Top. Men.
Face it, folks. George II cannot replace the contractors with other contractors in less than a year or so. He cannot replace them with real soldiers without handing the election to the Democrats. Without the services of Blackwater “the diplomatic efforts for a solution” will be a skeet shoot for every faction with an agenda. Blackwater is in place, and will remain in place until the final ruin of our Iraqi puppet government is inevitable, and they will then join in on the “Great Victory March” when we leave the place to whoever wants it.
We lost this war when we arrived in country. The only variable is how many will die before we are unable to call it anything other than mass murder.
Tris
And this just in, the cherry atop the turd sundae:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_go_co/us_blackwater_probe
** Feds target Blackwater in weapons probe**
Been hearing about these guys for several years now, and they never cease to astound. And when you see them on TV, you can’t help but think that our embassies security is in the hands of guys who used to subscribe to Soldier of Fortune magazine and masturbate like a motherfucker.
And then you find out…its even worse.
Well, who doesn’t jerk off to a hot picture of a shiny automatic weapon? Better yet, matte black, stamped and oiled.
When I hold you in my arms
and I feel my finger on your trigger
I know nobody can do me no harm
'cause happiness…
And even if he did, the same people would be doing the job. The new contractor would need a lot of trained personnel in a hurry, at the same time Blackwater was laying a lot of them off. Wouldn’t really make a difference on the ground at all.
Makes one long for the days of the CIA’s Air America, doesn’t it? At least we were only paying them government salaries.
By the way, there is whole book written about Blackwater that came out a few months ago.
The Iraqi government is expanding its investigation to cover six other violent incidents involving Blackwater.
Nevertheless, they’ve dropped the demand Blackwater leave Iraq, fearing a “security vacuum” if it does.
Don’t say I didn’t warn ya.
we, (US), may’ve helped the INC acquire a “legally lawless” militia trained by Apartheid era human rights violators.
The second largest group of armed forces in Iraq are Private Military Companies of privately employed soldiers. PMCs use and provide training in military methods, leadership, and equipment. There’re up to 20,000 non-Iraqi PMC employees in Iraq. The coalition’s Program Management says security costs are now 10% of the US’s $18.4bn investment in Iraq.
Non-Iraqi business entities and employees not normally resident in Iraq who’re under contract to Coalition Forces or the CPA are immune from Iraqi legal process. This immunity only applies to official activities per the terms and conditions of their contracts. It requires the personal involvement of Presidential Envoy, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority to apply Iraqi or CPA legal process to contractors’ unofficial activities.
There’re few legal mechanisms regarding serious misconduct on the part of military contractors. Previously, DOD civilians working overseas [www.amsc.belvoir.army.mil/Articles/00-3/scott.htm+%22Military+and+Extraterritorial+Jurisdiction+Act%22&hl=en&lr=lang_en]could](http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:GhyyrMMWO2sJ:[url) literally get away with murder. Currently, they may be held legally liable under The Military and Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act. Under MEJA, SECDEF Rumsfeld must designate and authorize someone to make the arrest.
The second largest contingent of armed forces in Iraq are not the Brits, but instead PMCs, PMFs, PSCs, and PSFs- PMC Private Military Company, PMF Private Military Firm, PSF Private Security Firm, and PSC Private Security Contractor ( or Private Security Company ). These terms are all terms for “international security firms.” These are distinguished from ordinary security agencies in that they use and/or provide training in military methods, leadership, and/or equipment. An estimate is that there’re in the neighborhood of 15 thousand to twenty thousand people employed by PMFs currently in Iraq. The coalition’s Program Management Office in Baghdad says, security provisions have risen to 10 per cent of the $18.4bn the US has earmarked for investment in Iraq.
While an individual employee, (or an individual “subcontractor”, depending), is a “soldier for hire,” for various reasons many of them’re prob’ly not legally mercenaries. Both the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries, and the Additional Protocol 1 added to the Geneva Conventions on June 8, 1977 exclude many of these people on the grounds that they’re either a national of a party to the conflict or a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict.
Nationals from coalition countries, (and Iraq), while not prohibited from being mercenaries, are oddly incapable of being mercenaries, in Iraq.
Nationals from any of the coalition countries, (or Iraq), though “not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict,” nor “sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces,” and yet “specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict,” and who are essentially motivated to do so by the desire for significant private gain, and, in fact, are 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, can:
[ul][li]be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; [/li][li]carry arms openly;[/li][li]have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;[/li][li]conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war;[/ul](fulfilling the barest requirements of “Armed Forces”),[/li]and, “in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities” without falling under the category of mercenary, in Iraq.
In addition, recalling that under international law occupying powers, including their forces, personnel, property and equipment, funds and assets, are not subject to the laws or jurisdiction of the occupied territory, non-Iraqi business entities or individuals not normally resident in Iraq supplying goods and/or services to or on behalf of the Coalition Forces or the CPA under contractual arrangements or to or on behalf of Coalition contractors and in respect of Coalition or CPA activities under contractual arrangements, as well as their employees not normally resident in Iraq, are immune from Iraqi Legal Process with respect to acts performed by them within their official activities pursuant to the terms and conditions of a contract between a contractor and Coalition Forces or the CPA and any sub-contract thereto, during the period of authority of the CPA.
Thus none of the personel of these armed forces in Iraq contracted to Coalition Forces, the CPA, or Coalition contractors are bound by Iraqi law during the period of authority of the CPA.
Interestingly, while “non-Iraqi business entities” are immune, any of their employees “normally resident” in Iraq are not. [Where do Ahmed Chalabi and the INC’s other prodigal Iraqis “normally reside,” btw?]
Further, as to acts or omissions of Coalition contractors etc., which are not performed by them in the course of their official activities, no Iraqi or CPA Legal Process shall be commenced without the written permission of the Administrator of the CPA. Presidential Envoy, Ambassador L. Paul Bremer III, Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, himself, has to okay the commencement of all Iraqi or CPA legal processes for anything that Coalition contractors and subcontractors do in their off time.
Of course, this immunity “may be waived by the Parent State.”
Well, if you consider a couple of drive-by snipes a warning, I guess so. I mean, whataya got, 15-20 cites, tops?