Forums | MacLife

sturner wrote:

Yeah, and now 5 or 7, I forget how many are on trial for their "defensive fire." Which indicates they overstepped the boundary.

So? A tiny number of the total contracted PMCs allegedly overstepping the line doesnt make the entire category of people mercenaries. Security guards overstep their bounds as well, that doesnt give someone the license to start making up terminology because it gives them some sort of smug satisfaction.

You have obviously missed the meaning. So let's just let it drop.

This is a shocking development to be sure...

Tallgeese wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

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

Or rather, they're not mercenaries by the aforementioned legal definition, but by common parlance which was used well before that law was made.

I'll go with that.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

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

IF IT'S LEGAL IT'S MORAL!  UNLESS THEY'RE GAY.

jerwin wrote:

Results 1 - 10 of about 7,420,000 for blackwater mercenaries. (0.11 seconds)

You're fighting a losing battle.

Its hardly surprising that there are a vast number of ignorant people out there who would be easily conned into thinking blackwater and other PMCs are mercenaries.

In a fine example of Scahill reporting, no one has even identified who actually has been "murdered" by Prince. Kind of an important fact. the "ex marine" even goes so far as to say that he doesnt have any direct evidence that these murders happened, just that he heard so from friends.

Hardly compelling evidence.

skahill on keith olberman But, since they don't quibble about using "Mercenary", I suppose amusement  rather than shock is the proper reaction.

Steyr AUG wrote:

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.

Logistics of military property (in which blackwater and it's contractors took part in)  almost definitely would be considered active participation in hostilities.  The convention really doesn't define what 'hostilities' means, most accept it to mean operations withing the sphere of conflict.  However it's irrelevant as direct participation of hostilites is not a requirement of the much newer UN Mercenary Convention:

UN Mercenary Convention wrote:

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.

Last edited by RatFink (2009-08-07 10:08 am)

If the evidence warrants it. But people shouldn't get away with criminal activity because of accidents of jurisdiction and islands of impunity.

Steyr AUG wrote:

In a fine example of Scahill reporting, no one has even identified who actually has been "murdered" by Prince. Kind of an important fact. the "ex marine" even goes so far as to say that he doesnt have any direct evidence that these murders happened, just that he heard so from friends.

Hardly compelling evidence.

I'm sure they kept thorough reports on all incidents. Once they find those documents we'll have the truth.

.tard

Steyr AUG wrote:

RatFink wrote:

Logistics of military property (in which blackwater and it's contractors took part in)  almost definitely would be considered active participation in hostilities.

So now DHL, UPS and Fedex are mercenaries too. This "definition" keeps getting better and better.

The convention really doesn't define what 'hostilities' means, most accept it to mean operations withing the sphere of conflict.  However it's irrelevant as direct participation of hostilites is not a requirement of the much newer UN Mercenary Convention:

Protecting an asset from attack using security guards is hardly taking part in hostilities. Its self defense, not offensive operations like the .mil participates in.

Time to find another job, Rambo.