NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater_4;_ylt=AqR_lgSdwZ3InOMMJG4w_YZlM3wV

It seems there is some discussion going on about the Iraq Government giving Blackwater six months to pack up and go home. Not a bad idea if they did what they are accused of and I have little doubt that they very well may have.

The problem is they, for some reason, don't appear to be subject to Iraqi law and because they are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ. There might be a slim possibility they could be prosecuted under US law, but the alleged crime did not happen on US soil.

So, should all private security in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law or should they be subject to some other law?

By the way, when Blackwater leaves you will still have the same people with the same equipment working for a different company, so what will be accomplished?

Yes, they should, when operating on Iraqi territory.

Next?

it happened on Iraqi soil, it's subjected to Iraqi law. or should be. At best all we can hope for is the U.S. to cut blackwater as a private contracter.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater_4;_ylt=AqR_lgSdwZ3InOMMJG4w_YZlM3wV

It seems there is some discussion going on about the Iraq Government giving Blackwater six months to pack up and go home. Not a bad idea if they did what they are accused of and I have little doubt that they very well may have.

The problem is they, for some reason, don't appear to be subject to Iraqi law and because they are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ. There might be a slim possibility they could be prosecuted under US law, but the alleged crime did not happen on US soil.

So, should all private security in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law or should they be subject to some other law?

By the way, when Blackwater leaves you will still have the same people with the same equipment working for a different company, so what will be accomplished?

Well, they're operating in Iraq, so it seems like a good idea, ya know?

By the way, when Blackwater leaves you will still have the same people with the same equipment working for a different company, so what will be accomplished?

The company directors will learn that if they don't control their 'troops' they will be held accountable via their wallets. Not enough, but a rare level of corporate accountabalty in the US

We shouldn't even need any god damned security soldiers.

If we're low on soldiers, then WE FUCKING DRAFT PEOPLE INTO THE ARMY.

We've done it for every major war in the 20th century, so why not this century?

Oh yeah, because the dumbasses that voted the morons in charge of this country won't dare to face the consequences of their inexcusible actions.

We shouldn't even need any god damned security soldiers.

If we're low on soldiers, then WE FUCKING DRAFT PEOPLE INTO THE ARMY.

We've done it for every major war in the 20th century, so why not this century?

Oh yeah, because the dumbasses that voted the morons in charge of this country won't dare to face the consequences of their inexcusible actions.Because forcing people to do something against their will is wrong?

If there aren't enough soldiers then it means the country is either overly-aggressive or it is mistreating its soldiers or people don't think the country is worth fighting to defend or a mixture of all three. The draft fixes none of these things.

Because forcing people to do something against their will is wrong?

If there aren't enough soldiers then it means the country is either overly-aggressive or it is mistreating its soldiers or people don't think the country is worth fighting to defend or a mixture of all three. The draft fixes none of these things.

Haha, no.

How could they not be subject to Iraqi law?

Should private security companies be subject to Iraqi law?I don't really understand the question. If someone commits a crime, then the laws of the respective country the crime was committed in apply. That's called sovereignty. Or is Iraq just supposed to be another Guantanamo where no laws apply?

Haha, no.I could make the obligatory question of asking your age. :p

Because forcing people to do something against their will is wrong?

If there aren't enough soldiers then it means the country is either overly-aggressive or it is mistreating its soldiers or people don't think the country is worth fighting to defend or a mixture of all three. The draft fixes none of these things.

I have served under both the draft and the all volunteer force. All volunteer is much, much better, fewer discipline problems, better educated troops, and much higher moral.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater_4;_ylt=AqR_lgSdwZ3InOMMJG4w_YZlM3wV

It seems there is some discussion going on about the Iraq Government giving Blackwater six months to pack up and go home. Not a bad idea if they did what they are accused of and I have little doubt that they very well may have.

Indeed.

The problem is they, for some reason, don't appear to be subject to Iraqi law and because they are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ. There might be a slim possibility they could be prosecuted under US law, but the alleged crime did not happen on US soil.

And the law that was passed cannot be applied retroactively.

So, should all private security in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law or should they be subject to some other law?

Yes they should be subjected to Iraqi Law.

By the way, when Blackwater leaves you will still have the same people with the same equipment working for a different company, so what will be accomplished?

Not much.

Because forcing people to do something against their will is wrong?

If there aren't enough soldiers then it means the country is either overly-aggressive or it is mistreating its soldiers or people don't think the country is worth fighting to defend or a mixture of all three. The draft fixes none of these things.

Actually, the thing is most (read: everone other then the right) tend to view anything even remotley associated with the government as the worst crime commited against humanity.

We've done it for every major war in the 20th century, so why not this century?
Because the average citizen of the second half of the 20th Century was a whole fucking Hell of a lot smarter than those patriotic morons who gleefully rushed headfirst into the meat grinders of WWI and WWII?
Oh yeah, because the dumbasses that voted the morons in charge of this country won't dare to face the consequences of their inexcusible actions.
So only people who voted for Bush in 2004 are going to be eligible for the draft? No one who (for instance) came of age after election day or voted for a different candidate will be rounded up?

I'm not even going to try and debate this rationaly. Already its turning from a perfectly debatable topic to a bush and US flamfest. *props feet up* wonder how long the trolls can slug it out before the mods close it down.

but Blackwater is a TNC and is thus untouchable especially by colonial types

Actually, the thing is most (read: everone other then the right) tend to view anything even remotley associated with the government as the worst crime commited against humanity.

so the right is in fact a bunch of Socialist touch-bums?

I'm not even going to try and debate this rationaly. Already its turning from a perfectly debatable topic to a bush and US flamfest. *props feet up* wonder how long the trolls can slug it out before the mods close it down.

I apologize I read your previous post and thought you was something rational like an anarchist or at least a Jehovah witness

I am of the opinion that subsidiaries and employees of companies operating in foreign countries should be subject to local laws but the actual company itself should be subject to the laws where their headquarters and/or place of incorporation is located.

so the right is in fact a bunch of Socialist touch-bums?



I apologize I read your previous post and thought you was something rational like an anarchist or at least a Jehovah witness

I am, when the topic hasn't degenerated into a flamefest. And I'm kind of neutral in politics, but thats pretty much how it is.

but the actual company itself should be subject to the laws where their headquarters and/or place of incorporation is located.

what if the headquarters is somewhere iffy like an uninhabited South pacific island or Kent?

I'm kind of neutral in politics, but thats pretty much how it is.

I'm guessing your American so you mean to the far right? :p

Actually, the thing is most (read: everone other then the right) tend to view anything even remotley associated with the government as the worst crime committed against humanity.
There is only one Master, the Lord our God. The State is a false idol, to be discarded. Only by the direct rule of His anointed may we legitimately be commanded. So companies disobeying the Lord by following the State are indeed Evil and criminal.

what if the headquarters is somewhere iffy like an uninhabited South pacific island or Kent?

Well, usually, they would have to be incorporated or have their headquarters in the nation that hires them; it would be exceptionally rare for a government, or anyone for that matter, to outsource security to a company based in some kind of tax haven.

It's also possible that if the guilty company is not sued the company that hired them will be. At some point, someone will be liable.

the Lord our God.

reading the King James edition I see?

it would be exceptionally rare for a government, or anyone for that matter, to outsource security to a company based in some kind of tax haven.

know doubt there is some kind of legal loophole pulling the same affect, this is a very high stakes high risk business after all

It's also possible that if the guilty company is not sued the company that hired them will be. At some point, someone will be liable.

some guy will lose his job and miraculously find another and we all live happily ever after, no?

know doubt there is some kind of legal loophole pulling the same affect, this is a very high stakes high risk business after all

That would be a concern, and definitely something which needs to be addressed in laws regulating the activities of private contractors. I recall that one of the companies involved in the Blackwater crimes was based in Dubai, which is pretty much a tax haven for all intents and purposes. Of course, it would be great to know that the UAE will pursue the case and has strict laws for these kinds of crimes, but I'm not optimistic.

some guy will lose his job and miraculously find another and we all live happily ever after, no?

That's the downside of limited liability. However, if the lawsuit is serious enough, it may result in the shutdown of the company in question.

Yes. Actually I believe those scum mercenaries shouldn't be allowed in the country at all. But if they go around killing people, let the Iraqis hang the bastards.

They are if they are in Iraq. Much like american's in Iraq are subject to Iraqi law.

Remember the US ISN'T OCCUPYING IRAQ - as far as the US is concerned, so technically they are guests. Although that is about 80% hogwash.

Frankly yes they should be in an ethical sense.

As far as my own opinion everyone lives their own law. Soilders can be court martialed but it is very ethically issued that a soilder who rapes or kills a civilian can just be given dishonourable service and serve time without formal extradition requests. Short of a valid extradition request they should be subject to Iraqi law.

(personally though I have my own law, and that will be the law I am truely being judged on, the rest is an act)

PS they are subject to the law. But it is an odd relationship - (in general they are terrorists hired by the US government - also called MERCENARIES)

they have a mandate I beleive with the US department of state - technically it is the state department that is conducting illegal activities in Iraq. (but private security contract may vary on a case by case basis (but they wouldn't be there without the state department or iraq signing off on it.. less they would be enemy combatant.. hello guantanamo)


p.s. I say illegal activities in Iraq based upon the US statements in relation to their role in Iraq, and their practices... but the intention to cause acts is circumstantial.. obviously in some instances there is gross negligence.. yet the US state department values the activities even at risk to the civilian population in Iraq (which is negligence.. but there are many factors at play)

Iraq simply has to ask for them to be removed and legally the US has to, else it is an occupation and the rules of occupation come into effect (even though the US broke them and commited war crimes already anyway)

Remember Vietnam? If they instituted the draft, the army will have a whole shipment of people fantasizing about shooting their superior in the face. Obviously, that's not a good thing.

Remember Vietnam? If they instituted the draft, the army will have a whole shipment of people fantasizing about shooting their superior in the face. Obviously, that's not a good thing.

And if they actually do it...be brought up on murder charges and face execution.

I'm not even going to try and debate this rationaly. Already its turning from a perfectly debatable topic to a bush and US flamfest. *props feet up* wonder how long the trolls can slug it out before the mods close it down.

an american company, used as a proxy force by the us administration. you have to expect a bit of criticism to head that way....

How could they not be subject to Iraqi law?How could the people we kidnap - renditions- and bring to our private Gulag in Cuba (Gitmo)...

How could they NOT get the possible civil rights allowed by the Cuban laws, and/or the possible civil rights allowed by the US laws?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071014/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_blackwater_4;_ylt=AqR_lgSdwZ3InOMMJG4w_YZlM3wV

It seems there is some discussion going on about the Iraq Government giving Blackwater six months to pack up and go home. Not a bad idea if they did what they are accused of and I have little doubt that they very well may have.

The problem is they, for some reason, don't appear to be subject to Iraqi law and because they are not military, they are not subject to the UCMJ. There might be a slim possibility they could be prosecuted under US law, but the alleged crime did not happen on US soil.

So, should all private security in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law or should they be subject to some other law?

By the way, when Blackwater leaves you will still have the same people with the same equipment working for a different company, so what will be accomplished?
As I have posted on this many times before, recently and even 3 years ago, it ios all about special Orders that were issued by Paul Bremer. They were nicknamed Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations):

Section 4
Contractors (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf)

1) Sending States may contract for any services, equipment, provisions, supplies, material, other goods, or construction work to be furnished or undertaken in Iraq without restriction as to choice of supplier or Contractor. Such contracts may be awarded in accordance with the Sending State’s laws and regulations.

2) Contractors shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts, including licensing and registering employees, businesses and corporations; provided, however, that Contractors shall comply with such applicable licensing and registration laws and regulations if engaging in business or transactions in Iraq other than Contracts. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Order, Private Security Companies and their employees operating in Iraq must comply with all CPA Orders, Regulations, Memoranda, and any implementing instructions or regulations governing the existence and activities of Private Security Companies in Iraq, including registration and licensing of weapons and firearms.

3) Contractors shall be immune from Iraqi legal process with respect to acts performed by them pursuant to the terms and conditions of a Contract or any sub-contract thereto. Nothing in this provision shall prohibit MNF Personnel from preventing acts of serious misconduct by Contractors, or otherwise temporarily detaining any Contractors who pose a risk of injury to themselves or others, pending expeditious turnover to the appropriate authorities of the Sending State. In all such circumstances, the appropriate senior representative of the Contractor’s Sending State in Iraq shall be notified.
Nice huh? :p

How is this even a question? Of course they should be.

everyone 'should' be subject to the law of wherever they physically happen to be. fixed price warriors need to be accountable to SOMEONE. at the very least, international war crimes tribunals.

a u.n. with teeth, letting everyone be subject to the laws of wherever they happend to physically be would be, ideally, in exchange for banning any soverign nation from closing its borders to any movement of unarmed civilians.

and we need a u.n. with teeth. too long soverign nations of every sort have gotten away with destructively callus unilateralism.

it is almost inevitable, if humanity doesn't destroy itself first, that we WILL eventually have one. just as america's 'federalism' replaced the 'articles of confederation' of the 13 origeonal colonies.

i believe defense contractors SHOULD be on the front lines, actively engauged in combat in times of war. at least and especially their c.e.o.s! they want to reap the profits, they should face the risks personally and directly. this would make recruitment and compensation entirely up to them too.

unlike the current situation however, where they seem to be answerable to no one, they need to be held accountable to EVERYONE. directly to a court of international law, to the nation(s) that hired them, and to every civilian life, on any and all sides, they take or put at risk.

=^^=
.../\...

As I have posted on this many times before, recently and even 3 years ago, it ios all about special Orders that were issued by Paul Bremer. They were nicknamed Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations):

Section 4
Contractors (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf)


Nice huh? :p

Three pages and now CH posts this. CH? The question posed was that should Private Security companies be subjected to Iraqi Law. Now...with that in mind, stop pointing to Bremers orders for it is not asking about but your opinion on should they be subjected to Iraqi Law. Do you have an answer?

Three pages and now CH posts this. CH? The question posed was that should Private Security companies be subjected to Iraqi Law. Now...with that in mind, stop pointing to Bremers orders for it is not asking about but your opinion on should they be subjected to Iraqi Law. Do you have an answer?

and considering multiple people in this thread have asked why wouldn't blackwater be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, the post involving Bremers orders, demonstrating why they are not, is perfectly appropriate in the context over the overall conversation.

and considering multiple people in this thread have asked why wouldn't blackwater be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, the post involving Bremers orders, demonstrating why they are not, is perfectly appropriate in the context over the overall conversation.

one wonders why bremer trumps the iraqi government in deciding who should be subject to iraqi law.

and considering multiple people in this thread have asked why wouldn't blackwater be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, the post involving Bremers orders, demonstrating why they are not, is perfectly appropriate in the context over the overall conversation.

The main question Neo Art was should private security companies be subject to Iraqi law. That's the main question and CH never answers it when poised.

one wonders why bremer trumps the iraqi government in deciding who should be subject to iraqi law.

the short answer is that the Iraqi government took steps at its inception to limit their capability of altering or eliminating standing provisional government orders.

Though some argue that these are invald as well.

The main question Neo Art was should private security companies be subject to Iraqi law. That's the main question and CH never answers it when poised.

and neither this post nor your one proceeding it dealt with the question at hand either.

Conversations evolve, they shift, questions get raised that are tangental, but related, to the subject at hand. He addressed and answered one of those questions.

I find it somewhat ironic that in attacking him from something that is technically off topic for the post, you post something off topic for the post. If you feel he has violated some forum rule, report it. If not, what's the point of bothering to chastize someone in public because he didn't see fit to give you his opinion?

The main question Neo Art was should private security companies be subject to Iraqi law. That's the main question and CH never answers it when poised.

No need to go all histrionic.........

Nice huh? :p

wow, that's scary.

Uh, yeah.

How could the people we kidnap - renditions- and bring to our private Gulag in Cuba (Gitmo)...

How could they NOT get the possible civil rights allowed by the Cuban laws, and/or the possible civil rights allowed by the US laws?

There has not been an influx of prisoners into Guantanamo Bay, the group that's there are the same people we originally stuffed there.

How is this even a question?

Because some people have a somewhat skewed sense of reality.

Nope. The US runs Iraq. The US decides who has to follows who's law.

Well, Private security firms better leave before the invaders are kicked out, or else they will face the punishment of the Iraqi people.

Am I the only one who actually noticed the formation of the Mujahideen alliance of 22 Insurgent groups over the past few weeks in Baghdad?

Well, Private security firms better leave before the invaders are kicked out, or else they will face the punishment of the Iraqi people.

Am I the only one who actually noticed the formation of the Mujahideen alliance of 22 Insurgent groups over the past few weeks in Baghdad?

Nope. A welcome development.

Should private security companies be subject to Iraqi law?

Ah,yeah.

I'm a private company so I can just shoot up whoever i want whenever I want?Wrong!

and considering multiple people in this thread have asked why wouldn't blackwater be subject to Iraqi jurisdiction, the post involving Bremers orders, demonstrating why they are not, is perfectly appropriate in the context over the overall conversation.
I am glad to see that you understand the relevance of my post. I am/am not surprised that Corny has challenged it.

wow, that's scary.
Yup, very scary indeed!! So much for the much touted Iraq sovereignity?

I am glad to see that you understand the relevance of my post. I am/am not surprised that Corny has challenged it.

Reason being? I never liked bremer's orders to begin with.

Reason being? I never liked bremer's orders to begin with.
In all reality, I honestly believe that you did not know (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9094899&postcount=223)and still do not know very much about Bremer's Orders and their impact on Iraq's sovereignity.

I don't like to drag out old demons (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9093904&postcount=218)but in your case, I find it necessary.

You supported the US invasion of Iraq and you brushed off Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations)as easily reversed, yet such is not the case.

Yes private security companies should be subject to Iraqi law, but thanks to Bremer's Order # 17 (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf), they in fact are not!!

Because the average citizen of the second half of the 20th Century was a whole fucking Hell of a lot smarter than those patriotic morons who gleefully rushed headfirst into the meat grinders of WWI and WWII?

Wow, that is one heck of an offensive statement.

Wow, that is one heck of an offensive statement.

Especially when it's untrue. The average American is no smarter now than the average American moron in 1940.

So, should all private security in Iraq be subject to Iraqi law or should they be subject to some other law?


They should be subject to martian law?

As I have posted on this many times before, recently and even 3 years ago, it ios all about special Orders that were issued by Paul Bremer. They were nicknamed Bremer's Orders (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/index.html#Regulations):

Section 4
Contractors (http://www.iraqcoalition.org/regulations/20040627_CPAORD_17_Status_of_Coalition__Rev__with_Annex_A.pdf)


Nice huh? :p

are those orders law?

of what country?

by what authority?

Nope. The US runs Iraq. The US decides who has to follows who's law.

I'm assuming thats tongue in cheek?

They should be subject to martian law?

I wonder what planet is Switzerland?

I wonder what planet is Switzerland?

do you think switzerlandic law is more appropriate? Mercenary's Delaware?