We need to petition congress to pass laws governing Blackwater.

[loudsue]

It just doesn't seem to be in the interest of protecting the constitution to allow a mercenary army to be forming on our soil without LAWS passed by congress heavily regulating what those armies can ever be allowed to do on our soil.

Currently, I haven't seen any such legislation. It seems to me that the only regulations on this army forming, has to do with what is in their contract with the pentagon...NOT something that has been imposed by our legislature.

Having a huge military forming on our soil is VERY scary, and I'm not sure anything in the constitution allows for it.

[Solon]

1. I don't care how big they are, I care that they exist at all, they need to be abolished...

the last thing we need is a for-profit paramilitary group, period. Mercs are to be condemned and thrown in prison, not paid for by our tax dollars.

[BlackHawk706867]

3. I agree with you and that goes for any other mercenary armies that currently...

exist within continental USA...

ww

[FormerDittoHead]

5. Seconded. Simply, such things should be against the law in a civilized society. n/t

[loudsue]

6. Amen. Just having them on our soil gives me the heebie jeebies.

The whole concept is just plain WRONG.

When corporations have armies.....

:kick:

[Kagemusha]

2. The Pinkertons were legal.

The constitution allowed for that.

[loudsue]

4. And the Pinkertons did a lot of killing when Americans went on strike

against the slave wages. Blackwater is Pinkertons on steroids.

:kick:

[Kagemusha]

10. Well I don't know how many Americans that Blackwater's killed

but my point is, if the Pinkertons were legal, how is Blackwater not? Security guards are legal too. The constitution seems to be a poor place to look for relief here.

[Solon]

9. What the fuck does the Constition have to do with it?

The Pinkertons, just like Blackwater, are PRIVATE, the Constitution doesn't apply to them, at all. I never heard of any phrase in the Constitution that specifically forbids the government from regulating, or even abolishing such groups. They are only legal for as long as laws ALLOW them to be legal, I say outlaw them, as soon as possible, its not like we need a Constitutional Amendment here.

[Kagemusha]

11. The original poster said... and I was responding to...

"and I'm not sure anything in the constitution allows for it."

You're right, the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

[Solon]

12. The only way the Constution would apply is if we were a signatory to an anti-mercenary...

treaty, as specified in the Constitution, international treaties are binding, according to the Constitution, as specified here:

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

[Kagemusha]

13. That's besides the point. If a firm is authorized to do security, it's not mercs.

It's mercenaries as far as progressives are concerned, but not as far as the law is concerned.

So how can anyone look to the law for relief for the regulation of mercenaries when the law doesn't see them as mercenaries to begin with?... more laws to regulate mercenaries are besides the point if Blackwater isn't subject to them while doing work on US soil.

[Solon]

16. They ARE called Private Military Companies, by themselves no less...

what else are they? They aren't just rent-a-cops, rent-a-cops are regulated in a much stricter fashion than most people realize. I should know, I worked for Wackenhut, of all companies, they are known for their private prisons as well, though I didn't work at those, thank Gods, I would probably be dead if I did. Anyways, Security Officers, as we were called, were under a LOT of strict regulations as to what we could or could not do, first, we had to be licensed by the city we work in, and pass local tests, by local Police, to get the license. In addition to this, we had to pass stricter qualifications to be allowed to carry firearms.

We had no powers of arrest, only detainment, and only for felonies we witnessed ourselves. We were under the same restrictions of firearms use as police officers themselves, only to protect ourselves or others from imminent attack by a deadly weapon. We could not leave the property we were contracted with, as a security officer, unless a major felony was in process and we witnessed it ourselves. We were still subject to the laws and regulations of the localities we work in, and are offered no special protections than those given to any other private citizen outside of the property we are allowed to work in.

Even stricter than that, for firearm carrying Security Officers, there were stricter rules, for example, they can't carry their weapons off the property they are protecting. They have to have there firearms locked up properly in their vehicle when coming to and from work, and cannot, under any circumstances, stop between home and work, not even for a cup of coffee or gas for the car.

The fact of the matter is that PMCs are NOT under nearly as strict regulations as regular security companies for protecting private property.

[Kagemusha]

17. Hasn't it occured to anyone they operate under different laws overseas?

I thought that was really basic stuff. But let me spell it out in case any lurkers don't understand this...

On American soil, Blackwater is subject to American laws. Simple. As. That.

This talk that they can get away with the stuff they do in Iraq, on US soil, is myth.

[Solon]

18. First things first, these are NOT security companies!

At least, not in the traditional sense, even the comparison to Pinkerton is false because Pinkerton started as a PI agency, and expanded to security, but NOT in theaters of war. Pinkerton was a union busting agency, especially in the latter half of the 19th century, and didn't participate, actively, in wars.

Also, I don't CARE about Domestic activities, at least, not as concerned, as I am with their activities in Iraq, the fact is that there is little to no oversight over the activities of these PMCs in Iraq. A classic example of this is Abu Ghraib, most people seemed to have forgotten that the United States outsourced the interrogations to private companies CACI and Titan Group, who specialized in intelligence and interrogations, and also they were accused of abuses, yet we haven't heard of any punishments levied against these companies for these activities.

Blackwater isn't the only PMC in Iraq, just the most visible, there are thousands of them, and theoretically they are now under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice, as of January of 2007 at least for U.S. nationals. Before that, it was a free for all, basically. In addition, many of them aren't even U.S. nationals but instead can be British, Canadian, South African, or from many other nations.

[Kagemusha]

19. Server bug, deleting

Bleh.

[Kagemusha]

20. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you are focused on their Iraq activities here.

Long story short, everyone should be. Blackwater & Friends have far more freedom to do bad things in a country like Iraq. Also, and I've been listening to this issue since the 2003 invasion, that theoretical jurisdiction is effectively non-existent in practice. That is a big problem. That is a severe problem.

I think Iraq might have an easier time addressing that problem if the sitting government wasn't sitting on what could also be fairly called PMC's, except they're called militias instead... with a lot of members doubling as cops and soldiers.

[Solon]

21. Actually, the American Provisional Government has forbidden the Iraqi Government...

from regulating PMCs entirely, except in cases when they contract directly with said government. As I said in my first post, I believe PMCs should be abolished, not because of domestic, but rather foreign concerns. The fact of the matter is that this is an industry that isn't needed, and can be quite dangerous, as we have seen in Iraq. We already have plenty of private security companies in the United States protecting private property here, these PMCs don't serve that function at all.

The fact is that these companies are serving in functions that the military itself can do in a more cost effective way. I don't see how outsourcing the cooking of food, or security functions is saving the military or taxpayer's money, in fact, I would imagine its costing us a lot more.

[Kagemusha]

22. Yeah, I'm aware the provisional govt said that but, I doubt they care.

If Iraq's sovereign government was firing on all cylinders and could guarantee basic security, they wouldn't hesitate to regulate PMC's and move against them...

I'm just saying, the government there runs its own PMC's, they're just called militias, so it's not in a position to do that.. or much anything, really.

[Solon]

26. As far as I can tell, the Iraqi government is a debate committee with less power...

than a high school debate club. As far as I can tell, they might as well not exist, as long as the U.S. is pulling the strings, and you know they are, the Iraqi Government is toothless. They hold onto their own militias by a thread as thin as spider silk and not nearly as strong.

[loudsue]

23. Well, then they sure as hell broke all the laws in the U.S. during Katrina.

There were Blackwater guys "guarding" the people on the bridge during Katrina, so the innocent victims of the flood were forced to stay on the bridge and go into dehydration (which is EXTREMELY painful). It was in all the videos and on the news. They pointed their GUNS at American citizens, ON OUR SOIL.

THAT is what needs to be regulated by congress.

:kick:

[Kagemusha]

24. ...Uh, didn't police officers do that? Or at least, didn't they also do that?

I know when I heard of stuff like that, it concerned police officers not Blackwater.

And please, I am not saying it's a good thing. Not one bit. I'm saying that it's not a problem of Blackwater alone.

[loudsue]

27. Uh...the police officers answer directly to elected officials.

Blackwater does NOT.

:kick:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

7. I don't think Congress knows who Blackwater is?

[loudsue]

8. Well, Blackwater are the guys we're paying over $80,000 per year + expenses

to in Iraq, to the tune of 140,000 mercenary troops.

That comes to a little over $11 Billion per year of our tax dollars, AT A MINIMUM. Once you throw in expenses, corporate profits, and equipment, I'd hate to even think what kind of money congress has been appropriating for this dark lord. If they don't know where our tax dollars are going, it's time they woke the hell up!

:kick:

[defendandprotect]

14. Agree -- and surprised to think that our own military would have . . ..

been interested in stopping this competition --- how naive I am!!!

Probably a military now filled with supporters of MIIC --

[Klukie]

15. Good idea.....

but first the American public needs to be informed of Blackwater. I am amazed at how many folks I speak with that have never even heard the name before. I wish someone would do an expose' on them.

[loudsue]

25. I agree, Klukie, and they need to show the footage of the Katrina disaster.

When you finally had a news clip of an actual military officer telling the blackwater guys to stand down, it did my heart good! :loveya:

:kick: