None of that means anything, in respect to the question - what have they been doing in Iraq? You have described, there, a complete lack of accountability. As long as they fulfill their contracts to the satisfaction of their paymasters, they can do as they please. I'm sure their mandates and missions and contracts and so forth make fine reading, and may often correspond to some degree with their actual behavior, but in fact no one is minding this store. They are not subject to US military law, US civilian law, or Iraqi law, as far as I can discover. There is no record of their various doings , good or bad. The Iraqis who have to deal with them appear to dislike them very much - which in itself is a bad thing, in the hearts&minds department. As Machiavelli was not the first to point out, a prince should not use mercenaries as occupying forces - they are often a source of trouble with the locals. They have no idealistic motives tempering their tactics, and their motives are only coincidently aligned with those of the prince. I have no idea what you think the "common" definition of a mercenary is, but mercenaries these guys most definitely are - what else ?
I'm just freaked out by the fact that it is seemed perfectly legit to kill Iraqi civilians at random to so-called protect the lives of Americans in Iraq. Moreover, and this by a security company. Since when are these practices normal? How do you intend to project democratic values when some pigs are more equal than others? I.e. when the life of an Iraqi citizen has less value than the safety of an American: a foreign occupier.
How do you or anyone know that they're civilians, rather than terrorists or insurgents or whatever other kind of killer they have over there? Baron Max
Don't know Baron. If you shoot people for no other reason that they are standing in the street and you feel that your American delegation might be threatened because some time before you arrive at a scene there had been an attack you have a high chance of hitting civilians.. Usually terrorists do not hang around at the place they just attacked. Moreover, If the people that were wounded were insurgents they would probably have been arrested as such I would think. One was for instance a lawyer. Now we all know that lawyers are scum, but that doesn't make them insurgents.
Just shoot people standing around at the street corner? terrorist don't hang arround? and just were does your expertess on the subject come from? http://news.aol.com/story/_a/us-resumes-blackwater-convoys-in-iraq/n20070921090909990004 Here is the rest of the story, the typical middle east blackmail, having to pay for the lives of those who attack you. Another story were everybody convicted the Marines before the whole story was in, Haditha, the charges have been dismissed, and Murtha who spoke loud and clear about the Marines being murders, has failed to make a apology in the same LOUD and CLEAR MANNER in which he, MURTHA MADE VIGILANT STATEMENT ABOUT THE GUILT OF THE MARINES, I wonder from which directions Murtha's Purple Heart came from, shot in the ass?
Unlike other war situations I haven't heard of any children being identified as either. Blackwater personel have killed children and fired when not fired upon. If they aren't competent - the least damning judgement possible - they should not be paid the rather enormous sums they are paid. Let'em guard warehouses at night in Wisconsin. Then if they shoot someone they will pay the consequences.
Now lets see some Citation of fact of these accuzations? Just as I thought, a beer farting cheese eating liberal from the Peoples Republick of Madison/Milwaukee.
What???????????????? ???????????????????????????????????? Unbelievably outrageous.... Seems to be true: From Blackwater resumes limited work in Iraq
The Iraqi government cant even decide who is allowed to operate in its own country? Especially gun wielding mercenaries?
That's what is called Freedom my friend. Something that communists in Europe like you will never be able to understand.
You are incorrect. As I've said several times, PMCs are subject to the UCMJ. This is IAW article 802.2.10: Nope. The 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions exempts nationals of a state who is participating in the conflict from mercenary status: The tasks performed by Blackwater, and other PMCs, are commensurate with what any private security firm does here in the US: protection of personnel and material assets. The threat climate is different in Iraq, and consequently the security forces operating there are differently trained and equipped. The only job which would typically fall to the military where contractors are used is protection of civilian VIPs. The main reason for this is that we've found that the flexibility they offer (as well as their usually impressive skill set) is a better fit for that kind of duty. This has been a common sight in multinational deployments since the 1980s, actually. What exactly is it you're so opposed to?
So we don't have a declared war, the mercenaries in Iraq are not necessarily serving with or even "accompanying" the US military (or the Brit military, etc) on any "contingency operations" in "the field", etc. Which may be why they are not being held to account by military courts, or subjected to routine military investigations, or overseen by military authroities. Look, the fact of lack of oversight and accountability does not change with assertion of supposedly and theoretically relevant rules. Right now the US citizenry cannot even discover how many mercenaries there are in Iraq, let alone who they are and what they are doing. So now we know what the "common meaning" of mercenary was that you referred to - it was the technical Geneva determination of status, for POW purposes etc. So the South Africans and Israelis and Salvadorans and Nepalese and French and so forth who work for Blackwater et al are mercenaries, but the Americans and Brits are not. Is that the conclusion? And are operating with no oversight or accountability. I am opposed to my government hiring mercenaries to fight wars and enforce occupations and so forth. I am opposed to having any force representing my country and identified with my side in a conflict operating without oversight and accountability to my country and my side. And I want to know what these guys have been up to.
This is what I keep running into when I do try to find out what they've been up to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DynCorp_International Check the references and notes for extensive links. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136_pf.html for article with that quote, and quite a bit more anecdote. Or here: http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/09/blackwater-back.html
So who the hell cares what you're opposed to? Who are you? I'll have them report to your house at dawn tomorrow morning, okay? Baron Max
Baron is trying to be a bully, it's cute. Hey Baron, to be highly specific, the person who asked iceaura is the one who cares, genius.