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

[TheAuldGrump]

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 likely be 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

Actually - Dogs of War was English slang of Shakespeare's time for mercenaries - the historical inaccuracy is itself historically accurate. To 'Cry Havoc!' meant to give no quarter. Shakespeare was using colloquialisms common to his time. He did not give a fig for accuracy.

As to Congress trying Blackwater - they will be doing so over State Department protest.  An attempt was made, and has been commented on by the FBI, to prevent any investigation into unlawful activities by Blackwater during its sojourn into Iraq. This is a matter of record, recorded in the New York Times as well as other papers. Also bearing mention was the placement of State Department I.G. Krongard's brother on the board of directors of Blackwater. A fact that the I.G. initially denied. It was only after the connection was confirmed that Krongard recused himself, and the investigation handed over to the FBI.

Activity by Blackwater has been questioned publicly in countries other than the U.S. - long before the little incident of gunning down an unarmed crowd. It was in the pages of the Christian Science Monitor that I first heard of any inquiry into the company. Even other contractors were also questioning the tendency of the company to shoot first, and not bother to ask any questions at all. Placing them above both civil and military courts was a license for disaster. I believe that private contractors should be under identical legal limitations as public entities. That if they break the law then the must be held accountable to the full extent of the laws that they have held in contempt, to exactly the same extent that any private individual or Federal agency would be held accountable. To do otherwise is to condone murder in the name of convenience.

And yes, I think that if the U.S. is guarding foreign politicos then it should be through an official branch of the U.S. government, most likely the Secret Service, which has been utilized in such roles previously. (Yes, even under extraterritorial conditions, though such is above their official mandate.)

The Auld Grump

[TheTSKoala]

Ah, the topic of Mercs.  I was hoping to stay out of this one.. but... what the hell. 

The comparison of South America and the United States is grossly simplified.  The simple part is.. Mercs are a needed evil.  I hate to say it, but unless we would like to go back to the Draft, simply put, the United States needs Mercs.  "The Thin Green Line" is no joke.  Recruitment is at an abysmal low.  Retention is in the toilet.  Then you have two wars and retirements from the last war.  Mix all that together, who is going to do the "non-important, yet tactical" work?

Now, I'm not 100% on this, so anyone who has a closer relationship to the USDoS, feel free to correct me.  But, Mercs are executive whim of the State Dept, but contracted/managed through the Defense dept.  If I remember right.  And, if I recall, Mercs aren't above Civil court, however, they can't be held in Military Tribunals because they are not a formal combatant nor part of a military.

The true catch is, figuring out which murderer did the murdering.  After all, if you did something stupid, you were probably in another country within 8 hours.  As was your entire workforce as to not focus blame on the "sole guy" who got ushered out.

[MilitiaJim]

About those Geneva conventions:  For someone to be a mercenary, do they have to meet ALL of those points, or just some?  Last I heard most of the Blackwater guys are former US military.

And I have a hard time believing they shot up an unarmed crowd.  (No trouble believing when the IPs showed up there were no weapons near the bodies though.)  While they were quick on the trigger, I don't recall seeing them shooting at nothing.

Furthermore I have no real objection to mercenaries.  They can be a professional force useful for stabilization, especially when the wogs can't be trusted to do much right.  Angola comes to mind.  UN forces aren't allowed to make a peace, and are pretty useless unless there is a peace to keep.  We aren't fighting a professional army, we're fighting a pack of murderous barbarians who use women and children as sandbags and then bemoan their enemies as "beasts" for killing the bystanders.  Mercenaries are far too useful a weapon against irregulars to not use, especially when State Department security types really are not up to the task of working in a warzone.

[OverNinja]

Being former military does not help you if you are considered a mercenary, it might make it worse since you could theoretically be considered a spy or saboteur. Being in uniform does have its advantages.

As for the conventions, there will be a tribunal to assertain your (if one is captured) status and what laws and conventions apply. Basically it means that merc will not be repatriated after a war and can be tried and punished as common criminals under the local law (up to and including execution).

[Krensky]

The comparison of South America and the United States is grossly simplified.  The simple part is.. Mercs are a needed evil.  I hate to say it, but unless we would like to go back to the Draft, simply put, the United States needs Mercs.  "The Thin Green Line" is no joke.  Recruitment is at an abysmal low.  Retention is in the toilet.  Then you have two wars and retirements from the last war.  Mix all that together, who is going to do the "non-important, yet tactical" work?

A necessary evil is still an evil.  I am not an expert, and will admit I'm only an arm chair military scientist and historian. Recruitment and retention are screwed up for a lot of reasons, but it seems logical that both could be helped by spending some of the insane amounts of cash being spent on private contractors (both military and logistical) on the troops' salaries and hiring civilians directly as employees and contractors. The other big issue contributing to it is Iraq is not a popular war with the public or, from the view back here, the troops.  This leads to all sorts of issues, but one of the primary is a lack of understanding about why they're there and more importantly, what they're accomplishing. Sadly, the only preventative solution to that issue is not getting involved in unnecessary foreign adventures our military is not trained or equipped for, especially when it's already involved in another conflict it's poorly prepared for.  Going from here though, the military and diplomatic corps needs to spend more money and effort on actually solving problems in Iraq and less on over priced, corrupt, and incompetent no bid contractors.

About those Geneva conventions:  For someone to be a mercenary, do they have to meet ALL of those points, or just some?  Last I heard most of the Blackwater guys are former US military.

Properly, you need to meet all of the criteria under either set.  This means that the US national PMCs are in a uncertain position that hinges on whether or not the US is a de jure party to the current conflict in Iraq.  No one would dispute that we're a de facto party, but their uncertain legal status is a problem.  The PMC personnel who are neither US nationals or Iraqi residents are mercenaries under international law, however. The fact that a contractor used to be a member of the US or British (or any other military involved in Iraq) military does not qualify them for protection under Article 47.2.e or f.  They need to be serving in an current, official capacity for the US military, which as far as I am aware they are not.

Furthermore I have no real objection to mercenaries.  They can be a professional force useful for stabilization, especially when the wogs can't be trusted to do much right.  Angola comes to mind.  UN forces aren't allowed to make a peace, and are pretty useless unless there is a peace to keep.  We aren't fighting a professional army, we're fighting a pack of murderous barbarians who use women and children as sandbags and then bemoan their enemies as "beasts" for killing the bystanders.  Mercenaries are far too useful a weapon against irregulars to not use, especially when State Department security types really are not up to the task of working in a warzone.

There are dozens of useful, effective weapons that the US does not use either by choice or treaty.  Chemical agents, biologic agents, flamethrowers, deforming bullets, nuclear weapons.  All of them are effective and useful.  We don't use them because they are barbaric and historically proven to be unreliable.

If the existing Diplomatic Security assets are not sufficient, then perhaps the State Department should hire individuals who are, not contract a mercenary company.

[TheTSKoala]

The comparison of South America and the United States is grossly simplified.  The simple part is.. Mercs are a needed evil.  I hate to say it, but unless we would like to go back to the Draft, simply put, the United States needs Mercs.  "The Thin Green Line" is no joke.  Recruitment is at an abysmal low.  Retention is in the toilet.  Then you have two wars and retirements from the last war.  Mix all that together, who is going to do the "non-important, yet tactical" work?

A necessary evil is still an evil.  I am not an expert, and will admit I'm only an arm chair military scientist and historian. Recruitment and retention are screwed up for a lot of reasons, but it seems logical that both could be helped by spending some of the insane amounts of cash being spent on private contractors (both military and logistical) on the troops' salaries and hiring civilians directly as employees and contractors. The other big issue contributing to it is Iraq is not a popular war with the public or, from the view back here, the troops.  This leads to all sorts of issues, but one of the primary is a lack of understanding about why they're there and more importantly, what they're accomplishing. Sadly, the only preventative solution to that issue is not getting involved in unnecessary foreign adventures our military is not trained or equipped for, especially when it's already involved in another conflict it's poorly prepared for.  Going from here though, the military and diplomatic corps needs to spend more money and effort on actually solving problems in Iraq and less on over priced, corrupt, and incompetent no bid contractors.

Krensky, I completely agree with you.  I would love to see the USDoS / USNSA / USDHS & USDoD actually have the proper manpower.  And, maybe once Congress and the President stop playing like they're in First Grade, we can get closer to that goal.  Instead, we're blowing the US Dollar into oblivion on a war where the Generals tell us what to do, and the Congress tells us we can't do it, because they don't like the president, who likes the Generals.  ...that's a long chain to follow. 

I place this entire mess on Congress.  Instead of everyone playing nice and as a team, it looks like a bad NBA team.  This guy trying to be the star, this guy complaining about the "star" being a ball hog, and the coach, the coach is getting drunk in his office before the game.  For the next election, I'm asking my politicians if they've been to Kindergarden and got a gold star for playing with others.  ...if they haven't, they don't get my vote.

[Krensky]

I place this entire mess on Congress.  Instead of everyone playing nice and as a team, it looks like a bad NBA team.  This guy trying to be the star, this guy complaining about the "star" being a ball hog, and the coach, the coach is getting drunk in his office before the game.  For the next election, I'm asking my politicians if they've been to Kindergarden and got a gold star for playing with others.  ...if they haven't, they don't get my vote.

True, but personally, I place this on Cheney and Wolfowitz and their asinine and idiotic, and quite likely illegal, misinterpretation of the principle of first strike. Iraq was not a clear and present danger to the United States, even with the fabricated and cherry picked intelligence. By their interpretation, the Empire of Japan was justified in attacking Pearl Harbor.

[TheTSKoala]

Oooh.  You know I can't get into debates about the Vice Pres. and legal policies...   LOL.  However, all I will say is, I would imagine that the Iraq War will probably be the last conventional war used in the War on Terrorism.

[NekoMouser]

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.

I really don't think we want to get started going around about how lucky everybody is that South Africa is a nation of laws. ^_^ Even the Mandela government hasn't exactly got a sterling reputation on that score...liberal/communist icon though he is..

And for your own reference, EO never left South Africa. The laws prevent EO from engaging in military ops in South Africa, not from engaging in business there...which isn't a big deal, as most of their work is further north anyway. They didn't even have to change offices.

[NekoMouser]

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.

Actually - Dogs of War was English slang of Shakespeare's time for mercenaries - the historical inaccuracy is itself historically accurate. To 'Cry Havoc!' meant to give no quarter. Shakespeare was using colloquialisms common to his time. He did not give a fig for accuracy.

The Auld Grump

I'm aware of it as a reference to professional soldiers (either career military or mercs), although in Shakespeare's day professional soldiers (brigands in either case) were the rule rather than the exception, making the distinction meaningless as much on my part as yours. I stand partially corrected. ^_^

[NekoMouser]

A necessary evil is still an evil.  I am not an expert, and will admit I'm only an arm chair military scientist and historian. Recruitment and retention are screwed up for a lot of reasons, but it seems logical that both could be helped by spending some of the insane amounts of cash being spent on private contractors (both military and logistical) on the troops' salaries and hiring civilians directly as employees and contractors. The other big issue contributing to it is Iraq is not a popular war with the public or, from the view back here, the troops.  This leads to all sorts of issues, but one of the primary is a lack of understanding about why they're there and more importantly, what they're accomplishing. Sadly, the only preventative solution to that issue is not getting involved in unnecessary foreign adventures our military is not trained or equipped for, especially when it's already involved in another conflict it's poorly prepared for.  Going from here though, the military and diplomatic corps needs to spend more money and effort on actually solving problems in Iraq and less on over priced, corrupt, and incompetent no bid contractors.

I almost stopped reading at "unnecessary foreign adventures"...that Victorianism always cracks me up. No matter who says it, I can't stop thinking about the line of guys who've died after being strung out over the fire and then left because some government (usually their own) no longer wanted to support "unnecessary foreign adventures".

But I didn't stop reading. We were unprepared for the assault (if you don't believe me, ask the lad that got the cross at Tora Bora), we were not entirely prepared for the glorified roving security detail that followed. And glorified roving security details are precisely what Shell, Gulf, DeBeers, etc. pay independent contractors to do. The mercs are better prepared for this type of thing,  and it costs less to send the contractor than to train, equip and support government troops. You want security, you hire security. If anything, I could argue for hiring more mercenaries.

There are dozens of useful, effective weapons that the US does not use either by choice or treaty.  Chemical agents, biologic agents, flamethrowers, deforming bullets, nuclear weapons.  All of them are effective and useful.  We don't use them because they are barbaric and historically proven to be unreliable.

Let's not kid ourselves: we keep what's effective, and if there is a rule against it, we find a way around the rule.

We get around the deforming bullets part pretty easily, as a .223 FMJ will simply come apart in a fellow at the rate of tumble you get out of an M4.

We don't use nukes because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

We don't use Biologicals (well, not the good stuff anyway) because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

We do use chemical agents...just not the ones that wipe out large populations because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

And we get around the unreliable nature of flamethrowers with more reliable and devastating incendiary weapons than were ever conceived of by the guys that first decided to strap a tank of gas to their backs to light another guy on fire.

Barbarism doesn't figure into the use of these weapons beyond one simple notion...to use any weapon without cause is a form of barbarism, specifically murder. But simply to use the weapon on a foe is no more barbaric than making a sandwich, building a house or stepping on a harmful insect with a heavy boot.

If the existing Diplomatic Security assets are not sufficient, then perhaps the State Department should hire individuals who are, not contract a mercenary company.

Which is kind of like saying "perhaps they should hire someone else, but not anyone who actually does this for a living". Which I'm rather surprised they haven't done, given the nature of bureaucracy.

It's like hiring a guy with no experience at anything to be the head of FEMA, rather than giving the job to a guy that has a background in crisis management or emergency procedure. Which I'm also surprised they haven't done. Oh...wait...apparently they did do that... ^_^

[Krensky]

Oooh.  You know I can't get into debates about the Vice Pres. and legal policies...   LOL.  However, all I will say is, I would imagine that the Iraq War will probably be the last conventional war used in the War on Terrorism.

Fair enough, but just to be clear, I meant illegal in the sense that it violates standard interpretations of international law.  I do not believe it violates the US Constitution, US Code or the letter of any treaties the US is party to, although I haven't read the UN charter and rules recently.  As an anecdote, I know of a few diplomatic and political historians that when asked about Wolfowitz's first strike doctrine back in the 1990s, if I recall correctly, that said something to the effect of: "Don't worry about it, no one in power will ever lend credence to that interpretation."

I guess they misread both history and the future.

[Krensky]

A necessary evil is still an evil.  I am not an expert, and will admit I'm only an arm chair military scientist and historian. Recruitment and retention are screwed up for a lot of reasons, but it seems logical that both could be helped by spending some of the insane amounts of cash being spent on private contractors (both military and logistical) on the troops' salaries and hiring civilians directly as employees and contractors. The other big issue contributing to it is Iraq is not a popular war with the public or, from the view back here, the troops.  This leads to all sorts of issues, but one of the primary is a lack of understanding about why they're there and more importantly, what they're accomplishing. Sadly, the only preventative solution to that issue is not getting involved in unnecessary foreign adventures our military is not trained or equipped for, especially when it's already involved in another conflict it's poorly prepared for.  Going from here though, the military and diplomatic corps needs to spend more money and effort on actually solving problems in Iraq and less on over priced, corrupt, and incompetent no bid contractors.

I almost stopped reading at "unnecessary foreign adventures"...that Victorianism always cracks me up. No matter who says it, I can't stop thinking about the line of guys who've died after being strung out over the fire and then left because some government (usually their own) no longer wanted to support "unnecessary foreign adventures".

I know, I almost couldn't believe I wound up using it myself despite it's fitting there so well. I blame your use of wog. I have to go do penance or something.

EDIT: Also, please note I said preventative solution. It's too late for that in Iraq.  We're there and we've destroyed anything resembling a government or stable power structure and replaced it with a corrupt, bigoted, sectarian, impotent monster. We have a responsibility to the Iraqis to fix that and we have a responsibility to make sure that all the lives lost and suffering we unintentionally caused means something. I don't know how to do that. I'm not foolish enough to think pulling our troops out will accomplish anything other then cause more death and misery. I'm also not foolish enough to think things are going swimmingly and all we need is some more man and firepower. Sadly, there are times I have to wonder if we wouldn't have gotten the same effect by spending a few million to have the all of the heads of the Bath party and Hussein's government assassinated. It would have been blatantly illegal, but it certainly would have been cheaper and I'm not sure how it could have lead to a worse situation. I'm sure it could have, but I don't see how.

But I didn't stop reading. We were unprepared for the assault (if you don't believe me, ask the lad that got the cross at Tora Bora), we were not entirely prepared for the glorified roving security detail that followed. And glorified roving security details are precisely what Shell, Gulf, DeBeers, etc. pay independent contractors to do. The mercs are better prepared for this type of thing,  and it costs less to send the contractor than to train, equip and support government troops. You want security, you hire security. If anything, I could argue for hiring more mercenaries.

Did you mean prepared for the assault there? In any event, I meant we were militarily, diplomatically, and politically unprepared for the entirety of what we were getting into in Afghanistan. The closest thing historically to what we were doing was WWII in Germany or Japan with both the war and the reconstruction. Both of which were actually much, much easier missions since both Germany and Japan wanted to rebuild and actually had some history and familiarity with democracy to work with. It also helps that the forces in both of those conflicts stood up to fight. We really should have paid more attention to the blood letting in Northern Ireland and the USSR's problems there. Granted, we also shouldn't have essentially anointed the Taliban to take over the country after the USSR left, but that's sort of a moot point anymore.

There are dozens of useful, effective weapons that the US does not use either by choice or treaty.  Chemical agents, biologic agents, flamethrowers, deforming bullets, nuclear weapons.  All of them are effective and useful.  We don't use them because they are barbaric and historically proven to be unreliable.

Let's not kid ourselves: we keep what's effective, and if there is a rule against it, we find a way around the rule.

We get around the deforming bullets part pretty easily, as a .223 FMJ will simply come apart in a fellow at the rate of tumble you get out of an M4.

We don't use nukes because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

We don't use Biologicals (well, not the good stuff anyway) because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

We do use chemical agents...just not the ones that wipe out large populations because clean up is a problem and we haven't been involved in a situation were using them would do any good.

And we get around the unreliable nature of flamethrowers with more reliable and devastating incendiary weapons than were ever conceived of by the guys that first decided to strap a tank of gas to their backs to light another guy on fire.

Barbarism doesn't figure into the use of these weapons beyond one simple notion...to use any weapon without cause is a form of barbarism, specifically murder. But simply to use the weapon on a foe is no more barbaric than making a sandwich, building a house or stepping on a harmful insect with a heavy boot.

There are those who would argue that any form of violence is barbaric. Granted I think those people need to go back to their hermitages and leave the rest of us alone, but it's worth considering, especially as most proscribed arms treaties reinforce the old chestnut that one injured man costs an army more the ten dead ones. (Or something like that, I can't recall the quote or who said it. I want to say Sun Tsu, but that's probably because all the good ones seem to be from his little book.) The other thing about those treaties is intent. 5.56x45mm NATO does not deform as covered by the treaty, and in fact in a modern carbines it doesn't even reliably tumble or fragment as they don't impart enough speed to the bullet. CBN has clean up issues, along with us not wanting them to be used on us and the chemical and biologic side of that is really not effective when used against a military and it's impossible to use against an insurgency. As far as the nuclear option, no rational power wants to use them. It would piss off and scare far to many other powers who have them. No one ever accused some of the people holding them now of being rational though.

If the existing Diplomatic Security assets are not sufficient, then perhaps the State Department should hire individuals who are, not contract a mercenary company.

Which is kind of like saying "perhaps they should hire someone else, but not anyone who actually does this for a living". Which I'm rather surprised they haven't done, given the nature of bureaucracy.

It's like hiring a guy with no experience at anything to be the head of FEMA, rather than giving the job to a guy that has a background in crisis management or emergency procedure. Which I'm also surprised they haven't done. Oh...wait...apparently they did do that... ^_^

Yay for political appointments.
However, I did not say hire unqualified people. I said hire the qualified people directly and make them follow the same rules and principles as Diplomatic Security, instead of hiring a contracting firm for five times as much and giving them an open ended contract where they have an interest in prolonging the conflict. All the mercenary firms working for State has to do is keep the diplomats alive. They seem to do a good job at that. The problem is that they do so in a way that undermines the diplomatic mission. If the State Department felt it needed ex-special forces to guard it's people, it should have hired them directly into Diplomatic Security, not contract a third party.

[OverNinja]

And for your own reference, EO never left South Africa. The laws prevent EO from engaging in military ops in South Africa, not from engaging in business there...which isn't a big deal, as most of their work is further north anyway. They didn't even have to change offices.

Executive Outcomes was dissolved on January 1, 1999 when South Africa introduced the 1998 Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act. The aim of the Act was to stop mercenary activities by the dual actions of:
 a. preventing direct participation as a combatant in armed conflict for private gain including the training, recruitment and use of mercenaries; and,
 b. requiring approval of the National Conventional Arms Control Committee for offering of military assistance overseas.

EO's leadership went to the Sandline International, which ceased all operations on 16th of April 2004. It has been rumored that some, if not most of Sandline's personnel, are now part of Aegis Defence Services company. Both of these companies are/were British.

The South African legislation hasn't prevented South African mercs from operating in different hot spots. They are, however, subject to the laws of South Africa.

[Krensky]

In a likely vain attempt to veer this back to Spycraft...

Any chance of seening a Battlegrounds pdf or a 2.0 version with all new and improved world hot spots in the medium close future?