Dealing with a rogue nation: US claims right to kidnap anyone it likes

[MilitiaJim]

and say welcome back to the army boys.

Never mind that the State Department wants their people kept alive, and I have no motivation to stick my neck out for them.  I might shoot one rather than let him get captured?  But if I took a bullet for some State weenie, it's 'cause I didn't move fast enough.

[Gentry]

Being an independent contractor certainly makes a person easy to motivate.  I'm sure we've all played adventurers who've been willing to almost bleed to death in order to get the couple-dozen gp the villagers could scrape up. 

[glimmerrat]

TSkoala - you think communism is a bad thing?

[TheTSKoala]

Inheritenly, no government is worse than any other.  The true issue arises on how the government is run by those in power.  Same thing with religion or whatever other cause / issue man can create.  They may have noble intentions, however, with a disingenuous person behind said intentions, the intentions fade quickly.

It's like asking if Guns are bad.  I've never met a gun that willingly made itself float into a mall, school or place of work, and had the presence of mind to pull it's own trigger to mow down people who it thought had done it wrong.

[MilitiaJim]

Inheritenly, no government is worse than any other. 

That is just not true.  It never will be.  A dictatorship is an inherently bad form of government, as are communism and fascism.  Governments are never good, but there are many that are bad from the get go.


God made Man, Sam Colt made men equal.

[Gatac]

To hopefully finish this slight threadjack, communism is an economical system, fascism straddles the line between political and economical, and whether a government is bad or not is hard to decide when you don't define what criteria you're looking at. The old saw that Mussolini made the trains run on time and all that - I'm not saying I agree with that sentiment, but I don't think we can just say "Western democracy rulz!" and be done with it.

Anyone who wants to discuss this further, feel free to PM me.

Gatac

[TheAuldGrump]

Inheritenly, no government is worse than any other. 

That is just not true.  It never will be.  A dictatorship is an inherently bad form of government, as are communism and fascism.  Governments are never good, but there are many that are bad from the get go.


God made Man, Sam Colt made men equal.

Actually, it is more accurate to say that true communism has never been used as the basis for a politic/economic system of government - it is too idealistic and relies too much on people being honest, and shouldering their portion of the load. It can work on a small scale, there have been monasteries that have been effectively communes for over a thousand years. Neither China nor Russia practices/practiced actual communism.

Democracy works because everyone is looking out for their own self interest, and works well enough for inherently selfish creatures such as man. (Monkeys!) The extremes tend to cancel each other out. Difficulties creep in when the more moderately inclined disenfranchise themselves from the voting pool,the balance is then shifted from the center towards the larger of the two extremes. allowing smaller power blocks to wield disproportionately large amounts of influence over the whole.

The Auld Grump, Groucho Marxist....

[TheTSKoala]

Inheritenly, no government is worse than any other. 

That is just not true.  It never will be.  A dictatorship is an inherently bad form of government, as are communism and fascism.  Governments are never good, but there are many that are bad from the get go.


God made Man, Sam Colt made men equal.

What's the difference between Democracy, Monarchy, and Dictatorship?  Choice.  Everything else is more or less the same.  You have one person, as the head of government telling everyone else what is good and what is bad.  The only difference is, in Democracy, you get to choose (sort of) who is telling you what to do.  In the Monarchy, the Head of State elects a person to be the head of state for you.  In a Dictatorship, it's his country.  Don't like it, too bad.

And, you are right.  As humans are, Dictatorships are a baddddd idea.  All the power goes straight to our Id. 

[NekoMouser]

NekoMouser.  You're absolutely right.  If the US has good reason you've done a bad thing, you'll be on the first flight to where you did the bad thing.

Unless you work for Blackwater....

The Auld Grump

That's naive, which isn't shocking, as is the notion that we should just nationalize the independent contractors. An occupied nation that's also involved in a civil war can't really be expect to be allowed to be judge and jury for any part of the occupying force. After things settle down, perhaps. But seriously? You think Blackwater is getting away with something? Congress has had them up one side and down the other about their entire Iraq record (which isn't bad in comparison to any of the nationalized forces there), and they'll be lucky if all they lose is their contract and a few operatives to a reformed Iraqi justice system.

To nationalizing of indy military, I can only say that there are some jobs better handled by patriotic professionals, and some jobs better handled by well paid professionals. And based on the military records of some of Blackwaters ops, I'd say there may be some jobs better handled by well paid patriotic professionals. ^_^ The use of independent contractors is on the rise again thanks to the professionalism and success rate of companies like Executive Outcomes and Blackwater. Don't like their methods? Fine. But it's difficult to argue with their results. It's cheaper to send mercs, and often you can send mercs to places and have them do things that you couldn't send your own government troops for reasons of political expediency.

I find it ironic that any American would argue against the use of mercenaries in the modern era, as without such forces in that nations past it might still be part of Canada. But perhaps that's a bit overstated. Better to say that without independent contractors and consigned forces to train the US military in its infancy, it would not be the force it is today, take it as you like.

[Bill Whitmore]

I believe that, too often, when comparing and contrasting different societies, people try to compare apples to oranges.  Democracy and Free Market are not one and the same.  One is a political system of governance, the other is an economic system.  I have always seen Communism as more of an economic system than a polical/governmental system.  Saying one is better than the other is like saying a motorcycle is better than a car.  There are similarities, certainly, but they are not the same.

But if I had to pick one thing that keeps the U.S. going, it would not be Democracy or Free Market, it would be the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  Giving people a right to bitch acts a pressure valve that prevents the whole system from exploding.

I have often wondered if Russia had adopted a system for freedom of speech, if they would have faired any better in the end.

[TheAuldGrump]

NekoMouser.  You're absolutely right.  If the US has good reason you've done a bad thing, you'll be on the first flight to where you did the bad thing.

Unless you work for Blackwater....

The Auld Grump

That's naive, which isn't shocking, as is the notion that we should just nationalize the independent contractors. An occupied nation that's also involved in a civil war can't really be expect to be allowed to be judge and jury for any part of the occupying force. After things settle down, perhaps. But seriously? You think Blackwater is getting away with something? Congress has had them up one side and down the other about their entire Iraq record (which isn't bad in comparison to any of the nationalized forces there), and they'll be lucky if all they lose is their contract and a few operatives to a reformed Iraqi justice system.

To nationalizing of indy military, I can only say that there are some jobs better handled by patriotic professionals, and some jobs better handled by well paid professionals. And based on the military records of some of Blackwaters ops, I'd say there may be some jobs better handled by well paid patriotic professionals. ^_^ The use of independent contractors is on the rise again thanks to the professionalism and success rate of companies like Executive Outcomes and Blackwater. Don't like their methods? Fine. But it's difficult to argue with their results. It's cheaper to send mercs, and often you can send mercs to places and have them do things that you couldn't send your own government troops for reasons of political expediency.

I find it ironic that any American would argue against the use of mercenaries in the modern era, as without such forces in that nations past it might still be part of Canada. But perhaps that's a bit overstated. Better to say that without independent contractors and consigned forces to train the US military in its infancy, it would not be the force it is today, take it as you like.

Not naive - idealistic.

Guess what - we, as a nation are being held responsible for the actions of the mercenaries that we, as a nation, have put into extranational positions. Their behavior is helping to build a negative image of the United States, as a nation. When they open fire on an unarmed crowd of civilians then it is the U.S. that suffers the loss of national regard.

I do not think they should be nationalized, I think they should be jailed. I think that they should be held responsible for crimes that they commit, regardless of whether they are doing so in the 'national interest', because in the long run it is in the national interest to be seen as a nation of law, rather than as a bunch of cowboys from Crawford, Texas. And yes, they are committing crimes.

I will argue against the use of mercenaries by any nation with as large a standing army as the U.S. - privatization in this regard is a poor idea, loosing a force with only the slimmest of controls. The times of 'Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!' is now past - do we really want them to return?

The Auld Grump

[NekoMouser]

Guess what - we, as a nation are being held responsible for the actions of the mercenaries that we, as a nation, have put into extranational positions. Their behavior is helping to build a negative image of the United States, as a nation. When they open fire on an unarmed crowd of civilians then it is the U.S. that suffers the loss of national regard.

I do not think they should be nationalized, I think they should be jailed. I think that they should be held responsible for crimes that they commit, regardless of whether they are doing so in the 'national interest', because in the long run it is in the national interest to be seen as a nation of law, rather than as a bunch of cowboys from Crawford, Texas. And yes, they are committing crimes.

And they've been put up in front of Congress about it, and a number of operatives will likelybe tried in Iraqi courts at some time in the future. At this point the only thing Blackwater is being shielded from is a court of public opinion in the US (and mob rule has no place in law), and reactionary elements in Iraq who would do anything to get a mob behind them in their own country (and would likely have you beaten to death for using the prophet's name in vain). How does this make Americans look bad? French national forces aren't held to the same accounting by their government when they attack unarmed civilians, Sudanese forces can kill their own people with impunity without effective censure from within, and Sadam Hussein (bless his departed genocidal heart) wiped out enough of the kurdish minority in his own country prior to US involvement that he made the Amnesty International top 10 human rights abusers list but nobody in his government bothered to put a halt to it. The United States Congress does what few (if any) other nations would do and takes action to investigate , officially censure and probably punish (the show ain't over) some of its own. Looks a bit more responsible than the norm, I should think.

I will argue against the use of mercenaries by any nation with as large a standing army as the U.S. - privatization in this regard is a poor idea, loosing a force with only the slimmest of controls.

Because the US has a big army, it should waste combat troops on executive protection? Be serious. And "slimmest of controls":
1. Blackwater can't be tried in a country whose own government is only sporadically
in control.
2. Blackwater can't be tried by regular military who dislike that the mercs are better paid.
3. Blackwater can be tried by Congress, who has the power to levy fines, dismantle them as a company, destroy their ability to do business abroad or in the US, and send individuals within the company to jail in the US or to trial in Iraq.

Yeah. That's seems light to me, too.

The times of 'Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!' is now past - do we really want them to return?

When Shakespeare's Mark Antony uttered the above quotation, he was speaking to a national military force...the Romans didn't start making extensive use of mercenaries until a bit later. And I'm not sure how you reconcile the idea of the days of major armed conflicts being over with reality. I'd refer you to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which documents around 20 major armed conflicts per year world wide.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/MAC_patterns.html

You'll note on the graph at the bottom of the page that there's a marked drop in the number of armed conflicts in one area in particular between 1999 and 2003: Africa. I'm sure a number of factors played into this...but one of the big ones would have to be the presence of Strategic Resources Corporation in the area. You may remember SRC better through reference to one of it's subsidiaries, Executive Outcomes. EO did a lot to stabilize the region by decisively ending a conflict in Angola that had raged for most of the length of the Cold War. I'll leave you with a thought from EO's founder and CEO.

"As a private corporate entity, EO is able to operate without the restrictions of any particular nation's flag leading our soldiers into battle. Organizations such as the UN and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) can make use of EO without partiality in negating the speedy resolution of conflict in any given country utilizing our services."

Eeben Barlow, CEO EO, excerpt from an interview in August 1998

[Krensky]

Because the US has a big army, it should waste combat troops on executive protection? Be serious. And "slimmest of controls":
1. Blackwater can't be tried in a country whose own government is only sporadically
in control.
2. Blackwater can't be tried by regular military who dislike that the mercs are better paid.
3. Blackwater can be tried by Congress, who has the power to levy fines, dismantle them as a company, destroy their ability to do business abroad or in the US, and send individuals within the company to jail in the US or to trial in Iraq.

Yeah. That's seems light to me, too.

Yes.  Protecting United States diplomats and officials is the job of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the Diplomatic Security Service, and the United States armed forces, in particular the United States Marine Corps.  It is not the job of mercenaries of dubious character, many of whom are natives of countries with less then stellar military histories.

The times of 'Cry havoc! And let slip the dogs of war!' is now past - do we really want them to return?

When Shakespeare's Mark Antony uttered the above quotation, he was speaking to a national military force...the Romans didn't start making extensive use of mercenaries until a bit later. And I'm not sure how you reconcile the idea of the days of major armed conflicts being over with reality. I'd refer you to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, which documents around 20 major armed conflicts per year world wide.

http://www.sipri.org/contents/conflict/MAC_patterns.html

You'll note on the graph at the bottom of the page that there's a marked drop in the number of armed conflicts in one area in particular between 1999 and 2003: Africa. I'm sure a number of factors played into this...but one of the big ones would have to be the presence of Strategic Resources Corporation in the area. You may remember SRC better through reference to one of it's subsidiaries, Executive Outcomes. EO did a lot to stabilize the region by decisively ending a conflict in Angola that had raged for most of the length of the Cold War. I'll leave you with a thought from EO's founder and CEO.

"As a private corporate entity, EO is able to operate without the restrictions of any particular nation's flag leading our soldiers into battle. Organizations such as the UN and the Organization of African Unity (OAU) can make use of EO without partiality in negating the speedy resolution of conflict in any given country utilizing our services."

Eeben Barlow, CEO EO, excerpt from an interview in August 1998

Which can roughly be translated as "EO are mercenaries and we're not beholden to any lawful authority.  We'll work for the highest bidder and have no loyalties to anything other then the company and our fee."

[TheTSKoala]

Just another fine example of policy and laws struggling to catch up to the times...

[OverNinja]

Which can roughly be translated as "EO are mercenaries and we're not beholden to any lawful authority.  We'll work for the highest bidder and have no loyalties to anything other then the company and our fee."

Just another fine example of policy and laws struggling to catch up to the times...

Lucky for everyone the South African government CAN make laws, since the EO has been disbanded (though the people may be working for other companies), as mercenaries are now illegal in South Africa.

Article 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.

1. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed forces of that party;
(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict;
(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and
(e) 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.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:
(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:
  (i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the constitutional order of a State; or
  (ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;
(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material compensation;
(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such an act is directed;
(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and
(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory the act is undertaken.

Despite all the yada-yada we get from different people, Blackwater & co. are mercenary organizations and should be treated as such.