Friday, May 18, 2007
It's tough being a mercenary
some of you have repeatedly made statements to the effect that the people locked up at guantanamo weren't in uniform and are therefore not subject to GC protection. Are the mercenaries described in this article fair game too?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
What do you mean by 'fair game'? If the US catches them, they will be given due process of law and if the Islamists have anything to do with them they will be beheaded.
If they were al qaeda they would end up at Gitmo, at worst. Not beheaded.
Am I missing something?
not missing anything JJ. Pepe thought he saw a winning gambit and fell straight into a forked king and castle
jj - in case of capture, should the black water types, say, be afforded gc protection?
piss off, aa.
When you're around, PP, I'll piss away
Pepean "logic", in all its pathetic emptiness.
Security contractors are not mercenaries: they do not sell themselves to a foreign potentate to fight his wars, rather, they work for a US company, doing a specific job, to wit, guarding installations and/or people against attacks by the Pepean "freedom fighters". As such, no, they do not fall under the Geneva conventions protections, since obviously they are not combattants in uniform (red herring and strawman argument, if I ever saw one). But that does not mean at all that, if captured by AQ, they should have their heads hacked (as per the wet dreams of the Left, repeated like an automaton by PP), or that, for that matter, if we capture a head-hacker, he should not be shipped in leg irons to Gitmo, or, after due process, be hanged for his crimes by the Iraqi authorities.
So, Pepe, when you graduate from kindergaten-level understanding of basic logic, come back, and we'll talk.
Security contractors are not mercenaries
Aren't the blackwater staff essentially doing soldiers jobs but being better remunerated?
they should [not] have their heads hacked
straew man city as usual: you're the only one raising this as an option.
Pepe, we should read the GC on that. But I suggest we do a better job than our Supreme Court did.
Here is the text of the GCs. I quote Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
So it seems that they are afforded protection as long as they obey the rules of war, like being clearly uniformed and carrying arms openly and not mixing with the populace.
I don't know if the mercs violate these laws. It seems to me that you object to them for other reasons (such as accepting remuneration above that of a combat soldier) that are irrelevant to the GC.
Perhaps you would prefer that they fight in support of religious Principle?
That's interesting - under this definition, it seems pretty much anyone, including im falls under these categories, except perhaps under d) depending on what accordance w/ llaws & customs of war actually means.
Elsewhere in the GC these are more-or-less defined. Mingling with the populace is prohibited. Recall that it is perfectly permissible under the GC to shoot spies, for example. The legal reason is that they misrepresent their identity when captured. The reason for the framers of the GC is that infiltration leads to noncombatants getting involved in firefights.
Again, whether the Whitewater boys go around looking like ragheads is the point of contention, legally, probably. What do you say? Are they equivalent to IM?
I think the answer is obviously no.
What do you say? Are they equivalent to IM?
That's a low standard: of course not, but that doesn't mean they aren't mercenaries.
OK, fine. I never doubted you would say that. Let's move to your initial question, though. You ask whether Whitewater types deserve GC protection (you kind of tendentiously disregard the obvious fact that they never will be afforded any by our opponents).
So according to the clauses I put down above, you agree they are entitled to that protection if they follow the rules.
Whether they do is an open question. Likely they do sometimes and don't others. They are hired by individuals and companies wanting to do business in Iraq for protection.
Those businesses' being able to do business in Iraq are the only hope the country has and the protectors are doing their jobs as their employers see fit.
There's nothing else to say, is there?
Now a tougher question you seem to duck a lot: Was the Supreme Court correct in awarding GC grauantees to the AQ types we pick up in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
Sometimes these guys are in violation of the rules of war as written in the GC. You must agree to that and drop all these pretenses about 'hey! those are the only tactics available to them...'
The GC were not intended to even the odds against great powers by supporting guerillas. They were put there to protect noncombatants.
you kind of tendentiously disregard the obvious fact that they never will be afforded any by our opponents
you are right, but i don't see why that should dictate your behavior.
Was the Supreme Court correct in awarding GC grauantees to the AQ types we pick up in Afghanistan and in Iraq.
yes, of course. same comment.
same comment above makes no sense. The Supreme Court doesn't judge moral matters. It is supposed to judge matters of law.
There isn't always overlap between the two, but hopefully there is some level of agreement.
I don't think that's their job. Votes can do that.
Post a Comment