Blackwater guys on the rooftop in Najaf

[chupacabra]

A little off of the main topic, but I was just wondering if these guys (Blackwater, etc) fall under the protection/regulations of the Geneva Convention? I'm not totally schooled in the GC at this point, so forgive me if this is a newb question. Are they required to operate w/ respect to its regulations? Or can they operate outside of this (and other international law) since they aren't part of the armed forces of any nation that falls under this category?

They are in a Geneva Conventions grey area, not quite mercenaries, not quite combatants, not quite civilians.

Mercenary
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, who is motivated by money and is promised substantially higher pay than that paid to other combatants of similar rank, who is not a national of one of the countries involved in the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by any of the parties, 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. (Protocol I, Art. 47)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Combatant
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

Civilian
A civilian is any person who does not belong to any of the following categories: members of the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps, organized resistance movements, and residents of an occupied territory who spontaneously take up arms. If there is any doubt whether a person is civilian, then he or she is to be considered a civilian. (Protocol I, Art. 50, Sec. 1)

That's what the Conventions say, I don't think any specific provisions were made with private security contractors under government contract in mind.

 

[Goober]

Hessians...Blackwater contractors...ehh - same diff.

They'll come back, get disgruntled, and start thinning the herds at Michaels and Home Depot parking lots from vantage points in the treeline (which isn't to say that's always bad).

 

[Brett327]

Hessians...Blackwater contractors...ehh - same diff.

They'll come back, get disgruntled, and start thinning the herds at Michaels and Home Depot parking lots from vantage points in the treeline (which isn't to say that's always bad).

Yeah, Hessians. I'm glad someone else was thinking that way.

@Wedge: Good buddy, if you're not swayed by some of the logic in the last few posts, then I'm afraid we're all just wasting our time trying to convince you that contractors are a necessary and good thing. In the absence of a cogent argument to the contrary, I'm just going to have to relegate you to the "delusional paranoid" box.

Brett

 

[HeyJoe]

Hessians and Blackwater

Hessians...Blackwater contractors...ehh - same diff.

I beg to differ. Hessians were regular troops from another country who were "bought" from their Princes for cash and served in the British expeditionary ranks with similiar command structure (regiments, battalions, etc.). For the most part, Blackwater et al are Americans and not employed en masse alongside our regular troops. Some of their work is high end security, some of it is predestrian stuff, but it is specialized and never in great numbers. They fill gaps.

 

[skidkid]

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght ..... you mean --- don't trust "organizations" with monetary gains in mind like, say, Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Hughes, Grumman, and a cast of thousands, etc., etc. ..... organizations like those???

Like I said before ... when we get 3 million men under arms again .... ..... we won't need "Mercs". Or will we .... for deniability of certain operations ???

I think there is a signifigant amount of "trust but verify" when it comes to these companies. Do we always take them at their word on Aircraft performance, no we have test pilots then operational test squadrons to make sure the A/C perform as advertised/intended becasue again these companies are about the bottom line in the end and we are about holding the line.

 

[A4sForever]

I think there is a signifigant amount of "trust but verify" when it comes to these companies. ......these companies are about the bottom line in the end and we are about holding the line.

A fine point, but a good one. And from a Marine, as well. My eyes glaze over .....

Me Ka Hau`oli Makahiki Hou!

 

[skidkid]

I think this is a great debate but the logic is screwed up on both sides the best analogy for the Hessians would be one of our other allies in Iraq-economic incentives anyone? (Im not trying to belittle our allies but there are a few there at least in part due to enconomic sanctions)

I have a few concerns about Blackwater and the like aside from a few ops in Iraq where they either got in the way or made a afew things worse.

Will they always exclusively recruit Americans? What if they can get an SAS guy cheaper, what about SPETSNAZ after the Russian mob stops hiring.
What if they go to work for some Afircan warlord responsible for genocide-there may not be American contracts always available and they have to eat right?
Its only security right-wrong, it is a force not bound by the Geneva conventions or the governance of a nation state that operates solely for profit.

I cant believe the older wiser of you dont see the road this has the very real potential to taek our nationa dn the world down.

 

[A4sForever]

......I cant believe the older wiser of you dont see the road this has the very real potential to taek our nationa dn the world down.

I don't know if I'm in this "group" of "elders", but I'll assume : YES.

I know a couple of former SEALs (personal friends --- one CDR and one MCPO) who do this work --- they did it way before 9/11. They are top-notch guys and I would (and do) trust them anywhere, anytime.

I support the mission of outfits "like" Blackwater because they do a job that our PC government and military will not do nor do they want to admit needs doing. Dirty things, underhanded things, things you can get done without fearing for your "career" or looking over your shoulder to see if the nearest JAG is watching you.

Things you need to do to win. Things our military used to do without all the handwringing or self-recrimination so in vogue in today's world. Our nation will never be taken down by beating the other guys at their own game. Only by appeasement and going for a "soft" solution in world conflict. The enemy attacks weakness, not strength.

Blackwaters ... Mercs .... Hessians .... former SEALs .... whatever you want to call 'em --- they do a job our government wants done BUT will not do itself.

Just my opinion .....

 

[Brett327]

What if they go to work for some Afircan warlord responsible for genocide-there may not be American contracts always available and they have to eat right?

There are always going to be mercs, some of which will be Americans, that work for foreign governments - fact of life. I doubt whether the fact that our government currently utilizes them will have any meaningful impact on that reality in the future. So the argument that we're creating some kind of monster which will go out and embarrass us, or bite the hand that once fed it is a bit of a fallacy. If we follow that logic, we should never train any SPECOPS guys because of the mere possibility that they might want to become mercs in the future.

@ A4s: Amen, brother!

Brett

 

[skidkid]

My point is that yes these things need to be done but by Miltary or three letter agnecy types who have sworn an oath.
Would I trust the former SEALS Recon (my old ROTC instructor works for Blackwater) etc. Absolutley, like everything else I trsut teh guys there pulling triggers but who is in the fron office? Are they willing to do these things for another nation when that nations needs someone with those skill sets? And if the gentlemen you mentioned before balk at doing sadi things for someone other than The US would the front office then hire others wiht similar skill sets?
Other than a few instances I dont have a problem witht he operational things in Iraq, I do have a problem with the contracting out war precedent that is being set
War for profit by corporations is not a good thing to allow to develop.

 

[skidkid]

There are always going to be mercs, some of which will be Americans, that work for foreign governments - fact of life. I doubt whether the fact that our government currently utilizes them will have any meaningful impact on that reality in the future. So the argument that we're creating some kind of monster which will go out and embarrass us, or bite the hand that once fed it is a bit of a fallacy. If we follow that logic, we should never train any SPECOPS guys because of the mere possibility that they might want to become mercs in the future.

@ A4s: Amen, brother!

Brett

No becasue in the past if a guy did something like that he would lsoe his American citizen ship. We now have government sponsored Mercenary outfits in the employ of the USofA not some two bit dictator.

 

[HeyJoe]

I think there is a signifigant amount of "trust but verify" when it comes to these companies. Do we always take them at their word on Aircraft performance, no we have test pilots then operational test squadrons to make sure the A/C perform as advertised/intended becasue again these companies are about the bottom line in the end and we are about holding the line.

LOL, we have Operational Testers who check our Developmental Testers. We are only country in the owrld that I know of with that luxury. By the way, there are more Test Pilots in the DT squadrons than in the OT squadrons. The DT folks "certify" aircraft and weapons ready for Operational Test and routinely find discrepencies. Some of this is human nature....the OEM big boys (LMCO, Boeing, Rayco, NGC and GB) are given a spec (specification) as part of their contract. The DT squadrons (I think you meant this by "test pilots") do the spec compliance. Latest trend is integrated test teams with OEM test pilots flying side by side with government and keeping no secrets. They are held to their performance on these contracts (CPARS) and can be disqualified if they don't perform. I'm certainly not trying to be an apologist, but I've been to all the major OEMs and seen them in action. It isn't any easy thing to develop an aircraft or weapon system and I think you'll find plenty of dedicated folks (whether they are former military or not) who has intense pride in their work and products they develop. LMCO put htier own money on the line to integrate LANTIRN on the Tomcat and did it so it could be deployed in less than a year..id they want to sell LANTIRN for their stockholders? Yes, but they did the right thing at the right time, which cost them more than if they had waited for the traditional system. The warfighters got a bargain on that deal.

That said, I do agree that the corporate fathers are always watching the bottom line and must answer to their board and stockholders. Profit is a big part of that but there really stingent rules on how is allowed. DoD does not like double digit profit and rides heard on all companies that have DoD contracts. Companies make significant investments out of that profit to do their own R&D. If they really wanted to make a profit, they'd do more in private sector where free market allows whatever the market can bear.

 

[Brett327]

No becasue in the past if a guy did something like that he would lsoe his American citizen ship. We now have government sponsored Mercenary outfits in the employ of the USofA not some two bit dictator.

So what's changed then? I don't appreciate the distinction. If the same rules are in place, then the deterrent to go foreign merc would be the same regardless, no? Does anyone have any empirical examples of mass defections of former SPECOPS guys going to fight as foreign mercs? I think this boils down to people playing "what if" games and not looking at the reality of the situation. What I'd like to know is, if the Sun explodes tomorrow, what has our government done to prevent that? :tongue2_1

Brett

 

[Flash]

I have to agree with Skidkid and to a certain extent Wedge. I think we have gone a bit overboard with the contracting bit. I have no problem getting contractors to serve food, do some construction and infrastructure work or to even do some limited security. But there is a real gray area when it comes to how they are handled right now in combat zones and it gives me second thoughts when we start giving them duties that should be handled by US government personnel. A very good example is when contractor personnel were allowed to interrogate prisoners, in violation of government rules http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/06/iraq.abuse.cia/

Who is ultimately responsible for what a contractor does when he is overseas? What happens if he starts a firefight? Or drives through a city full of angry Sunnis after beign warned not to go there by the local Marines? And while many of you make the point that they may want to serve their country but they can't anymore, maybe there is a good reason some of them shouldn't go. And as far as them doing something that our government doesn't want to do or is willing I support the mission of outfits "like" Blackwater because they do a job that our PC government and military will not do nor do they want to admit needs doing. Dirty things, underhanded things, things you can get done without fearing for your "career" or looking over your shoulder to see if the nearest JAG is watching you. there is a reason we don't allow US government personnel to do those kind of dirty things (most of the time), maybe that is because we are a nation of laws. Once you start going into those gray areas the lines become blurred and then really bad things start to happen. When does killing a legitimate target become murder? When does being employed by a private company doing work for your country become being a hired gun for the highest bidder? Things can get really ugly really fast when you start bending the rules far enough to break them.

I work with contractors every day in my job, some are good and some are bad just like any other person. But that does not make their use the right thing to do, especially in my office. As a matter of fact, I had to do a contractors job on Friday because his company told him not to come in being the day before Christmas Eve, so I was stuck at work 4 hours after I should have been doing his job :icon_rage . Just because they are prevelant now does not mean they are necessary, or right.

 

[Brett327]

I have to agree with Skidkid and to a certain extent Wedge. I think we have gone a bit overboard with the contracting bit.

If there is one constant in the universe, it's Flash's uncanny ability to be liberal, paranoid, and wrong. Who loves ya, good buddy?

Brett