Blackwater video

[Portlander 0]

Edited June 24, 2007 by Portlander

[Portlander 0]

This stuff is absolutely astounding. Here's Bush answering a tough question about it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some pretty dark stuff...

Edited June 25, 2007 by erekose

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

This stuff is absolutely astounding. Here's Bush answering a tough question about it.

Doesn't this go back to the idea that if Bush is not of questionable intelligence, his ability to perform the job he is elected to do must surely be called into question when he (all honesty) aside - he appears to be completely clueless about the question he has been asked?

"Ask Rumsfeld" would seem to be buck-passing of the highest order - not only that but it makes Bush look publicly ridiculous for appearing to not have a handle on this issue.

Edited June 25, 2007 by erekose

[Portlander 0]

Some pretty dark stuff...

Actually, its a bit darker than that video says. Thats the SHORT version. Bush wants to privitize the military, which is a monumentally stupid idea. Machiavelli 101 is "Don't use mercenaries". Replacing the military with a for-profit institution without direct ties to the US is ********** stupid, for the US.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

[Ban Hammer 13,255]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

fm's aren't legally binding anyways......

Edited June 25, 2007 by charlesandnessa

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

fm's aren't legally binding anyways......

Probably - but as we've seen with Abu Ghraib the abusers have been held to some account - with jail sentences handed out. I've not seen a similar reckoning take place with military contractors - who (going by the accounts of the woman CO in charge of that facility) were involved extensively with interrogations.

[Ban Hammer 13,255]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

fm's aren't legally binding anyways......

Probably - but as we've seen with Abu Ghraib the abusers have been held to some account - with jail sentences handed out. I've not seen a similar reckoning take place with military contractors - who (going by the accounts of the woman CO in charge of that facility) were involved extensively with interrogations.

what you are looking for is army regulations, or AR. that is legally binding. along with a host of treaties and conventions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

fm's aren't legally binding anyways......

Probably - but as we've seen with Abu Ghraib the abusers have been held to some account - with jail sentences handed out. I've not seen a similar reckoning take place with military contractors - who (going by the accounts of the woman CO in charge of that facility) were involved extensively with interrogations.

what you are looking for is army regulations, or AR. that is legally binding. along with a host of treaties and conventions.

Does that bind the contractors - whose activities appear to be shrouded in secrecy? What authority are they accountable to?

[Ban Hammer 13,255]

Its pretty dark stuff, as you say, but the use of these sorts of mercenaries isn’t new. This has been going on for years, it’s a dirty little secret that noone wants to address. In fact if I remember rightly, back during the Abu Ghraib scandal – there was some question of the involvement of these contractors in some of the interrogations

BTW I remember the US army rewrote its field manuals to explicitly state what is and isn’t acceptable practice – but practically speaking, exactly what set of laws and regulations are these government contractors bound to?

Of course when we refer to ‘the enemy’ as being “unlawful combatants” I wonder how these PMC guys factor into that definition…

fm's aren't legally binding anyways......

Probably - but as we've seen with Abu Ghraib the abusers have been held to some account - with jail sentences handed out. I've not seen a similar reckoning take place with military contractors - who (going by the accounts of the woman CO in charge of that facility) were involved extensively with interrogations.

what you are looking for is army regulations, or AR. that is legally binding. along with a host of treaties and conventions.

Does that bind the contractors - whose activities appear to be shrouded in secrecy? What authority are they accountable to?

generally us code.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But were any of them been brought to account for their alleged involvement in the the prisoner abuses?

I'm wondering who specifically investigational jurisdiction over those PMC employees if there is an accusation of wrong-doing.

[Portlander 0]

Generally, thats true. US 'contractors' in, say, Japan, would be prosecuted for committing crimes. But in Iraq the CPA has declared that they are in Iraq and America can't try them, and also that they are America, so Iraq can't try them.

Mercenaries are a fact tof life, this is true. They have been around for thousands of years - that is why Machiavelli knew they were a generally a really bad idea. If you have not read Machiavelli's "The Prince" he states it over and over. We want our army to be made up of Americans, run by Americans, and for Americans,. not the highest bidder. Some low level of activity may well be practically unavoidable, but the level that we have now is totally unacceptable

I happen to believe that the military is one branch that we should not get for as cheap as possible. Our technological superiority is our #1 advantage, and letting anyone hire our 'our' military is downright stupid, at least as far as "America" goes. For coorporations its brilliant. The oil companies can essentially hire the US military to do what they want. Sierra Leone hired "Executive Action" - another mercenary group like Blackwater to recover it's diamond mines from rebels. Pinkerton used to be hired here in this country to violently put down strikes. That is here, and that is what these guys are for.

We ought to have American soldiers explicitly, who's authority rests as directly to the American people as possible. Not to the Dollar, Yuan, Dinar or Ruble. This has been in policy papers for a long time. The Neoconservative plan is to have a major, permanent ground force in every critical region of the world, and for soldiers to be the US's #1 economic export. http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Privitization of power is just a really bad idea.

[Ban Hammer 13,255]

Mercenaries are a fact tof life, this is true. They have been around for thousands of years - that is why Machiavelli knew they were a generally a really bad idea. If you have not read Machiavelli's "The Prince" he states it over and over. We want our army to be made up of Americans, run by Americans, and for Americans,. not the highest bidder. Some low level of activity may well be practically unavoidable, but the level that we have now is totally unacceptable

that's also been an arguement about operating under un command too.

[Portlander 0]

Its not the same argument at all. I'm talking about soldiers that aren't American, who are getting paid from America, but also other people. Americans with the UN still get paid by the US. They still come from the US, and their loyalty is still to the US. Mercenaries have a long long history of not caring about any of that.