This use by the U.S. military of private U.S. contractors for security duty in Iraq is something fairly new and very unsettling in international affairs and international law.
I mean, how weird is it that Paul Bremer, who’s the top representative of the U.S. military’s top civil-affairs unit, gets protected by contract soldiers, not by the U.S. military itself?
What is the status of all these guys under the Geneva Conventions? They are not acting directly in the military chain of command.
Does that make them “unlawful combatants”, I wonder? Or, if taken prisoner, would they be considered to be regular POWs?
Anyway, I learned from ABC News tonight that there are around 15,000 of them there in Iraq now. Many more fighters than even the Brits have in Iraq!
The more I thought about it, the more the whole set-up seems like some kind of a harmonic convergence among so many interests:
* Bombs-Away Don Rumsfeld’s interest in turning the U.S. military into a lean and mobile fighting-machine. (No time for training and maintaining large numbers of ‘boots on the ground!’)
* The Prez’s general desire to outsource everything in sight… Government jobs to non-government companies… US jobs to India and China, etc etc.
* Karl Rove’s desire to keep the number of ‘actual’ U.S. forces who are recorded as casualties as low as possible between now and November 4… and
* Dick Cheney’s desire to maximize the profits for all his old pals in Halliburton and elsewhere in the shady portions of the private sector.
So all in all, this move to privatizing the job of providing basic public security in Iraq– the job that the U.S. military is obligated to carry out, as occupying power, under the Geneva Conventions–seems to have been “over-determined” by this particular bunch in Washington.
I must say I feel really sad for all the people affected by these decisions… the Iraqis (whose security is notably NOT getting adequately planned for or provided), and all the American and coalition fighters out there– regular army and private sector folks. Because they are the ones who’re going to be taking it hard till the policy gets improved.
Sandline International (previously Executive Outcomes) has been providing private mercenaries for years. They have worked in Sierra Leone, PNG, Angola and most recently Equatorial Guinea. I guess it isn’t wrong unless you can blame the US or Israel, eh?
Who says it isn’t wrong in PNG, Equatorial Guinea or elsewhere? PNG’s use of Sandline caused a major scandal and led to the downfall of the government; it certainly wasn’t OK from the PNG citizens’ point of view.
Also, Sandline and the former Executive Outcomes are two different companies, although they’ve had connections.
The reference to ‘previously’ (as opposed to ‘formerly’) was an allusion to the fact that EO’s activities predated Sandline’s and also the fact that EO is now defunct.
There are a lot of bad things that go on in the world (I am undecided as to whether the use of private mercenaries is one of them). My point is that certain people only seem to raise criticisms when the alleged offender is Israel or the US. Just pointing out the double-standards.
>There are a lot of bad things that go on in the world (I am undecided as to whether the use of private mercenaries is one of them).
Perhaps you should read the U.N. Charter which the U.S is bound to by the sixth amendment of it’s constitution, which forbids the use of mercenaries.
The International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 1989. Substantive provisions of which have since become part of general international law, interdicts states from recruiting, using, financing or training mercenaries. Both the mercenary and his employer state bear criminal responsibility under international law. States have duties with respect to extradition or prosecution of mercenaries.
> My point is that certain people only seem to raise criticisms when the alleged offender is Israel or the US. Just pointing out the double-standards.
You obviously don’t read much news produced by the left. Criticism of the use of mercenaries has been documented by many NGOs (HRW, AI) and reported consistently in the leftist press, particularly those based outside the U.S. For example Aristede’s use of the Steele Foundation in Haiti, South Africa’s use of mercenaries in Angola, the use of paramilitary death squads in El Salvador and Brazil, the training of the Haitian Guy Phillippe in Ecuador by the CIA, the French Foreign Legion.
That the U.S. uses mercenaries is notable only in that the Bush administration considers itself able to ignore international laws that it is bound to. More grounds for prosecuting them for crimes against humanity.
You are right. I don’t spend my time reading most of the lefty rags. Sure, Amnesia International, for example, may be critical of lots of countries about various different things.
My point was that they spend a disproportionate amount of their energies beating up on Israel and the US, when there are plenty of other countries in the world doing far worse. If only the sort of outrage generated by HRW and AI at the non-genocide at Jenin could have been replicated in respect of Saddam’s death squads. Who knows? Maybe some of the 500,000-odd people killed might be alive today.
My question as to whether the use of mercenaries is a bad thing is not answered by pointing to the UN Charter. My issue is a moral one, not a legal one. That is, to the extent that the UN Charter is ‘law’ at all. Last time I checked, GA resolutions were not binding.
BTW, nothing in the sixth amendment refers to mercenaries or the UN Charter (which is not surprising given that the amendment was made in 1791).
That bit about prosecuting the US for crimes against humanity gave me a good laugh – heck, it was more of a guffaw! Thanks, that was a good one.
Maybe you meant the second amendment?
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Just a thought…
> My point was that they spend a disproportionate amount of their energies beating up on Israel and the US
So your argument would be backed by a larger number of reports and/or more critical tone of reports of the U.S. and Israel vs. other countries? Do you have any examples of such? A cursory count of publications released over the last four days of HRW shows criticism of Bahrain, Columbia, Uzbekistan, Sudan, Nepal, Malaysia, U.S (criticism of rights of Mexicans held on Death Row) and Uzbekistan again. Even with such a small sample size, your argument doesn’t hold water.
> Maybe some of the 500,000-odd people killed might be alive today.
Do you mean the 500,000 Iraqi children killed according to UNESCO analysis due to U.S. controlled sanctions of Iraq post 1991, or do you mean those killed by Saddam while he was the Reagan-Bush sponsored ally, including those killed by gas at Halabja supplied by U.S. companies and specifically allowed by arms deals signed by Rumsfeld with Saddam?
> My issue is a moral one, not a legal one.
Therefore your moral compass is that when the U.S. uses mercenaries it is morally acceptable, but when someone else does, it is not?
>BTW, nothing in the sixth amendment refers to mercenaries or the UN Charter (which is not surprising given that the amendment was made in 1791).
The sixth amendment binds the U.S. to all treaties to which it is a signatory, which includes the U.N charter.
> Maybe you meant the second amendment?
> “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
The U.S. is the only country in the world that needs such an amendment? What percentage of gun deaths in the U.S compare to any other country?
> Maybe some of the 500,000-odd people killed might be alive today.
Alternatively you may be thinking of the Iraqi socialists murdered by the Ba’ath party from CIA supplied lists in 1964, as revealed by King Hussein of Jordan?
Perhaps you may be referring to the 300,000 possible deaths attributed to killings by Saddam at the end of the first gulf war when the U.S. had urged the Kurd, Shiite and marsh Arab factions to rise up against Saddam and then after they had done so, withdrew all support, despite General Schwartzkopf’s assessment that he could have taken Baghdad in 24 hours?
Leigh – let me call your bluff. Two million people in Sudan are dead… a quick search through the AI reports indicates that there are more than twice as many AI reports on Israel that Sudan. Does this mean that there are four million dead Palestinians?
I then mosied on to the HRW website and saw the Israel/PA link. I was expecting to see some of the even-handedness you laud. But no, I was shocked … shocked!!! … to see only criticism of Israel.
Nothing at all on Arafat stealing from his people, the lack of free speech and high level of censorship, the killing of Israeli civillians with PA’s support (including monetary), the PA’s control of the media, the inciteful and incendiary speeches given by the PA and ‘official’ imams in the West Bank and Gaza, the inciteful textbooks given to students, the cynical use and manipulation of children to hate and to kill, honour killings, etc., etc.
The UNESCO survey has been totally discredited – the money was there all along. It was just spent on the palaces for the dictator that the left would have wanted to have kept in power… any remainding funds were paid out to various UN officials, EUrocrats and other ‘anti-war’ supporters.
Easy to blame the US, but far more blame goes to the French, Russians and the UN kleptocrats (including Annan’s own son!!)…
The sixth amendment reads:
“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Nothing about the UN Charter (or even mercenaries) there… The second amendment is still the closest one on point.
Finally, as for your studious comment about my moral compass, if I can be convinced that the use of mercenaries is always wrong than it will be wrong regardless of the employer.
My point was that some people on the left seem to excuse certain courses of action, except when committed by the US or Israel.
As for the dead Iraqis, I was referring to the 300-500,000 that have been uncovered in the mass graves: see, for example, http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
(not for sensative stomachs)
These were in addition to the many people cynically starved to death by Saddam so that useful idiots like yourself would blame the US.
The following is an interesting blog written by one of the mercenaries about how he see his role in Iraq:
http://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2004_03_28_grimbeorn_archive.html#108093383541889022
> Leigh – let me call your bluff.
I don’t understand your use of that term in this context. Exchange of information does not constitute bluffing.
> Two million people in Sudan are dead… a quick search through the AI reports indicates that there are more than twice as many AI reports on Israel that Sudan. Does this mean that there are four million dead Palestinians?
My search on http://www.amnestyusa.org of “Sudan” reveals 2054 articles, some number of which are foreign language versions of the same article. Searching “Israel” produces 2710 matches. I assume you determined the number of reports on Israel was twice that of Sudan by http://www.amnesty.org library (reporting since 1996) gives 366 matches for Israel, 193 for Sudan. This includes articles such as “Israel/Occupied Territories: The killing of civilians must stop” http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150092004?open&of=ENG-ISR condemning Palestinian armed groups. I agree more coverage of the Sudan is necessary, which depends on monitors being available in the country itself.
> I then mosied on to the HRW website and saw the Israel/PA link. I was expecting to see some of the even-handedness you laud. But no, I was shocked … shocked!!! … to see only criticism of Israel.
I agree there are more articles critical of Israel than of the PA/Hamas/unaffiliated militants, but to say that there is no criticism is incorrect:
Suicide Bombers Commit Crimes Against Humanity
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/11/isrl-pa1101.htm
Arafat Urged to Commute Death Sentences
http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/08/arafat-0802-ltr.htm
Human Rights Watch Urges Attention to Future of Palestinian Refugees
http://www.hrw.org/press/2000/12/isrpaa1222.htm
THE PALESTINIAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
“Legislative Council members have often complained that the executive branch of the PA does not take the council seriously. Rafat al-Najjar, a council member from Gaza, told Human Rights Watch:
After the elections, we thought the Legislative Council would go towards building a democratic society and making laws for the civil society. But we have passed seventy-five resolutions and we feel that the authority does not cooperate-the president does not care about the council. The Legislative Council passes resolutions on problems like torture, the prisoners, laws-but the PA does not carry out most of these [resolutions]. The problem is the Legislative Council has no power. It is the same system as the PLO, where the president decides everything and controls everything.”
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1997/palestina/Israel-07.htm
Israel/Occupied Territories: Children must not be used by armed groups
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE150352004?open&of=ENG-ISR
I assume you missed these articles when searching HRW and AI’s sites.
> As for the dead Iraqis, I was referring to the 300-500,000 that have been uncovered in the mass graves: see, for example, http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/
That site provides pictures of disinternment, it does not reference where you get the number of 500,000 deaths?
> The UNESCO survey has been totally discredited – the money was there all along.
Do you have any references to the discreditation of the UNESCO survey?
> It was just spent on the palaces for the dictator that the left would have wanted to have kept in power… any remainding funds were paid out to various UN officials, EUrocrats and other ‘anti-war’ supporters.
Easy to blame the US, but far more blame goes to the French, Russians and the UN kleptocrats (including Annan’s own son!!)…
> These were in addition to the many people cynically starved to death by Saddam so that useful idiots like yourself would blame the US.
Do you have any reference to starving performed by Saddam, as opposed to the 500,000 children killed due to the lack of clean drinking water since the U.S. held up construction of purification plants after they were destroyed in the first gulf war? (http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm)
I have never supported Saddam, but there have been shown many effective ways to remove dictators and empires peacefully: Marcos, Ceaucescu, Suharto, Zia al Hak, India’s republic without resorting to warfare. That sanctions enabled Saddam to retain power in Iraq and use them as a weapon against the Iraqi people has been well documented, very similar to the power Castro derives from adopting an anti-U.S. stance. However these criticisms were voiced by the left well before the mainstream media.
I stand corrected on the sixth amendment of the U.S. constitution.
I rechecked my references regarding the U.N. Charter which the U.S is bound to by the sixth article of it’s constitution, not its amendment.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html
Leigh:
I am glad that we seem to agree on at least two points:
1) There is insufficient coverage of Sudan.
2) This as a result of an insufficient number of monitors being placed there.
Hopefully, it will now be not too much of a jump to suggest that if you were to look at the aggregate resources at the disposal of the various NGOs, the world would be a better place if a greater proportion of those resources were to be devoted to places such as Sudan where real genocides are occurring, and less to Israel, where in three years of violent uprising still fewer Palestinians have died than were killed in Srebrenica in a UN ‘safe area’ in one week.
I note that HRW and Amnesty do produce token reports criticising the Palestinians. The question is of proportionality. I have plenty of problems with Israel, from its treatment of Ethiopian Jews to Israeli Arabs. Certainly, it is far from immune from criticism.
The question is, when there are so many evils happening in this world, is Israel sufficiently ‘wrong’ to justify the amount of energies devoted to it compared to the amount of energies devoted to other countries who may be acting far worse.
Evidence re: Saddam – http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/29/international/middleeast/29FOOD.html?ei=5007&en=1630b4e7c2aa6da9&ex=1393390800&partner=USERLAND&pagewanted=all&position=
Evidence re: UN – http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/cRosett/?id=110004734
… and to think that France and Russia tried to keep the sanctions in place after the war. How bloody-minded can you get?
Let’s look at the dictators:
Marcos: After 13 years of power was deposed after mass protests forced him out.
Ceausescu: Killed after 22 years in power as a result of popular uprising.
Suharto: After 31 years in power, was kicked out after mass riots over food and fuel prices.
Zia ul Haq: After 11 years in power, was killed in a plane crash (probably sabotage).
In each of the above cases (other than ul Haq), the dictator was forced out after a massive internal uprising. I presume that you would not have been in favour of a targeted killing by the US (if possible) of Saddam as per ul Haq.
Iraq was different for two main reasons. Firstly, unlike in Afghanistan, there was no organised opposition. Saddam brutally crushed anything that even smelled like opposition. For example, the 1991 revolt and the 1996 coup attempt.
As for 1991, I do think that Bush snr was wrong for asking for an uprising and then not knowing what to do when it happened. This was a big mistake, that probably was one of the main reasons why it became impossible to foment another uprising under Bush jnr.
The truth is that none of the attempts to oust Saddam had worked. War was really the only option available that would not take years to implement. Given that the US had information (albeit incomplete) that Saddam had WMDs and may well have been prepared to work with al Quaeda (which would have been highly likely given his ties to Abu Nidal, Hizballah, al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, some of the 1993 WTC bombers, etc.), the US did not have years to wait for him to go.
Mercenaries have no automatic right to combatant or POW status. According ro Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions merceneries have no right to combatant status, so if they are given it that is only due to the mercy of their captors.
Armies who capture mercenaries are entirely at liberty under international law to prosecute them for taking part in the conflict since they do not have combatant status. If the mercenaries killed people–including armed enemy combatants–they can be prosecuted and punished for murder.
So in theory, Iraqi guerrillas resisting the Anglo-American alien (foreign) occupation (who do have combatant status under Aditional Protol I) could capture mercenaries, court-martial them for murder if they have killed anyone and then execute or imprison them.
It does say somewhere in the US Constitution that treaties ratified by over two-thirds of the Senate are the “supreme law of the land”.