Blackwater security firm banned from Iraq

Originally posted by marg6043


Sorry but the witness and wounded are saying that when Blackwater opened fired they did it indiscriminately over every body that was around.

Now they want the Blackwater to fall under the Iraqis law for justice.

Right now any foreign company in Iraq is exempt from Iraqi laws.

the NY Times has an up to date article,

the whole thing begam when an Iraqi family with a baby in the car faild to stop as directed by Blackwater guards in a convoy.

the car & many other civilians were fired upon indiscriminately & killed...

see www.nytimes.com...


another item in report:
'Currently, about 25 companies are formally licensed, the official said. Blackwater is not among them"

it tells us that the confusion of Iraq govt. & laws being put in the books,
is making the registration & licensing of Security Companies a very confuse mess... many companies since 2005 & 2006 have failed to apply for the operating licenses, as the rules keep changing as different factions
in the govt pull & tug for authority...?? (hmmm, a divide & conquer tactic)??

^^^^^^^^^^^

~ marg6043

Right now any foreign company in Iraq is exempt from Iraqi laws.

It was when Paul Bremmer was the boss,
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) whose rules/directives still apply
see: www.cpa-iraq.org...

see CPA order #17...contractors, military, etc

which allows security contractors to;
"operate outside Iraq law, a priviledge extended them by American officials while Iraqi's government
was still under American administration'


thanks


it will likely take weeks and a real slithery path to stonewall the event
and absolve everyone in fault.

Thanks Hal for the links, I was typing as I was looking at the news and didn't even had the time to check on the news links.

reply to post by St Udio


Thanks Udio, no wonder this mercenaries are doing whatever they feel out of their butts to do in Iraq because they will never be prosecuted by Iraqi laws.

I tell you if I was an Iraqi I will be fighting the occupation anyway I could.

So much for liberation, now who is the insurgency again? Iraqis means nothing in their own lands to the profiters of this war.

Shame, shame and more disgusting shame.

reply to post by fritz


Thanks Fritz.

Although you make many assumptions outside reality about my personal view, I appreciate the info about the convention. So, yes, that part makes me happy.

I am curious though, and hopeful that perhaps you have a response that is not an attack on my person, to the following question.

Your quote, (although no link is provided), specifically states:

A mercenary is any person who is specially recruited in order to fight in an armed conflict, who takes a direct part in the hostilities,

But, its my understanding that although most of the posters here tend expand the problem in question to all of Blackwater, in reality the 1000 BW personnel that Iraq is upset with, are actually under contract to provide security to the U.S. Department of State. Not recruited to fight an armed conflict.

So, what part of the Geneva Convention addresses hiring outside security staff, since in reality, that is both what occured, and is in question?


Thanks Fritz

reply to post by makeitso


Well bush said in his speech today that they are allowed to engage in the field, but then he kind of swallow his words and said "in some cases"

That means that like I said before Blackwater are free to do as the want without congress scrutiny or monitoring.

reply to post by marg6043


That's strange.

I took it to mean that when they are escorting Department of State Personnel, and they are being attacked, that they can return fire in an effort to protect, and escape the attack. As the did in the case in question.


I wonder why we read his statement differently?

reply to post by makeitso


Really, you got that out of his answer? I though he was giving me a recipe for chocolate chip cookies!

Peace

reply to post by Dr Love





Nope. I never hear his speach. Didn't even know he gave one until marge posted. (Don't know why marge or anyone would even bother to listen to him or any politician for that matter). I got it straight from marge's post.

bush said in his speech today that they are allowed to engage in the field, ~ "in some cases"

Not sure why she listens to him or quotes him since she appears to hate him, but there it is.

I can see the headlines of a new post now.

Marge listens to and quotes Bush (j/k)

Originally posted by tombangelta
there is something very wrong with this world when the leader of the supposed free world hires a company that relies on a continued war like state in order to make a profit.

This current Administration is the military industrial complex. IMO there is no chance of getting to the next election without a massive event in America that invokes martial law.

The 2008 election will happen it will just be rigged for Clinton to win and continue the agenda.
Bush deserves a vacation after 8 years of turning America into the most hated country in the world. He deserves some R&R after taking away all of our rights, putting us all under surveillance, building a deeper gorge between the rich and poor and specifically for lulling us all to sleep so that he can carry on without interuption. He must be very tired with all that hard work.
(I worry about Laura, I pray she stays safe)

So Bush will get his retirement, hope it was worth it Mr. Bush.
Mrs. Clinton will be rigged into office and will carry on where Bush left off.
I don't think we even need to go through the charade of an election again, just go ahead and announce that Hillary will be taking over as CEO effective immediatly.
Our media has pretty much already told us what will happen yet most will still go thru the act of an election heck some of us still write to our congressmans to state our opinions or ask for help Can you believe it???

Originally posted by makeitso

Your quote, (although no link is provided), YES IT WAS! (Protocol I, Art. 47)

So, what part of the Geneva Convention addresses hiring outside security staff, since in reality, that is both what occured, and is in question?

Self evident really. Just read the Article fully, several times as I have done. I think it is the last sentence that refers to your problem:-

is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Originally posted by fritz
Originally posted by makeitso

Your quote, (although no link is provided), YES IT WAS! (Protocol I, Art. 47)

So, what part of the Geneva Convention addresses hiring outside security staff, since in reality, that is both what occured, and is in question?

Self evident really. Just read the Article fully, several times as I have done. I think it is the last sentence that refers to your problem:-

is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Thanks Fritz.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree on both counts.

You did not provide a link. No way to click and see where your are reading this from. As far as I can tell, it could be from a bin laden transcript, since there's no linky.
(Not that I think it is, just sayin).

As for your quote, BW has not been sent on "official duty as a member of the armed forces", as anyone can see. Instead, they are under contract to provide transport/escort security to U.S. diplomats.

Quite a difference isn't there?

[edit on 9/20/07 by makeitso]

reply to post by makeitso


How dare you to insinuate that I hate my president I should have you on charges of aiding and helping terrorist.

Anyway when it comes to Blackwater they fall under nobody and that means they no only have to fall under Iraqi laws, but also our own government turns blind eye to what they do.

Is not the first time Bush has been asked about who is monitoring this so call security service agencies and he can never answer under what department they fall.

So is very obvious what is going on when it comes to whos rules of engagement they follow.

And for my interpretation I do just like my president does and the war happy people does, I believe what I want to believe in this instance.

[edit on 20-9-2007 by marg6043]

What?
No comment about the new thread title I speculated about?

I was sure you would get a giggle out of that one.

reply to post by makeitso


makeitso you know I am just joking right?

reply to post by marg6043


Absolutely Marge

I also. You know I love ya!

Originally posted by makeitso
You did not provide a link. No way to click and see where your are reading this from. As far as I can tell, it could be from a bin laden transcript, since there's no linky.

I think it's from wiki. Interesting section on this perticular subject.

The situation during the Occupation of Iraq 2003 – shows the difficulty in defining what is a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, any U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could not be defined a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). With the hand-over of power to the Iraqi government, some would say that unless they declare themselves residents in Iraq, i.e. a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d), they are mercenary soldiers, if one does not consider the United States to be a party to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. However, those who acknowledge the United States to be a party to the conflict would insist that U.S. armed guards cannot be called mercenaries (APGC77 Art 47.d). If no trial of accused mercenaries occurs, allegations evaporate in the heat of accusations and counter-accusations and denials. Coalition soldiers in Iraq supporting the interim Iraqi government are not mercenaries, because they either are of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict or they have been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces (APGC77 Art 47.f).

But Wiki also states

It should be noted that many countries, including the United States, are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77). So although it is the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, it is not definitive.

So from this we can see that the definition of those "contractors" is debatable.

Source

Thanks yanchek.

No wonder I'm confused. The link is helpful, although I don't know if thats what Fritz was referring to, but there appears to be little consensus.

So I'm still confused a bit, especially since I'm not an expert in the field.

It appears that some say its against the Geneva Convention and some say its not.

So, I try to use analogies from other similar situations outside of the Iraq conflict to help me understand the issues. Such as; if a diplomat from any other country travels somewhere with a non-military security staff, are they considered mercenaries?

For example: If Prince Charles traveled to, say, Sudan, with a standard U.K. diplomatic security detail, who are not directly attached to the military, and they are attacked while in transit, are they considered mercenaries? Are they allowed to shoot back to protect the Prince?

That example could be used for any countries diplomatic travels. IDK who does what when they travel, its just an example used as an analogy for the incident in Iraq, where BW was contracted to escort U.S. Diplomats in transit in Iraq.

I would propose that this appears to be SOP for many countries, and not considered as hiring of mercenaries by anyone. Except in BW's case so that the U.S. can be bashed. But not being an expert, I ask the question.


[edit on 9/20/07 by makeitso]

I would politely ask posters who refer to my posts with 'I think it came from Wiki' etc to refrain from making such comments. I do not use Wiki and neither do I use Google.

Makeitso, I just do not know what to tell you. I have spelt it out as loudly as I can. Why don't you be a good chap or chapess and type in the Geneva Convention in your search engine eerrr, I think its Wiki and go to a link or thread.

As I stated before, I provided a quote, which in case you missed it, I will repeat.

(Protocol I, Art. 47) - Look it up and read it. If you cannot or will not look for it, please feel free to refer back to my original post where I quoted the article in full.

As to your continued assertion that Blackwater are NOT members of the US armed forces - I KNOW THAT AND, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT, THE LAST LINE (see below) REFERS TO THEM.

'is not a member of the armed forces of any of the parties, and who has not been sent by another country on official duty as a member of its armed forces'

I do like your analogy about H.R.H the POW. Without giving too much away, his CP or BG personnel are all serving members of the UK armed forces and as such, are covered by the Geneva Convention, whereas Blackwater are not.

Just so I cannot be accused of stirring it up and poo-pooing other site members, please type in and read the following, makeitso. Perhaps if you do, you will finally understand where I am coming from.

www.genevaconventions.org...

www.unhchr.ch...

I also found this:

www.unhchr.ch...

[edit on 20-9-2007 by fritz]

BBC NEWS TODAY

Blackwater working again in Iraq

news.bbc.co.uk...

Sri Oracle

Ah. Don't you just love that?

The sound of silence.

The lull B4 the storm.

Nothing to say eh, makeitso?

Sri Oracle, Blackwater is still operating because the US administration are giving the finger to the Iraqis. Sooner or later, probably much later, they will be forced to leave Iraq.

I firmly believe Blackwater and other US led agencies foster so much ill feeling towards US forces, because they are seen to be above and beyond the law - be it International or Iraqi.

The retaliation taken by Blackwater following the attack on their convoy, demonstrates the utter contempt these people have for common Iraqis.

In my opinion, they are no better than common thugs.