mnealtx 0
Recommended Posts
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteYes, it is a distracter when it's used repeatedly to avoid acknowledging that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary, (all the while acknowledging the repeatedly referenced citizenry criteria).
Where have I said that BW's actions didn't cross the line, Marg? You keep attributing an argument to me that I NEVER MADE.
Please re-read what I wrote: “that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary.”
The assertion that I have attributed to you is the one you did make:
That assertion is not as clear-cut as you asserted (see post #18), which you now seem to agree (?)QuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries.
QuoteI never said that the reasons I used to explain why BW was not a mercenary company were criteria under law - another argument I never made.
If I’m reading correctly, you’re re-iterating what I’ve been writing: the criteria you’ve been using aren’t what is in the international law?
While one can apply their own criteria (like my skygod scenario) that doesn’t make it factually accurate. Legally, it's also strategically suspect to try to apply one's own criteria for speeding when a police officer pulls you over, which is probably a more apt analogy.
You might argue that the criteria should be changed, revised, or eliminated and why. My own recommended criteria for what I think should qualify as “mercenary” may support revision or elimination ... but we've never even been able to get to that point ... altho' I did link one other proposal from Carlisle Barracks in 1999.
QuoteMy argument all along was (and continues to be) that they were NOT hired to fight in that manner. The criteria are over-broad and can as easily be used to accuse a gate guard acting in self-defense of being a mercenary.
“Easily” and “over-broad” is highly subjective. Maybe that’s so. It’s not certainly not been decided or proven one way or another in this forum. Again, the criteria are not clear therefore I challenged your original assertion (quoted above).
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteYes, it is a distracter when it's used repeatedly to avoid acknowledging that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary, (all the while acknowledging the repeatedly referenced citizenry criteria).
Where have I said that BW's actions didn't cross the line, Marg? You keep attributing an argument to me that I NEVER MADE.
Please re-read what I wrote: “that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary.”
And I will, in turn, repeat my response - "Where have I said it wasn't???"
QuoteThe assertion that I have attributed to you is the one you did make:
That assertion is not as clear-cut as you asserted (see post #18), which you now seem to agree (?)QuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries.
You have a Marine COL talking about the BW people killed in Fallujah, and a book and video presentation that I can't access.
If you're going to use that to show that as proof of 'mercenary actions', then I'm sorry, bypassing a checkpoint doesn't cut it.
QuoteQuoteI never said that the reasons I used to explain why BW was not a mercenary company were criteria under law - another argument I never made.
If I’m reading correctly, you’re re-iterating what I’ve been writing: the criteria you’ve been using aren’t what is in the international law?
I've never claimed they were, and I've never said they were criteria.
QuoteWhile one can apply their own criteria (like my skygod scenario) that doesn’t make it factually accurate. Legally, it's also strategically suspect to try to apply one's own criteria for speeding when a police officer pulls you over, which is probably a more apt analogy.
You continue to confuse my attempts to clarify the difference between offense and defense as "criteria". I have never said they are 'criteria'.
QuoteQuoteMy argument all along was (and continues to be) that they were NOT hired to fight in that manner. The criteria are over-broad and can as easily be used to accuse a gate guard acting in self-defense of being a mercenary.
“Easily” and “over-broad” is highly subjective. Maybe that’s so. It’s not certainly not been decided or proven one way or another in this forum. Again, the criteria are not clear therefore I challenged your original assertion (quoted above).
/Marg
It *is* highly subjective - all the more reason to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.
At the base of it, a mercenary is someone hired to fight in a foreign war - to 'directly engage in hostilities', I believe the criteria is?.
I submit that someone who is only allowed to RETURN fire if attacked is not hired to 'directly engage in hostilities'. They *may* do that by returning fire in response to being attacked, but that is NOT the purpose they were hired for.
That said, if you have info from BW's contract that they were allowed to freely engage the enemy without orders, or documented instances of CO's in Iraq/Afghanistan telling BW "Go set up an ambush on Point Baker - we're told there's an AQ patrol moving through that area in 3 hours", then I'll withdraw all objections.
Otherwise, I believe my point (and constant argument) stands - they were not HIRED as mercenaries, however much their actions AFTER being hired may RESEMBLE mercenary activity.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteYes, it is a distracter when it's used repeatedly to avoid acknowledging that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary, (all the while acknowledging the repeatedly referenced citizenry criteria).
Where have I said that BW's actions didn't cross the line, Marg? You keep attributing an argument to me that I NEVER MADE.
Please re-read what I wrote: “that some of the behavior and actions qualify as mercenary.”
And I will, in turn, repeat my response - "Where have I said it wasn't???"
You asserted
That assertion is not as clear-cut as you asserted (see post #18), which you now seemed to agree in post #59 but now in post #61 you don’t.QuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries.
QuoteQuoteQuoteI never said that the reasons I used to explain why BW was not a mercenary company were criteria under law - another argument I never made.
If I’m reading correctly, you’re re-iterating what I’ve been writing: the criteria you’ve been using aren’t what is in the international law?
I've never claimed they were, and I've never said they were criteria.
Do I understand correctly that now you’re arguing that the gate guard scenarios and repeated use of phrases like “offensive” versus “offensive” and “join the infantry in the line of battle” wasn’t meant to differentiate what/who qualified as a mercenary and who didn’t? So those weren’t criteria that you were trying to use to justify that original assertion? If they weren’t that was entirely unclear to me. (What were they then?)
QuoteQuoteWhile one can apply their own criteria (like my skygod scenario) that doesn’t make it factually accurate. Legally, it's also strategically suspect to try to apply one's own criteria for speeding when a police officer pulls you over, which is probably a more apt analogy.
You continue to confuse my attempts to clarify the difference between offense and defense as "criteria". I have never said they are 'criteria'.
What are you using them for because you seem to be using them to explain why some of Blackwater and other PMSC actions do not qualify as mercenary? Offensive and defensive are not part of the international law and are not clear in an insurgency.
QuoteQuoteMy argument all along was (and continues to be) that they were NOT hired to fight in that manner. The criteria are over-broad and can as easily be used to accuse a gate guard acting in self-defense of being a mercenary.
“Easily” and “over-broad” is highly subjective. Maybe that’s so. It’s not certainly not been decided or proven one way or another in this forum. Again, the criteria are not clear therefore I challenged your original assertion (quoted above).
It *is* highly subjective - all the more reason to make sure that we're all talking about the same thing.
At the base of it, a mercenary is someone hired to fight in a foreign war - to 'directly engage in hostilities', I believe the criteria is?.
If you functioning under the assumption that is the definition then there’s part of the confusion.
Among the criteria of Article 47 is “does, in fact, engage in direct hostilities.” It’s a subsidiary condition to the recruitment to an armed conflict, i.e., one can be contracted go to an armed conflict area and not engage, in fact, in direct hostilities and one would not be a mercenary, e.g., private medical personnel.
QuoteI submit that someone who is only allowed to RETURN fire if attacked is not hired to 'directly engage in hostilities'. They *may* do that by returning fire in response to being attacked, but that is NOT the purpose they were hired for.
And that may be your criteria. And it may be a reasonable recommendation. It is not international law, tho’. It also doesn’t apply to the situations I have referenced.
QuoteThat said, if you have info from BW's contract that they were allowed to freely engage the enemy without orders, or documented instances of CO's in Iraq/Afghanistan telling BW "Go set up an ambush on Point Baker - we're told there's an AQ patrol moving through that area in 3 hours", then I'll withdraw all objections.
While you might assert that should be the criteria, just like that skygod might think his criteria are the “right” ones and that speeder thinks he should be able to go whatever, that’s not what the law says.
And my challenge to your original assertion stands.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
nerdgirl 0
For concision, separating this out, by the majority of this thread's posts it seems to have been overwhelmingly shown that
... while "we" may have been through this before ... and may go through it again ... the above assertion is far from resolved or certain.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteWe've been through this before - they are NOT being used on the line of battle as offensive troops. They are NOT mercenaries.
... while "we" may have been through this before ... and may go through it again ... the above assertion is far from resolved or certain.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
QuoteQuoteAnd yes I realize the ammunition this link holds for your's and Darius' arguments.
I'm still wondering what you meant by "your's and Darius' arguments"? The aggregation suggests that you think they're the same? (Please note question mark meaning I'm asking for clarification.)
Beyond he & I both having some sort of response to the accusations of systematic child prostitution, I don't think Darius and my arguments are the same. (And it's likely that a significant part of my reasoning beyond illegality of child prostitution is different, i.e., I consider the potential effect on COIN and SSTR operations). If you do think that our arguments are the same, then I have failed to communicate.
/Marg
Sorry...didn't mean to imply they are the same as they are not. I just meant there is ammunition for both of yas. But Darius doesn't want to talk about Sierra Leone so he might miss out.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
nerdgirl 0
QuoteSorry...didn't mean to imply they are the same as they are not. I just meant there is ammunition for both of yas. But Darius doesn't want to talk about Sierra Leone so he might miss out.
Thanks for the clarification … I’m still not certain to what argument it’s adding ammunition … but suspect not worth pursuing. I did read the paper you referenced last evening -- thanks! -- and it was something that was talked about (because I brought it up) at dinner.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Quote
Thanks for the additional information. As I wrote to you, the Executives Outcomes case in Sierra Leone is not something about which I know a lot.QuoteAnd yes I realize the ammunition this link holds for your's and Darius' arguments. I am of the mind that truth is far more important than being right.
Me too … but I’d hope that would be evident from the style and substance of what I write, as well as the times I’ve defended other posters and their challenging of my arguments, including Mike ... but that's more general than really addressed to you.
I’m not sure what you meant by “your’s and Darius’ arguments”?
If EO acted in the strategic interests of the state, in this case Sierra Leone, than that’s not counter to what I’ve written … but I need to print out the paper you attached, read it, and think about it. Thanks for the reference.
/Marg
And to further clarify....I musta been on a roll yesterday
....I didn't mean to say anyone specifically is not interested in the truth. I just felt like I was bordering torpedoing my own argument by providing that link in this thread. Damn it and I take pride in being a good communicator.
www.FourWheelerHB.com
mnealtx 0
QuoteAnd my challenge to your original assertion stands.
Quote2. A mercenary is any person who:
( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
BW was hired on a Personal Protection Services contract - guards, not fighters. This sub-article proven false.
( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
Arguable - if you stipulate ANY response is a 'direct part in the hostilities', then any gate guard can be a mercenary under this sub-article
( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
Arguable - I am unaware of what direct State Department PPD personnel are paid to make the comparison.
( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
The USA is a party to the conflict - this sub-article proven false
( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
Proven
( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Proven
Since sub-articles A and D are proven false, and sub-articles B and C are unproven:
Blackwater are *not* mercenaries.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
QuoteAnd my challenge to your original assertion stands.
Still does …
2. A mercenary is any person who:
( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
QuoteBW was hired on a Personal Protection Services contract - guards, not fighters. This sub-article proven false.
Maybe – leaning strongly to affirmed … they were specifically recruited to fulfill roles that were previously fulfilled by uniformed military in an armed conflict (the individuals in question are hired for skills related to combat not medical skills, not analytical skills, not something unrelated to fighting) that had reasonable expectations of engaging in … &, as I’ve quoted repeatedly:
( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
QuoteArguable - if you stipulate ANY response is a 'direct part in the hostilities', then any gate guard can be a mercenary under this sub-article
Proven, or affirmed. See the USMC Colonel’s comments on Blackwater’s actions, Mr. Prince’s testimony, and the other documented incidents cited.
( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
QuoteArguable - I am unaware of what direct State Department PPD personnel are paid to make the comparison.
Proven. They’re privately employed for monetary gain and as has been widely noted paid substantially more than US military, for example:
“Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.”
(Analysis & quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html; primary document, made available through House Committee: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20061207151614-43671.pdf.)
( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
QuoteThe USA is a party to the conflict - this sub-article proven false
I.e., the citizenry exception that I’ve referenced at least a half dozen times … or as I wrote originally “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?”
Now that the US has a signed SOFA with the Iraqi government, it may be affirmed.
( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
Affirmed
( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Affirmed
So sub-articles A is a maybe leaning toward affirmed, and sub-articles B and C are affirmed. It’s the technicality of part D (before US-Iraq SOFA entered into force) that may be the exception. And that sounds a lot like what I’ve been writing all along. And the validity of the challenge to your original assertion still stands.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
jcd11235 0
QuoteQuoteI am of the mind that truth is far more important than being right.
Me too … but I’d hope that would be evident from the style and substance of what I write, as well as the times I’ve defended other posters and their challenging of my arguments….
That's certainly an admirable ideal. Lately, I've encountered friends (and strangers) making and strongly defending assertions that are provably and objectively wrong. It takes all of the enjoyment out of attempts at intelligent discussion, more so when it is an especially intelligent friend doing it.
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteAnd my challenge to your original assertion stands.
Still does …
2. A mercenary is any person who:
( a ) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;QuoteBW was hired on a Personal Protection Services contract - guards, not fighters. This sub-article proven false.
Maybe – leaning strongly to affirmed … they were specifically recruited to fulfill roles that were previously fulfilled by uniformed military in an armed conflict (the individuals in question are hired for skills related to combat not medical skills, not analytical skills, not something unrelated to fighting) that had reasonable expectations of engaging in … &, as I’ve quoted repeatedly:
Are you DELIBERATELY being this obtuse??
PROTECTIVE SERVICE != equal "FIGHTER", even though they MAY have to fight as part of their job.
GUARD != FIGHTER, even though they may have to fight as part of their job.
Quote( b ) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
QuoteArguable - if you stipulate ANY response is a 'direct part in the hostilities', then any gate guard can be a mercenary under this sub-article
Proven, or affirmed. See the USMC Colonel’s comments on Blackwater’s actions, Mr. Prince’s testimony, and the other documented incidents cited.
I don't give a crap what the COL said about bypassing a checkpoint in Falujah - remember the 'specially recruited' thing? They have to be HIRED TO PERFORM THAT ACTION.
By this logic a bouncer is the equivalent of a SWAT entry team member, since he may get in a fight as part of his job.
Quote( c ) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
QuoteArguable - I am unaware of what direct State Department PPD personnel are paid to make the comparison.
Proven. They’re privately employed for monetary gain and as has been widely noted paid substantially more than US military, for example:“Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Baghdad overseeing more than 160,000 U.S. troops, makes roughly $180,000 a year. That comes out to less than half the fee charged by Blackwater for its senior manager of a 34-man security team.”
(Analysis & quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001352.html; primary document, made available through House Committee: http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20061207151614-43671.pdf.)
BW was under a STATE contract, not military. Compare like vs. like, please.
Quote( d ) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
QuoteThe USA is a party to the conflict - this sub-article proven false
I.e., the citizenry exception that I’ve referenced at least a half dozen times … or as I wrote originally “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?”
Now that the US has a signed SOFA with the Iraqi government, it may be affirmed.
The USA is still a party to the conflict.
Quote( e ) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
Affirmed
( f ) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
Affirmed
QuoteSo sub-articles A is a maybe leaning toward affirmed, and sub-articles B and C are affirmed. It’s the technicality of part D (before US-Iraq SOFA entered into force) that may be the exception. And that sounds a lot like what I’ve been writing all along. And the validity of the challenge to your original assertion still stands.
/Marg
Nope - they were NOT HIRED TO BE FIGHTERS.
Still not mercs.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
By this logic a bouncer is the equivalent of a SWAT entry team member, since he may get in a fight as part of his job.
If you armed that bouncer with an Uzi, night vision, and body armor, it might be tough to see the distinction.
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuote
By this logic a bouncer is the equivalent of a SWAT entry team member, since he may get in a fight as part of his job.
If you armed that bouncer with an Uzi, night vision, and body armor, it might be tough to see the distinction.
For those that can't understand the difference between the two jobs, I wouldn't be surprised at all that they couldn't.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
Mike you’ve asserted an absolute with complete certainty. I’ve challenged that assertion on the grounds that (1) it’s not as absolute as you assert, and (2) it certainly was not resolved with the certainty or clarity that you assert, either here or in the real world. You have a higher bar to prove (like proving guilt). All I had to show was some reasonable doubt and that there was some ambiguity.
The criteria doesn’t say guard. The criteria doesn’t say defensive. They were specially recruited to perform activities that required a skill set unique to fighting in armed conflict. They are specially recruited based on skills related to military combat.
And as has been noted by people other than me, as cited previously but far from limited to LTC Ralph Peters, USA (ret), the Iraqi populace frequently can’t tell the difference. The US service members get blamed and have to deal with the consequences of their poor actions/choices in a few but critical instances. That’s the ”So What? Who Cares?” for me. If PMSC behavior is in conflict with US military strategy and operations, then it’s important. And in a counterinsurgency, the population is the key. See Galula, Trinquier, FM 3-24, Chap 1, pg 1-24, or GEN McChrystal’s COMISAF COIN GUIDANCE released last week, i.e., don’t believe me because I state it.
QuoteBW was under a STATE contract, not military. Compare like vs. like, please.
They were under contract to State (& other agencies) to perform duties that had traditionally been performed by US military. Activities that had once been core military responsibilities. That is comparing like with like. That further strengthens the argument that criterion (a) was fulfilled. BW was recruited to serve in roles with expectation of fighting that had previously been filled by uniformed service members.
It appears to a reasonable person that until post #[67] you were not functioning under the real criteria of Article 47. (The text of the Article was linked in my first response to you, back to a post from October 2007 in which I posted them verbatim – it’s that primary data addiction
). Imagine if someone came here and asserted, “There is NO individual right to firearms,” and they didn’t know what the 2nd amendment really stated? But they were extremely confident in their assertion?
QuoteAre you DELIBERATELY being this obtuse??
No, I’m just pointing out calmly and with evidence that the assertion you made is not as clear as you would like to believe.
Are you going to get mad & swear at me and insult me again because I have the temerity to challenge a belief that you strongly hold?
You’ve acknowledged that the word holds a pejorative connotation for you but you don’t seem to want to talk about why or what to do about that … even tho I’ve repeatedly tried and even brought in a reference from the Army War College that might serve as a starting point.
If one is opposed to any privatization (I’m not) then it’s a non sequitur – it doesn’t matter: all privitization is opposed.
If one is a pacifist opposed to force projection (I’m not) - then it’s a non sequitur – it doesn’t matter: all armed conflict is opposed.
If one favors unilateral privitization and is not a pacifist then what's there may be an argument (not mine) for privitizing all military functions: make them all mercenaries by definition. If privitization is the best way, where's the advocacy of option?
If one stands to benefit markedly from PMSCs (I don’t have the skill set for which they recruit operational employees) the perception/connotation/PR does matter because it creates bad PR among a different domestic audience - the US population and the US Congress.
If one is motivated (beyond ideals of truth and recognition that the real world isn't often 'black-n-white') by strategy and finding the most effective means to execute that strategy within the law and within the values of the US (btw: that’s a paraphrasing from Bush admin strategy docs), then the connotation doesn’t matter much at the surface level *but* it does to the extent that it impacts the population amongst the insurgents (this is where I fall).
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
mnealtx 0
QuoteMike you’ve asserted an absolute with complete certainty. I’ve challenged that assertion on the grounds that (1) it’s not as absolute as you assert, and (2) it certainly was not resolved with the certainty or clarity that you assert, either here or in the real world. You have a higher bar to prove (like proving guilt). All I had to show was some reasonable doubt and that there was some ambiguity.
The criteria doesn’t say guard. The criteria doesn’t say defensive. They were specially recruited to perform activities that required a skill set unique to fighting in armed conflict. They are specially recruited based on skills related to military combat.
Now who's throwing out red herrings? The quote is "in order to fight in an armed conflict" - their contract is NOT to fight, but to defend.
QuoteAnd as has been noted by people other than me, as cited previously but far from limited to LTC Ralph Peters, USA (ret), the Iraqi populace frequently can’t tell the difference. The US service members get blamed and have to deal with the consequences of their poor actions/choices in a few but critical instances. That’s the ”So What? Who Cares?” for me. If PMSC behavior is in conflict with US military strategy and operations, then it’s important. And in a counterinsurgency, the population is the key. See Galula, Trinquier, FM 3-24, Chap 1, pg 1-24, or GEN McChrystal’s COMISAF COIN GUIDANCE released last week, i.e., don’t believe me because I state it.
Ok, so if BW *HAD* been hired as an offensive force, then why are they getting investigated and fined? Those actions would have been in the line of duty, if that were the case..
ACTIONS != purpose of hiring contract.
QuoteQuoteBW was under a STATE contract, not military. Compare like vs. like, please.
They were under contract to State (& other agencies) to perform duties that had traditionally been performed by US military. Activities that had once been core military responsibilities. That is comparing like with like.
No - according to their contract, they are augmentees of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
QuoteSection C.1.1, Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract (excerpt)
"Under the Diplomatic and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS) of the Department of State has a broad range of responsibilities that include protection of personnel and facilities both domestic and abroad."
Section C.1.2, Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract (excerpt)
"The Bureau of Diplomatic Security is unable to provide protective services on a long-term basis from from it's pool of Special Agents, thus outside contractual support is required for emergency protective requirement stated on extremely short notice."
QuoteThat further strengthens the argument that criterion (a) was fulfilled. BW was recruited to serve in roles with expectation of fighting that had previously been filled by uniformed service members.
Find me where it says anything about fighting in the quote below:
QuoteSection C.1.3, Worldwide Personal Protective Services Contract (excerpt)
"The following are the specific goals of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security:
Prevent loss of life, injury to personnel, and damage/destruction of facilities or equipment, worldwide as specified by individual Task Orders issued under this contract.
Ensure security and safety of personnel and facilities in static (fixed) locations and/or in mobile (in transit) operations.
Expedite the movement of personnel in the accomplishment of their missions.
Secure the environment to enable personnel to conduct their business and complete their missions.
Protect personnel and the organizations they represent from harm or embarassment."
There's an awful lot of uses of the word "protective", and quite a dearth of mention of "combat operations" for a group that was supposedly hired 'to fight in an armed conflict".
QuoteIt appears to a reasonable person that until post #[67] you were not functioning under the real criteria of Article 47. (The text of the Article was linked in my first response to you, back to a post from October 2007 in which I posted them verbatim – it’s that primary data addiction
).
Nope - I was operating under correct assumptions, because I *KNEW* the type of duties they were hired to perform. Obviously, I can't speak for others who assumed their presumptions were correct.
QuoteImagine if someone came here and asserted, “There is NO individual right to firearms,” and they didn’t know what the 2nd amendment really stated? But they were extremely confident in their assertion?
Why do you think I keep saying it? In this case, I *am* the one holding the Constitution.
QuoteQuoteAre you DELIBERATELY being this obtuse??
No, I’m just pointing out calmly and with evidence that the assertion you made is not as clear as you would like to believe.
Unfortunately, your evidence is based on a false presumption, as shown by the text of BW's contract.
QuoteAre you going to get mad & swear at me and insult me again because I have the temerity to challenge a belief that you strongly hold?
Depends - are you going to falsely accuse me of strawman arguments and red herrings again?
QuoteYou’ve acknowledged that the word holds a pejorative connotation for you but you don’t seem to want to talk about why or what to do about that … even tho I’ve repeatedly tried and even brought in a reference from the Army War College that might serve as a starting point.
Because regardless of what the War College says, most people hold mercenaries in low esteem - look at the original post. I feel it important to prove that the US has not, in fact, hired mercenaries to fight in Iraq.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
nerdgirl 0
Quote
QuoteMike you’ve asserted an absolute with complete certainty. I’ve challenged that assertion on the grounds that (1) it’s not as absolute as you assert, and (2) it certainly was not resolved with the certainty or clarity that you assert, either here or in the real world. You have a higher bar to prove (like proving guilt). All I had to show was some reasonable doubt and that there was some ambiguity.
The criteria doesn’t say guard. The criteria doesn’t say defensive. They were specially recruited to perform activities that required a skill set unique to fighting in armed conflict. They are specially recruited based on skills related to military combat.
Now who's throwing out red herrings?
What in there do you think is a red herring: a logical fallacy that is a deliberate attempt to divert attention or to change a subject or divert an argument?
I reiterated the criteria that you’ve tried/are trying to assert are relevant, when they’re not. Words that you've used that aren't in the criteria.
Are you arguing that they were not hired, "specially recruited," because of their skills and experience related to military combat? What are the requirements of the contract with respect to skills and experience?
QuoteThe quote is "in order to fight in an armed conflict" - their contract is NOT to fight, but to defend.
If in actions of having to “defend” they have to fight, then they’re fighting. There is not “offensive” versus “defensive” criteria. You might argue that there should be one.
QuoteOk, so if BW *HAD* been hired as an offensive force, then why are they getting investigated and fined? Those actions would have been in the line of duty, if that were the case..
Depends to which case you are referring.
Deliberate killing of civilians would get a uniformed service member investigated too. Excessive use of force could get a uniformed service member investigated too.
By your notional example above, that suggests that criteria (a) was fulfilled. (And “offensive” still is not part of the criteria; (b) “in fact, engage in direct hostilities” is. It's those direct hostilities that are largely responsible for investigations and subsequent findings.)
QuoteQuoteQuoteBW was under a STATE contract, not military. Compare like vs. like, please.
They were under contract to State (& other agencies) to perform duties that had traditionally been performed by US military. Activities that had once been core military responsibilities. That is comparing like with like.
No - according to their contract, they are augmentees of the State Department's Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
They are “augmentees” to BDS because the military was unable/were not going to fill a role they had traditionally served. Not because BDS had traditionally been deployed into armed conflict. I.e., that further strengthens the argument that criterion (a) was fulfilled. (Some) employees of BW were recruited to serve in roles with expectation of fighting that had previously been filled by uniformed service members.
QuoteQuoteAre you going to get mad & swear at me and insult me again because I have the temerity to challenge a belief that you strongly hold?
Depends - are you going to falsely accuse me of strawman arguments and red herrings again?
Putting aside for the moment the validity of whether they were/are red herrings and straw men – because if they are then it’s not a false premise. Regardless, they are part of the argument (“the ball”) not the person (“the player”).
Again, assuming for the sake of discussion that they weren't red herring and strawmen, your argument now is that if you can’t control your emotions and actions (swearing and insulting), it’s my fault?
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Where have I said that BW's actions didn't cross the line, Marg? You keep attributing an argument to me that I NEVER MADE.
I never said that the reasons I used to explain why BW was not a mercenary company were criteria under law - another argument I never made.
My argument all along was (and continues to be) that they were NOT hired to fight in that manner. The criteria are over-broad and can as easily be used to accuse a gate guard acting in self-defense of being a mercenary.
BW exceeded their mandate and deserve whatever punishment is handed down to them in that regard.
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites