” being a requirement (that you asserted) not being a necessary in order to be considered as having been recruited to fight.
As I wrote in the piece you quoted: “(It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted).”
QuoteRegardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries.
Me neither.
Is that sentence: "Regardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries," intended as sarcasm?
Because it looks like it might be a red herring, i.e., (a logical fallacy that is a deliberate attempt to divert attention or to change a subject or divert an argument?).
I explained the relevance of lack of "chain of command" w/r/t something you asserted as criteria for fighting (post #78: [mnealtx]: "they are NOT in the military chain of command. Kind of hard to be 'recruited to fight' when there's nobody in the chain of command that can give you that order") in the portion of my response quoted above (twice - in the 'replied to' portion of your reply and my most comments).
QuoteI'm sorry, can you show me where 47(a) mentions "skills and experiences related to military combat"? I can't seem to find it.
You won’t. No one ever claimed it did. It appears that you are making an argument against something that was never argued.
"Skills and experiences related to military combat" is the basis on which they were “specially recruited,” i.e., fulfilling part of the criteria of 47(a).
I've explained repeatedly how the other criteria were fulfilled. It's the citizen technicality.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
jcd11235 0
QuoteBy your "logic", someone hired as a bouncer in a nightclub becomes a legbreaker for the mafia if he gets involved in a fight.
By my logic, someone hired to defend is hired to fight, should fighting be necessary for defense. Fighting is not offensive only.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteNo - you're confusing a COMPANY recruiting for an open position with the gov't recruiting for a fighter.
Verbatim from the recruitment advertisement linked & copied above: “supporting a USG client.” Then followed the position requirements for skill for skills and experience related to military combat.
So what? I can place an ad saying I need a theoretical physicist - it doesn't mean I have a contract stating those skills are required.
Skills and experience related to military combat *still* isn't a criteria of Art 47.
Quote
Xe is recruiting for positions to support the USG with requirements for skills related to fighting to be deployed into combat areas (For other positions, they have other requirements.)
Good for them. Show me that language in the WWPPS contract, since the thread is about the US Government hiring mercenaries.
QuoteQuoteQuoteSo by your argument none of the Taliban fighters detained were recruited to fight in an armed conflict, since they were not under military command? (It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted.)
Are we discussing Blackwater or the Taliban?
We were writing about the lack of “chain of command” being a requirement (that you asserted) not being a necessary in order to be considered as having been recruited to fight.
As I wrote in the piece you quoted: “(It’s not really an issue of the Taliban fight/enemy non-combatants than showing that the argument that you are trying to make is not a clear or absolute as asserted).”
You can't recruit someone to 'fight in an armed conflict' without someone to tell that person who / where to fight. So, unless the State Department is now a combat arm of the US Gov't, you still don't have anyone 'recruited to fight in an armed conflict'.
So, 47(a) is still a bust.
QuoteQuoteRegardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries.
Me neither.
Is that sentence: "Regardless, I don't know of any accusations of the Taliban or AQ hiring mercenaries," intended as sarcasm?
Because it looks like it might be a red herring, i.e., (a logical fallacy that is a deliberate attempt to divert attention or to change a subject or divert an argument?).
No sarcasm - but the Taliban / AQ mention seems a bit....fishy, now that you mention it. It's DEFINITELY not germane to the US Gov't hiring mercenaries, as is mentioned in the OP.
QuoteI explained the relevance of lack of "chain of command" w/r/t something you asserted as criteria for fighting (post #78: [mnealtx]: "they are NOT in the military chain of command. Kind of hard to be 'recruited to fight' when there's nobody in the chain of command that can give you that order") in the portion of my response quoted above (twice - in the 'replied to' portion of your reply and my most comments).
How can State 'recruit someone to fight' when they are not a combat arm of the US military?
QuoteQuoteI'm sorry, can you show me where 47(a) mentions "skills and experiences related to military combat"? I can't seem to find it.
You won’t. No one ever claimed it did. It appears that you are making an argument against something that was never argued.
No, it's been argued a whole lot - you keep saying that MY efforts to clarify are not in 47(a) and that I am attempting to place false qualifiers, while saying that your OWN additions are ok.
Follow your own rules.
Quote"Skills and experiences related to military combat" is the basis on which they were “specially recruited,” i.e., fulfilling part of the criteria of 47(a).
Show me where the contract with State calls for those skills.
QuoteI've explained repeatedly how the other criteria were fulfilled. It's the citizen technicality.
And the fact that (a) was unfulfilled, and that you use (b) to try to prove (a).
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteBy your "logic", someone hired as a bouncer in a nightclub becomes a legbreaker for the mafia if he gets involved in a fight.
By my logic, someone hired to defend is hired to fight, should fighting be necessary for defense. Fighting is not offensive only.
[Gunny Hartmann] Well.....no shit.[/Gunny]
Thanks for proving my point - the fact that someone HAD to fight in self-defense does not mean they were HIRED to fight.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I'm sure that's how the Secret Service does it now, since the coronation of "the Won".
By your "logic", someone hired as a bouncer in a nightclub becomes a legbreaker for the mafia if he gets involved in a fight.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites