Private Contractors: Barbaric Practice or Necessary Evil?

[Burnsys]

Private contractors, or mercenaries, i chose the first name for the topic so maybe it won't be closed now. (Doublespeak you know..)

Ok, what do you think? it's ok that the goverments of the "Civilized World" pay mercenaries to do the dirty work?

The number of mercenaries has climbed exponentialy since the gulf war. They do not wear uniform and they are not bound by the genova conventions.

A test ground for this privates armys is Colombia, where the corporation DynCorp operates since 1993.

In this video you can see London-based company Aegis Defence Services mercenaries shotting at random civilians for fun..

http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Aegis-PSD.wmv

The file was downloaded from: http://www.aegisiraq.co.uk/

Seem to be a site made not by aegis but by aegis employes (Mercenaries)

(This site does not belong to AEGIS DEFENSE LTD
it belongs to the men on the ground who are the heart and soul of the company)

I think privatization of war is a subject very important to discus and should not be censored...

Someone who has been paid to kill will not follow an ideal, will not fight for patriotism, not for his country, will only kill for money, doesn't matters if it's ok or wrong, if he is killing the bad guys or the good guys, he will KILL FOR MONEY. This is a barbaric practice that should be prohibited.

 

[Polly]

Assuming that it can be established that the shootings were done by the contractors or mercernaries, their defence would be they were using gun fire, as authorised, to keep the civilian cars (possible suicide bombers) from coming too close to them, which is true as I recall except in the third case where there was no traffic behind them.

What is the length of distance that they are allowed to keep? Does anybody know?

 

[Burnsys]

Assuming that it can be established that the shootings were done by the contractors or mercernaries, their defence would be they were using gun fire, as authorised, to keep the civilian cars (possible suicide bombers) from coming too close to them, which is true as I recall except in the third case where there was no traffic behind them.
What is the length of distance that they are allowed to keep? Does anybody know?

Authorised by who? they are private contractors! so i can go to the US, Pay a security guard to drive in the highway and authorize him to shoot any car that drive near him?? Great!

 

[deckart]

That is strictly an issue for the local government to deal with. To say that this should be prohibited is nice and all but who has the right to actually enforce it outisde of the local government? It's a domestic issue.

 

[Skyhunter]

That is strictly an issue for the local government to deal with. To say that this should be prohibited is nice and all but who has the right to actually enforce it outisde of the local government? It's a domestic issue.

I think since the US set up the local government in Iraq and American taxpayers are footing the bill to hire these guys it is an American issue.

 

[Anttech]

Pay a security guard to drive in the highway and authorize him to shoot any car that drive near him?? Great!

Actually as far as I understood you probably more or less could do that in the US (j.k) by the way sorry

 

[loseyourname]

Private security guards are authorized to shoot anyone that they reasonably believe to be a threat to their own or someone else's life.

By the way, Burnsys, you can title your thread "Mercenaries" whatever you want. It's not the topic that's being censored; it's the quality of the post. It wasn't that hard to actually write something in your opening post, was it?

 

[edward]

I think since the US set up the local government in Iraq and American taxpayers are footing the bill to hire these guys it is an American issue.

Here is an interesting link regarding many aspects of private contractors in Iraq.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/faqs/

In June 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority handed down Memorandum 17, which grants foreign contractors immunity from Iraqi law while working within the boundaries of their contracted tasks. The memo placed private contractors under the legal authority of the workers' home countries. In June 2004, one day before the CPA transferred sovereignty in Iraq to the interim Iraqi government, Paul Bremer signed a revised version of Memorandum 17, which stipulates that the rule remain in effect until multinational forces are withdrawn from Iraq or until it is amended by Iraqi lawmakers.[/QUOTE]

 

[edward]

Here is another link with video's. I was surprised to find that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers uses private foreign security services.:grumpy:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

 

[Skyhunter]

Here is the tragic story of Col. Ted Westhusing, a military ethicist who was deeply disturbed by a war with so many private contractors.

Westhusing, 44, was no ordinary officer. He was one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...nov27,1,3769217.story?coll=la-headlines-world

Is this privatization and profit taking what Bush meant when he said "we are redefining warfare on our terms"?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Someone who has been paid to kill will not follow an ideal, will not fight for patriotism, not for his country, will only kill for money, doesn't matters if it's ok or wrong, if he is killing the bad guys or the good guys, he will KILL FOR MONEY. This is a barbaric practice that should be prohibited.

Soldiers are paid to do what they do. Originally soldier actually meant more or less "a paid combatant" and it was not meant in a very nice way.
Any soldier in any military is only a man doing a job for money. Individual reasoning for doing the job may vary but that does not change what the reality is.

 

[Burnsys]

Soldiers are paid to do what they do. Originally soldier actually meant more or less "a paid combatant" and it was not meant in a very nice way.
Any soldier in any military is only a man doing a job for money. Individual reasoning for doing the job may vary but that does not change what the reality is.

But i don't think the insurgents in irak are paid by anyone.. I think they fight becouse they think it's right to defend they countries, not for money.

 

[Anttech]

Private security guards are authorized to shoot anyone that they reasonably believe- to be a threat to their own or someone else's life.

maybe in america, but you wouldn't get away with that in europe. You would have to Prove that fact if you didnt want a manslaughter/murder charge

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

The guidance on force in Memo 17 is thus (emboldening my own for pertinence):

You may use NECESSARY FORCE, up to and including deadly force, against persons in the following circumstances:

a. In self-defense.
b. In defense of persons as specified in your contract.
c. To prevent life threatening offenses against civilians.

The following are some techniques you can use if their use will not unnecessarily endanger you or others.

a. SHOUT
b. SHOVE
c. SHOW; you weapon and demonstrate intent to use it.
d. SHOOT; to remove the threat only where necessary.

IF YOU MUST FIRE YOUR WEAPON:
(1) Fire only aimed shots.
(2) Fire with due regard for the safety of innocent bystanders.
(3) Immediately report incident and request assistance.

CIVILIANS: Treat Civilians with Dignity and Respect.

a. Make every effort to avoid civilian casualties.
b. You may stop, detain, search, and disarm civilian persons if required for your safety or if specified in your contract.
c. Civilians will be treated humanely.

The evidence in the video would seem to suggest the contractors are not acting in their allowed capacity. It would be very interesting to see if they did indeed report these incidents as demanded if they fire their weapons. Interestingly, Aegis provide the security solutions in my place of employment.

 

[russ_watters]

But i don't think the insurgents in irak are paid by anyone.. I think they fight becouse they think it's right to defend they countries, not for money.

The fact that they aren't paid is related to the reason why they are an illegal force: they don't fight for a specific government/entity.

And no one answered this, possibly because it should be rediculously obvious, but...

Authorised by who? they are private contractors! so i can go to the US, Pay a security guard to drive in the highway and authorize him to shoot any car that drive near him?? Great!

Um...you don't think local murder laws would have something to say about that?

Lets make that scenario a little more like the one described in this thread - because what I quoted above bears no relation to the scenario at all. Say, you came to the US, rented a van, and drove it through the gate of a military or government installation at a high rate of speed. What do you think would happen? How about if you drove it through the gate of the French embassy?

In the US, Burnsys, a kid gets shot every now and then for pointing a toy gun at police and people get shot every now and then for reaching for a wallet when told to put their hands up. It's regrettable that people get shot for accidentally threatening police, but that is a necessary biproduct of the dangerousness of the job. I only have a little sympathy for adults who get killed in such situations - they should be smart enough to not do something so stupid in front of someone in a high-stress position, carrying a gun.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

Um...you don't think local murder laws would have something to say about that?

They wouldn't. He did not ask about shooting people; he asked about shooting cars. Murder laws come into effect when... you know... someone is murdered.

Lets make that scenario a little more like the one described in this thread - because what I quoted above bears no relation to the scenario at all. Say, you came to the US, rented a van, and drove it through the gate of a military or government installation at a high rate of speed.

How is that akin to shooting civilians' cars?

I think Burnsys' point was that it is unfathomable that a security company's employees could be defended for shooting at American civilians' cars in America, so why is it fine for them to do so in Iraq?

 

[Burnsys]

The fact that they aren't paid is related to the reason why they are an illegal force: they don't fight for a specific government/entity.

do you think they should start their own corporation?
Insurgent Corp!

And no one answered this, possibly because it should be rediculously obvious, but... Um...you don't think local murder laws would have something to say about that?
Lets make that scenario a little more like the one described in this thread - because what I quoted above bears no relation to the scenario at all. Say, you came to the US, rented a van, and drove it through the gate of a military or government installation at a high rate of speed. What do you think would happen? How about if you drove it through the gate of the French embassy?
In the US, Burnsys, a kid gets shot every now and then for pointing a toy gun at police and people get shot every now and then for reaching for a wallet when told to put their hands up. It's regrettable that people get shot for accidentally threatening police, but that is a necessary biproduct of the dangerousness of the job. I only have a little sympathy for adults who get killed in such situations - they should be smart enough to not do something so stupid in front of someone in a high-stress position, carrying a gun.

My example has nothing to do with what you are saying... Acording to this Mercenaries policy in irak, then i can go to USA, found a private security guards corporations, drive in my van with a sign on it that says: Stay away, lethal force will be used... and then i can shoot any civilian car that comes close to my ban... Or even to adjust more to what you are saying...

I am a private security guard, i can shoot any kids, who takes his wallet.

 

[BobG]

It's definitely okay to subcontract out security to private companies, where security is strictly defined as only taking defensive measures. Even so, some authority (either the local government or, in the case of Iraq, US authorities) should provide some kind of review to ensure the actions of the security personnel are reasonable.

Actually subcontracting out combat duties is a little more of a gray area. I don't think it's a good idea in general. The official government military should have more control of combat actions than I think they would have if they subcontracted out combat to private mercenaries.

In spite of that, contracting out combat duties to civilians does have some successes. Claire Chenault's AVG (the Fighting Tigers) in China during WWII is a pretty good example. In fact, when the US decided they needed a true military presence in China, they recruited a core group from the civilian AVG to serve as the military leadership within the new US Army Air Force units (the 74th, 75th, and 76th Fighter Squadrons). That had some very special circumstances that made it successful, though. The Aviation Volunteer Group had backing from the military and most of the 'civilian' members of the group were released from the military in order to volunteer to fight as civilians (and then reentered the military as members of the new USAAF squadrons).

Trivia: All three of those squadrons still exist. Two still fly airplanes (A-10s), while the 76th was the Air Force's first offensive and defensive counterspace technology squadron. They still have reunions and there's still some of the original AVG members that show up, along with some vets from the first Gulf War, etc.

 

[Art]

It is interesting that the reason given for the assault on Fallujah was the killing of 4 contractors yet the Geneva Convention specifically states that mercenaries are not 'protected persons' and are allowed to be executed if captured.

 

[edward]

Local authorities in Iraq have no real jurisdiction over foreign security forces. The most that can happen to a foreign securty person is that he/she may possibly lose their job.

Employees of private security firms are immune from prosecution in Iraq, under an order adopted into law last year by Iraq's interim government. The most severe punishment that can be applied to them is revocation of their license and dismissal from their job, U.S. officials said. Their heavy presence stems in large part from the Pentagon's attempts to keep troop numbers down by privatizing jobs that would once have been performed by American forces.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136_2.html

And from what I have read the militaries ability to coordinate with the private forces is just about nil.

While many security companies perform military-style tasks, often on behalf of the U.S. government, they are not under the armed services' command. In response to a congressional request for more information on oversight of security contractors, the Pentagon said the military's relationship with them was "one of coordination, not control."

 

[russ_watters]

do you think they should start their own corporation?
Insurgent Corp!

No, they should start their own government and start abiding by the rules of war if they want to be recognized as legitimate.

My example has nothing to do with what you are saying...

Yes, I know - it also has nothing to do with the example you cited in the OP...

Acording to this Mercenaries policy in irak, then i can go to USA, found a private security guards corporations, drive in my van with a sign on it that says: Stay away, lethal force will be used... and then i can shoot any civilian car that comes close to my ban...

No, you can't. That isn't how it works in Iraq or in the US and that isn't what the situation in the OP was about.

Or even to adjust more to what you are saying...
I am a private security guard, i can shoot any kids, who takes his wallet.

Again, no, you can't. You're making this up as you go along and it is not the way things really work. You are arguing against your own imagination!

 

[russ_watters]

They wouldn't. He did not ask about shooting people; he asked about shooting cars. Murder laws come into effect when... you know... someone is murdered.

Was that a serious post? Sorry, I can't tell if you are being sarcastic. Presumably, those cars have people in them. If they didn't, then I don't see how they could be driving down a highway...

How is that akin to shooting civilians' cars?

[edit] I had misunderstood the actual scenario described. However, that doesn't make what Burnsys said equivalent to what is shown in the video, nor does it make Burnsys's scenario legal either in the US or in Iraq.

My scenario was the more commonly seen scenario in Iraq (people driving fast/erratically toward a checkpoint), but in mine, Burnsys is the civilian driving near the "mercenary" (some military bases are guarded by civilians).

I think Burnsys' point was that it is unfathomable that a security company's employees could be defended for shooting at American civilians' cars in America, so why is it fine for them to do so in Iraq?

Yes, I know that was Burnsys's point. But Burnsys imagining that something is legal or ok (or seen by others as legal or ok) doesn't make it so. Put another way: What the guys in that video are apparently doing is illegal, both in the US and in Iraq - but that doesn't make the concept of paid security guards a bad one in general.

 

[russ_watters]

Just to make sure we stay on point, though, the main thrust of the OP was this:

Ok, what do you think? it's ok that the goverments of the "Civilized World" pay mercenaries to do the dirty work?

The answer to that question is a straightforward YES.

[edit] I was just able to view the video (the link in the OP is dead, so I had to search for it). It appears real, so I suspect the people involved will be prosecuted. But that doesn't have anything to do with the OP question about the legality of hired guards, nor does some people doing something illegal (even if they end up getting away with it) imply that what they are doing is legal, and therefore make the underlying concept wrong.

 

[russ_watters]

If anyone has read in the last hour, I edited my previous two posts - I finally watched the video - the link in the OP is dead and I hadn't bothered to search for it previously. I had assumed that what was pictured was the more common scenario of security personnel shooting at a speeding vehicle at a checkpoint.

That said, this changes little about the underlying points, as the posts above indicate.

 

[Art]

If anyone has read in the last hour, I edited my previous two posts - I finally watched the video - the link in the OP is dead and I hadn't bothered to search for it previously. I had assumed that what was pictured was the more common scenario of security personnel shooting at a speeding vehicle at a checkpoint.
That said, this changes little about the underlying points, as the posts above indicate.

Doesn't the fact that security contractors can behave like this under the eqivalent of diplomatic immunity so that the greatest sanction that can be invoked is their license is revoked and they are fired not suggest to you that there are some inherent flaws in this 'security' initiative?

BTW I wonder how many of the civilians killed this way are added to the terrorists' kill tally?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

But i don't think the insurgents in irak are paid by anyone.. I think they fight becouse they think it's right to defend they countries, not for money.

I agree. With out getting into any subjective arguments over what is right, wrong, or legitimate most of the insurgents are people who actually fight for what they believe in, it's not necessarily their occupation.

 

[The_Professional]

Here is another link with video's. I was surprised to find that the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers uses private foreign security services.:grumpy:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/view/

They do need to protect themselves. Although, I wonder why they didn't utilize the service of the green berets; one of their own.

 

[Burnsys]

No, they should start their own government and start abiding by the rules of war if they want to be recognized as legitimate.

Excusme russ, what rules of war? Yours? UN ? Geneva conventions?? what rules?

Ok let's see:

UN
A/RES/44/34
72nd plenary meeting
4 December 1989
44/34. International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries

Affirming that the recruitment, use, financing and training of
mercenaries should be considered as offences of grave concern to all States
and that any person committing any of these offences should either be
prosecuted or extradited,

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

Mercenaries are also not protected by the geneva conventions:

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.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

What rules of war russ?? insurgents can't fire their ak for more than 2 minutes and a misile is send over thems, but The US army the most powerfull army in the world has to violate over and over again every rule of war that exist... US use Carpet bombs,, use WP, don't do bodycounts, use and train mercenaries, use torture, Held prisoners with no trial indefinitly, Use indiscriminate fire over civilian populations, lies to start wars, etc etc... who is the ilegal here? the people resisting?? or the greatest army in the world?

Yes, I know - it also has nothing to do with the example you cited in the OP...
No, you can't. That isn't how it works in Iraq or in the US and that isn't what the situation in the OP was about.

I started this thread and for what i can read you haven't look at the video until your 5 post, so stop guessing what the op was...

I had misunderstood the actual scenario described. However, that doesn't make what Burnsys said equivalent to what is shown in the video, nor does it make Burnsys's scenario legal either in the US or in Iraq.

Actualy it's prety legal for the mercenaries to shoot random civilians in irak.

Employees of private security firms are immune from prosecution in Iraq, under an order adopted into law last year by Iraq's interim government. The most severe punishment that can be applied to them is revocation of their license and dismissal from their job, U.S. officials said. Their heavy presence stems in large part from the Pentagon's attempts to keep troop numbers down by privatizing jobs that would once have been performed by American forces.

Maybe it's not their job to practice shotting with civilians cars, but they will be not prosecuted.

Yes, I know that was Burnsys's point. But Burnsys imagining that something is legal or ok (or seen by others as legal or ok) doesn't make it so. Put another way: What the guys in that video are apparently doing is illegal, both in the US and in Iraq - but that doesn't make the concept of paid security guards a bad one in general.

That video is just an example of what someone who is used to kill for money, and who has inmunity will end up doing...

My scenario was the more commonly seen scenario in Iraq (people driving fast/erratically toward a checkpoint), but in mine, Burnsys is the civilian driving near the "mercenary" (some military bases are guarded by civilians).

I know you have dreams like that! :rofl: :rofl:

 

[russ_watters]

Doesn't the fact that security contractors can behave like this under the eqivalent of diplomatic immunity so that the greatest sanction that can be invoked is their license is revoked and they are fired not suggest to you that there are some inherent flaws in this 'security' initiative?

Do you have a link that says that? I haven't seen discussion of this issue in an article anywhere, but it would surprise me if there weren't more legal ramifications than that. [edit] It looks like they are protected under Iraqi law - I don't know about American/British law. It is entirely possible that there are flaws in the policy that need to be fixed.

Excusme russ, what rules of war? Yours? UN ? Geneva conventions?? what rules?

The UN and Geneva Conventions. You already know that though...

Ok let's see: [point about mercenaries]

My comment was a response to your comment about insurgents, not mercenaries.

However, what you have said about the law regarding mercenaries hinges on applying your definition of the word to people who others would call security personnel. Those laws you cited include definitions of mercenary - so just because you call them mercenaries, does not make them mercenaries under international law.

The US army the most powerfull army in the world has to violate over and over again every rule of war that exist... [emphasis added]

I hope you can see from the emphasized word how absurd that statement of yours is.

I was considering answering your specific points - most of which are just plain wrong - but no: I will not turn this into another general USA-bash thread. You have a very strong anti-USA bias and it is leading you to make assumptions in every situation you see. For example, you've come right out and said before that you suspect we are purposely targeting civilians. With a default position like that, there isn't really anything to discuss - you're just going to assume the worst that isn't completely ruled out by the facts.

Actualy it's prety legal for the mercenaries to shoot random civilians in irak.

I ask you as well: do you have a link to some facts about the law in this issue?

...but they will be not prosecuted.

And you base that assertion on what? Is that just another one of your default assumptions? Yes, I see that they are immune from prosecution in Iraq via Iraqi law, but what about in Britain? So far, the incident is fairly new and all I can find says it is under investigation. At the very least, I suspect this will prompt a closing of loopholes that might be found to exist. Efforts to prosecute would face a pretty stiff burden of proof.

Let me make this clear: I am not condoning or defending the actions of the people in that video. What I object to here is your broader intent: to use this a stick with which to beat the US/Britain. Your expansion of the definition of "mercenary" to include these guys does not automatically make them mercenaries under international law, nor does it make their use, in general, wrong.

 

[Burnsys]

Do you have a link that says that? I haven't seen discussion of this issue in an article anywhere, but it would surprise me if there weren't more legal ramifications than that. [edit] It looks like they are protected under Iraqi law - I don't know about American/British law. It is entirely possible that there are flaws in the policy that need to be fixed.

It was a law pased by the irak interin goverment.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136_2.html

The UN and Geneva Conventions. You already know that though... My comment was a response to your comment about insurgents, not mercenaries.
However, what you have said about the law regarding mercenaries hinges on applying your definition of the word to people who others would call security personnel. Those laws you cited include definitions of mercenary - so just because you call them mercenaries, does not make them mercenaries under international law.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm
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.

Please tell my what of the previous point Private contractors are not...

I hope you can see from the emphasized word how absurd that statement of yours is.
I was considering answering your specific points - most of which are just plain wrong - but no: I will not turn this into another general USA-bash thread. You have a very strong anti-USA bias and it is leading you to make assumptions in every situation you see.

It wasn't my intention too. but ok. let not enter in each of those points becouse it will be off topic.
And russ you have a very Pro-US-Bias and admit you make a LOT of asumptions too.

For example, you've come right out and said before that you suspect we are purposely targeting civilians.

We already discused this before... When i refer the US army as killing civilians i mean colateral damage, but i mean when the US army decide to commit an operation when they have previous knowledge that n civilians will result death.

With a default position like that, there isn't really anything to discuss - you're just going to assume the worst that isn't completely ruled out by the facts.

Everything that can happen. will happen...
So if Mercenaries or private contractors have inmunity, it's more than sure they will end up killing inocents..

I ask you as well: do you have a link to some facts about the law in this issue? And you base that assertion on what? Is that just another one of your default assumptions? Yes, I see that they are immune from prosecution in Iraq via Iraqi law, but what about in Britain?

US and britan don't need mercenaries acting in their own country. they need them in irak.

"Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) Order 17 continues to
govern the status of certain foreign private security contractors in
Iraq," Rammell said in a written parliamentary reply, published
Tuesday.
He said that this included "private security contractors who are
providing security services to Diplomatic Missions, the Multinational
Force, International Consultants and other contractors defined in the
Order, and their personnel."
"Such contractors will be immune from Iraqi legal process with
respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms of a
contract," the Foreign Office Minister told MPs.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/02/iraq-050222-irna02.htm

So far, the incident is fairly new and all I can find says it is under investigation. At the very least, I suspect this will prompt a closing of loopholes that might be found to exist. Efforts to prosecute would face a pretty stiff burden of proof.

Asumptions asumptions...

Let me make this clear: I am not condoning or defending the actions of the people in that video. What I object to here is your broader intent: to use this a stick with which to beat the US/Britain.

(Asupmtion from me)
If this video was taped and put in the internet, then i can "Asume" this has been done a lot more of times and hasn't been taped, or uploaded to a public place in the net..

Your expansion of the definition of "mercenary" to include these guys does not automatically make them mercenaries under international law, nor does it make their use, in general, wrong.

No, your use of the word "Private Contractors" doesn't mean they are not mercenaries. becouse they ARE mercenaries under international law.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I think an awful lot of effort is being wasted here on mislabelling the entities involved. I, for one, am perfectly happy with the term 'mercenary' being applied to private military companies employed in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. However, it's just misleading and confusing to apply the term to other companies whose raison d'etre is NOT to engage in combat.

Aegis is a security firm, so I can probably safely make the assumption that they are NOT employed to engage in combat, but to protect things, people, areas, etc. In carrying out their duties they are allowed (and in certain cases probably obliged) to use deadly force. They are NOT mercenaries, however. The behaviour shown in the video clip does not effect the fact that they are not hired for combat.

So, Burnsys, what is it you actually want to discuss? The use of private military outfits? Or the evident disgusting conduct of Aegis employees in Iraq and how they should be dealt with?

The latter is, to me, more interesting. I'd be particularly interested to know if such behaviour has been reported by Iraqi civilians or authorities, and who to, and what action has been taken.

The obvious body to notify of such behaviour would be Aegis itself. I, for one, don't believe security employees are sent to Iraq and suddenly turn into gun-crazy maniacs. I would be less surprised if this is an institutional problem - that this happens, and so people newlt posted there follow suit.

If this is so, I would be surprised if Aegis didn't know about it. But what are they going to do? Pull out their staff? Own up to the government? Is there any profit in any corrective action such a company might take?

If not, then by allowing such behaviour, are they in violation of British law? If not, then we have a legalised terrorism. If they are in violation, then do the government know? If so, you have government-sponsored terrorism. If not, then they damn well should be.

My one doubt about this: on the website from which the clip was taken, the author talks about the press requesting "the other nine videos". If the press are aware of this behaviour, why are we seeing it only on a private website?

 

[Art]

I think an awful lot of effort is being wasted here on mislabelling the entities involved. I, for one, am perfectly happy with the term 'mercenary' being applied to private military companies employed in Iraq, or anywhere else for that matter. However, it's just misleading and confusing to apply the term to other companies whose raison d'etre is NOT to engage in combat.
Aegis is a security firm, so I can probably safely make the assumption that they are NOT employed to engage in combat, but to protect things, people, areas, etc. In carrying out their duties they are allowed (and in certain cases probably obliged) to use deadly force. They are NOT mercenaries, however. The behaviour shown in the video clip does not effect the fact that they are not hired for combat.

I would have thought anybody who is paid to carry and use arms to further the goals and aims of one party or another in an armed conflict would have to be considered to be partaking in combat. Especially when their duties entail taking on responsibilities such as guarding military bases and military convoys. Duties which up until Rumsfelds privitisation of the armed forces were core duties of regular soldiers.
These excerpts are from Aegis' own website

AEGIS contract has two parts:
Civil / Military co-ordination
Force protection
The largest part of the contract involves the establishment and operation of 7 Civil Military Operations Centres (CMOCs). The National CMOC is in Baghdad, with 6 others at each of the Multi-National Divisional Headquarters.
The purpose of the CMOCs is to:
Maintain situational awareness of logistical movement and reconstruction security operations
Share a common Relevant Operating Picture among security forces and reconstruction contractors
Effect co-ordination and liaison between reconstruction work and military operations
Provide threat assessments and intelligence to contractors
Force Protection is provided for the PCO, as follows:
3 Close Protection teams
23 vehicle escort teams
Static guard force
In a separate contract, Aegis provides security protection to the Oil for Food corruption inquiry.

November 2005
AEGIS expands Board and acquires Rubicon International
Aegis Defence Services, the London-based company that oversees more than 20,000 armed expatriates working in Iraq, has acquired a rival group in the first sign of consolidation in the highly fragmented private security industry.
The company has also appointed a series of high-profile non-executive directors, including a former chief of the British defence staff, as it looks to build its credibility with corporate and government customers.
The moves suggest a growing sense of legitimacy for companies such as Aegis - which are trying to shift the public perception of them as mere "guns for hire" - made possible by their high-profile activities in Iraq.
Aegis is headed by Tim Spicer, an ex-officer in the Scots Guards whose former company, Sandline, was involved in controversial military campaigns in Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea during the 1990s.

 

[El Hombre Invisible]

I would have thought anybody who is paid to carry and use arms to further the goals and aims of one party or another in an armed conflict would have to be considered to be partaking in combat. Especially when their duties entail taking on responsibilities such as guarding military bases and military convoys. Duties which up until Rumsfelds privitisation of the armed forces were core duties of regular soldiers.

I myself stated that they may use deadly force in the execution of their duties in two of my posts. I'm not arguing otherwise. Nonetheless, they are not paid to engage in combat, and they are not mercenaries.

There is plenty to talk about, and plenty to feel enraged about, without Michael Moore-ing the facts. These people in the video are clearly not acting in the capacity of their employment.

 

[Art]

I myself stated that they may use deadly force in the execution of their duties in two of my posts. I'm not arguing otherwise. Nonetheless, they are not paid to engage in combat, and they are not mercenaries.
There is plenty to talk about, and plenty to feel enraged about, without Michael Moore-ing the facts. These people in the video are clearly not acting in the capacity of their employment.

Global security calls them mercenaries

Part of the US Occupation force in Iraq, the in-country commander, LTG Sanchez decreed that federal civilians will not carry weapons. But being well acquainted with some fellow federal civilians, if they were armed over here it would scare the "you know what". Consequently, every time civilians leave their "safe area", they must have what are called "shooters" with along. They are sometimes the mercenary security teams who are hired and paid by the contractors. Other times they are young American men and women in the US Army.

I think perhaps your definition of combat is too limited. If restricted to mean 'one army fighting another' then it follows there is no combat in Iraq as the US are fighting insurgents who are not part of any army.

I also believe it is important to determine the legal status of these 'guns for hire' as there are important ramifications under the Geneva Conventions.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I think El Hombre has a good point actually.
A Merc is generally considered one who has been hired specifically for the purpose of offensive combat operations. The definition that Burnsys provided would seem to agree with this but admittedly it seems a bit hazy.

---edit---

in order to fight in an armed conflict;
----
Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
----
Is motivated to take part in the hostilities

These particular bits stand out in my opinion as supporting the idea that they are referring to offensive combatants.