Forums | MacLife

This could be interesting.

Or unsubstantiated and dismissed.

jkahless wrote:

Either way, I wouldn't be surprised.

Yeah, killing people is how they solve problems.

When your only tool is a penis... then all your problems start to look like Jewel Straite.

Here we go again...

Tallgeese wrote:

This could be interesting.

Or unsubstantiated and dismissed.

Indeed.

iSeamas wrote:

Blackwater is one of the more aptly named companies in existance.

Aand yet they threw away the brand and renamed themselves "Xe." It has a rather noble ring, don't you think?

Definitions of a Mercenary

A mercenary is usually a person who is paid to assist or attack a person, place, or thing. He or she takes part in armed conflict on many different scales, and 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" (Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention of August 1949).

The Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 states:

Art 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 especially 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.


To be a mercenary all items a through f must be true. So, technically Blackwater isn't a mercenary organization in Iraq, because item d isn't true.

But then the U.S. doesn't recognise this protocol.

The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) forbade the US Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the US Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). There is a disagreement over whether or not this proscription is limited to the use of such forces as strikebreakers, because it is stated thus:

The purpose of the Act and the legislative history reveal that an organization was "similar" to the Pinkerton Detective Agency only if it offered for hire mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards. It had the secondary effect of deterring any other organization from providing such services lest it be branded a "similar organization." The legislative history supports this view and no other.

In the June 7, 1978 Letter to the Heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, the Comptroller General interpreted this decision in a way that carved out an exemption for "Guard and Protective Services."

A US Department of Defense interim rule (effective 16 June 2006) revises DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractors, other than private security contractors, to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense. 71 Fed. Reg. 34826. Per that interim rule, private security contractors are authorized to use deadly force when protecting their client's assets and persons, consistent with their contract's mission statement. [One interpretation is that this authorizes contractors to engage in combat on behalf of the US Government.] It is the combatant commander's responsibility to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize performance of inherently Governmental military functions, i.e. preemptive attacks or assaults or raids, et cetera.

Otherwise, civilians with US Armed Forces lose their law of war protection from direct attack, if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. On 18 August 2006, the US Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that US Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by requiring that contractors provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex, Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned the act was unviolated, because the contracts did not require contractors to provide quasi-military forces as strikebreakers.[11] Yet, on 1 June 2007, the Washington Post reported: "A federal judge yesterday ordered the military to temporarily refrain from awarding the largest security contract in Iraq. The order followed an unusual series of events set off when a U.S. Army veteran, Brian X. Scott, filed a protest against the government practice of hiring what he calls mercenaries, according to sources familiar with the matter." Though Scott had filed the protest at the Court of Federal Claims, the court order was the result of other bidders intervening in the case. Scott did not submit a bid, however, when the bidders who did submit a bid tried to protest at GAO, their GAO bid protests were dismissed due to the fact that Scott had filed a case at the court and deprived GAO of further jurisdiction in the matter. Scott's case had been dismissed at GAO and was eventually dismissed at the court. The court order was in response to one of the legitimate contractors and Brian X. Scott had no role in obtaining that order. [12]

The contract, worth about $400 million, calls for a private company to provide intelligence services to the US Army and security for the Army Corps of Engineers on reconstruction work in Iraq. The case, which is being heard by the US Court of Federal Claims, puts on trial one of the most controversial and least understood aspects of the Iraq war: the outsourcing of military security to an estimated 20,000 armed contractors.[12]

sturner wrote:

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

To be a mercenary all items a through f must be true. So, technically Blackwater isn't a mercenary organization in Iraq, because item d isn't true.

Nor does item B. PMCs do not take direct part in hostilities, they exercise their inherent right to self defense to protect the principal they are paid to protect. Offensive operations would be taking a direct part in hostilities, being a guard in a hostile area is not.

Typo, obviously. 'Principal.' Potential target.

I do like the "defensive" fire that they have been known to engage in.

Just remember Steyr, the U.S. doesn't adhere to that definition part of the protocol.

sturner wrote:

I do like the "defensive" fire that they have been known to engage in.

The best defense is a good offense

Fine, they're not mercenaries by definition, only by action.