Blackwater Rent-A-Soldiers to be Indicted?

Originally posted by BlasteR
I honestly don't know what these guys are going to do when they are out of office though because it's not like everyone is gonna be happy to see them wherever they go...

Move to Paraguay, where buying the government is cheap and already in your pocket, you are sitting over the next scarce resource, (a huge aquifer) and you can easily defend yourself with your own "rent-a-army" from anyone who might come after you.

Just one possibility.

reply to post by Scorched Earth

reply to post by WyrdeOne


One would think if you prefer to deal in truth, you wouldn't use the term mercenary since they arent. Want mercs? Look at the now defunct companies like Sandline International. 100% merc firm there.

Blackwater? Not so much.

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to the mercenary activity of BW?

Were they acting as mercs while proving protection details for Paul Bremer? What about other high level Dept. of State employees?

Were they acting as mercs while working alongside the DSS? They performed the same role, so are you willing to step up and say the Diplomatic Security Service (part of the State Dept. ) is also a mercenary organization?

A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict, who is not a national or a party to the conflict, and "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"

reply to post by ice1300


Awesome.


Providing security details isn't taking part in any armed conflict. Thanks for proving my point.

Laws of war

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(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;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(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


I worked with BW people in Iraq. Call them What you want, I was just glad to have some extra support.

reply to post by ice1300


At any time, did you ever see them taking OFFENSIVE operations?

these guys need to be leashed and fenced that is for sure.this ''intelligence''faction of theirs i heard about recently gives me reason to cringe as well as the role of mercenary groups used against populations in the past.people need legal recourse and guarantees against those pinheads who would violate a persons individual liberty for their ''policing''or''intelligence gathering''actions.

There were one or two that wanted to be in on the offensive but my higher ups were very clear on the point that they were there as security and in a purely defensive role. All in all I was glad they were there. Fallujah was bad enough and with out the little extra help it would have been even worse.

reply to post by ice1300


Since you have first hand experience with them, would you agree that they were acting in a mercenary role while defending the CPA HQ alongside a few Marines?

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by WyrdeOne

 

Any chance you could actually use the proper terminology and not refer to them as mercenaries since they aren't merc's?

Security contractors will suffice. Thanks.

Please explain the difference.

reply to post by earthman4


Sure thing:

Mercenary: FIGHTS in wars for money while not serving under any nations flag.

Security contractors: Provide protective details for various personnel, convoys, compounds, etc etc.

No the Blackwater people I knew weren’t mercenaries. Most were very profesional.
P.S. It wasn’t the Marines it was the Army.

reply to post by ice1300


Thank you very much.

CPAHQ-Najaf was marines with an Army MP or 2 thrown in

reply to post by Scorched Earth


Sorry I was talking about Fallujah in march of 2004. But still the BW guys were Great to work with.

[edit on pm314557802_15 by ice1300]

Originally posted by Scorched Earth
reply to post by earthman4

 

Sure thing:

Mercenary: FIGHTS in wars for money while not serving under any nations flag.

Security contractors: Provide protective details for various personnel, convoys, compounds, etc etc.

But the security guys do fight and they don't care who. This has been proven by the dead bodies. You can't protect without fighting.

This argument "they are, they arent" could go around and around. It is primarily an "issue" because the definition of mercenary has not evolved with the use of mercenaries. A large portion of the world community does see them as mercenaries.

www.fride.org...

Human rights groups also point out that by surrendering their monopoly on the right to use force, governments are throwing into question one of the defining features of the nation state. The United States currently employs between 25,000 and 50,000 mercenaries in Iraq, thereby substantially reducing official figures for the military deployment there, and increasing numbers of soldiers are leaving national armies in order to pursue higher economic rewards on offer from the private sector. This controversial phenomenon also raises questions about states’ responsibilities to prevent violence being exported from its territory as a service. At present South Africa is the only country which expressly prohibits its nationals from selling their military skills in another armed conflict.

One could make the same argument that is being made for "Blackwater employees are not mercenaries" apply to "Al Queda operatives are not terrorists." It all depends on whose point of view, doesnt it? If Russian ""security contractors" were providing those services to the Iraqi's not on our side, I am guessing we would consider them mercenaries.

I am with WyrdOne, if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, its a duck.

I am sure there are some military people over there that are quite grateful for the help, as was expressed in this thread. Gratitude does not in any way build an argument for or against their status as mercenaries. I can be grateful to a person who murders my enemy, someone who was wishing me ill, and he can still be a murderer, not authorized in any way to murder my enemy.

I have been reading up on the exact current legal definitions for what a "contractor" can and can not do. They CAN apparently defend with arms a US base, they CANNOT go barging through the streets violating Iraqi traffic laws and shooting civilians in cars. Not even our military can do that, it is a war crime.

www.nytimes.com...

L. Paul Bremer III, who supervised the drafting of the immunity order as administrator of the United States occupation authority, said: “The immunity is not absolute. The order requires contractors to respect all Iraqi laws, so it’s not a blanket immunity.”

jurist.law.pitt.edu...

Far easier would be prosecution under two sets of federal legislation that allow prosecution of relevant war crimes in federal district courts. The first is the War Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2441. This statute allows prosecution, for example, of those who are U.S. nationals who commit a relevant war crime outside the United States. Listed war crimes include some violations of the 1907 Hague Convention No. IV, including killing or wounding “treacherously,” killing or wounding those who have no means of defense who have “surrendered,” and use of weapons or bullets of a nature to cause unnecessary suffering.

I have a feeling that when the dust settles, and the legal language is updated to reflect the new use of hired guns on the international stage, Blackwater WILL be officially categorized as mercenaries. Whether people and leaders here in the US accept that definition is another story.

Like waterboarding, it is easy for our politicians to debate whether or not that meets the definition of "torture" when it is not happening to them. If it were happening to them, they would unanimously agree it was torture.

This is very interesting and if they do actually go through with the court stuff and they get indicted I wonder how Blackwater's techniques & operations will change?

Originally posted by justamomma

You just couldn't resist throwing in that you are the dubbed blackwater expert, could you.

He actually is... I've known him for months now.. he knows more about the subject than ANY.. ANY other person I have come across on ATS.

Is there some kind of problem with that?? You act like the understanding the truth is a bad thing

Spartankingleonidas will not bite you...

-ChriS

[edit on 19-8-2008 by BlasteR]

reply to post by BlasteR


Thats cute, but unfortunately it isnt true. He only knows what he read in Scahill's book and a few news articles.