Is Blackwater even Constitutional?

[maxrandb]

I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but isn't there something in there about "private armies" and "mercenaries"? I don't know, but it seems like there ought to be something wrong when $700,000,000 of "our" tax dollars are being spent on a "contractor" that is really nothing more than a "private army".

I'm not normally an irrational person, but everytime I hear a story about this group, or hear their name mentioned, I get a terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach. I know that we've used "mercs" in the past in other wars, and I'm not against contractors that do administrative, logistics, and custodial duties for the military and the government, but I don't think we've ever seen anything quite to the scale of Blackwater in our 200 year history.

Now, apparently, they are branching out with a "maritime" division. They bought a ship from the Coast Guard (I believe) and it's currently moored at Nauticus in Norfolk, VA.

Am I missing something here? How did we allow this organization to become so powerful (with our tax money) in such a short amount of time. They appear to be subject to no laws, oversight, or "rules of engagement". Somehow, I don't think this is what our Founding Fathers had in mind when the wrote "provide for the common defense".

I know the neo-cons want to privatize every "blanking" thing, but.......

We've come quite a long way from the days of Ike warning us about the "Military Industrial Complex".

[H2O Man]

1. In "Earth House Hold,"

(1968) Gary Snyder wrote about the "super hunting-bands of mercenaries" that have become part of the private armies of corporate America. Though not "unconstitutional," there is good reason for citizens to be concerned, and for government officials to be sure to draw clear lines regarding what is legal and illegal.

[dailykoff]

3. Has anybody challenged its constitutionality?

That's the only way to find out. Sure it's probably legal but that doesn't make it constitutional if the statutes permitting it (if they exist) are unconstitutional.

I frankly think the CIA and all those other intel agencies are NOT constitutional, though they've been protected by various courts, and all it would take is a determined attorney with a good team and a lot of $$ to send the whole stinking sewer off to Sing Sing.

p.s. okay it would take a little more than that but I am so ready to see one brave DA or state AG show a little guts and get some convictions.

[H2O Man]

12. Perhaps you should

read the Constitution. See if you can identify anything that any any way supports what you are saying. Also, becoming familiar with what DAs and state AGs do might be a good thing.

[dailykoff]

14. Ha.

I've read it, and I know what they don't do, which is prosecute the most vile, murderous, and corrupt criminals in their jurisdictions.

And that my friend is how Mr. Spitzer got to Albany.

[H2O Man]

16. Right.

But can you name who Mr. Spitzer prosecutes for "unconstitutional" actions?

[dailykoff]

19. As governor he doesn't prosecute anyone.

As AG he had plenty of opportunities to prosecute illlegal activities which he chose to ignore for reasons I will not attempt to guess.

[H2O Man]

20. As AG

he was far better than the fellow before him.

My point was that AGs do not prosecute cases like what you are suggesting should be prosecuted. State prosecutors enforce state laws.

[dailykoff]

29. Last time I checked NY had laws against murder, arson,

insurance fraud, and destruction of public property, but I didn't see AG Spitzer do diddly about 911.

[H2O Man]

34. Silly.

[dailykoff]

37. I don't consider justice silly

and I consider Spitzer's failure to pursue it treasonous.

[Ezlivin]

2. Since when does the Constitution matter? That is so pre-9/11 thinking....

Privatization of the military accomplishes several things. First it relieves the government from accountability. Second it allows the movement of vast amounts of money into select companies, all of which are supporters of the administration. And thirdly it allows the draft to be dodged and reduces widespread anti-war sentiments from growing.

I believe that Bush et al realize that it makes much more sense to dump millions of dollars into a private military because it prevents a draft and gives them political cover. Sure, the expense is extreme, but more extreme would be the actions of Americans should the draft be implemented.

[maxrandb]

5. and as American citizens

we just happily go along with it???

I'd like to see the next Democratically elected president and Congress do away with funding for this organization, or at least, put them under the UCMJ. I guess it's much easier just to give them our money to do with as they please.

Think I'll be added to their "enemies of the state" list????

[Ezlivin]

25. By opposing Blackwater's beneficent work, you give aid and comfort to the enemy

I think that just by being an active member of DU you (and I) are already on an "enemies of the state" list.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there is no such thing as an American citizen any longer. We are all simply consumers. We buy things and we consume them. That's it. As long as the shopping malls are open and the internet is "up", then there will be no mass protests, no angry calls for change.

It is much as it was when the Nazis were gaining power:

"Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for the one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even to talk, alone; you don't want to "go out of your way to make trouble." Why not? - Well, you are not in the habit of doing it. And it is not just fear, fear of standing alone, that restrains you; it is also genuine uncertainty.

"Uncertainty is a very important factor, and, instead of decreasing as time goes on, it grows. Outside, in the streets, in the general community, "everyone is happy. One hears no protest, and certainly sees none. You know, in France or Italy there will be slogans against the government painted on walls and fences; in Germany, outside the great cities, perhaps, there is not even this. In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to you colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, "It's not so bad" or "You're seeing things" or "You're an alarmist."

"And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can't prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don't know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

"But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to – to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

"But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and the smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked – if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in "43" had come immediately after the "German Firm" stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in "33". But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D." Source: "They Thought They Were Free" by Milton Mayer.

[Benhurst]

9. Precisely!

:thumbsup:

[BadgerLaw2010]

4. Nothing about mercenaries in the Constitution, sorry. Geneva Conventions, though...

Mercenaries technically do not have the rights of uniformed combatents as far as the Conventions are concerned. They can be shot out of hand if captured.

There's no rule that says they CAN be shot out of hand if captured, but unlike uniformed combatents, there's explictly no rule saying they can't be, either. Same rules for spies and criminals in warzones.

[maxrandb]

7. So basically

the Iraqis could designate them as "enemy combatants"??? Guess irony ain't dead afterall.

[Benhurst]

10. According to the Constitution -- you remember, that old shredded thing--

any treaty or convention signed by the president and ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the land.

Of course, Bush never got around around to reading it. It's so long, and the print is so small.

Now, what does My Pet Goat have to say about treaties?

[american_typeculture]

6. All their execs are former CIA.

But we all know, there is really no such thing as "former CIA"

[C_U_L8R]

8. A mercenary by any other name

still illegal under the Geneva Conventions
and thus... unconstitutional
at least when we used to be a law abiding nation

[H2O Man]

13. Could you identify

what part of the Constitution you are referring to?

[JackRiddler]

15. The treaty clause, apparently...

If the U.S. entered the Geneva Convention then it is the law of the land.

The constitution does not mention mercenaries, though the declaration of independence (yeah, that old thing) had some choice words about them.

[H2O Man]

17. The Declaration of Independence

is a wonderful document, but there is a reason why it is not used as part of the US judicial process -- because it isn't "law."

The Geneva Convention involves international law, which is distinct from "the law of the land."

While I am not a fan of the private contractors (which frequently employ mercenaries), it would seem better to concentrate those domestic laws that might actually allow the government to exercise some type of control over the companies that hire their services, as well as regulate the government use of such contractors.

[dailykoff]

18. The Constitution isn't "law" either, is it?

It's a constitution, not a code. It's a metric that governs laws but is not itself law. Likewise, the Constitution is itself governed by principles including those laid out in the Declaration.

[H2O Man]

22. Well, actually

there is a huge amount of what is known as "constitutional law." One can look at the US Supreme Court, which hears cases which are based upon Constitutional law. Each case they hear and decide is based upon Constitutional law. More, they have never heard or decided a case that is based on the Declaration of Independence. There is a simple reason for that.

[dailykoff]

31. Sure but it's distinct from the Constitution.

Laws are relatively easy to create and amend; the Constitution is very difficult to amend. That's why it's still so short.

[H2O Man]

35. Nope.

"Constitutional law" means something other than what you seem to think.

[dailykoff]

36. The Consititution is a legal document but it is not law, period.

I think we're done.

[JackRiddler]

26. I didn't imply the Declaration was law - only that I like it. n/t

[H2O Man]

27. I like it, too.

It did have an influence on the law, of course. After the Constitution was ratified, it was pointed out that it did not reach some of the protections implied in the Declaration of Independence. Hence, the Bill of Rights came into being.

[Romulox]

21. Of course mercenaries were an integral part of Washington's troops...

Not to defend mercenaries, but a fact's a fact.

[H2O Man]

23. And have been

ever since, from the "Old West" to the Congo when Patrice Lumumba was "removed."

[maxrandb]

38. I agree and can see that

but I don't think we've had anything quite to the scope and scale of Blackwater. I don't care what "Rummy" says, they are not subject to the UCMJ from what I understand. It appears that they operate with impunity in Iraq. That can't be good for our image as a "Democracy".

[Toots]

11. Constitutional

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: I have an idea lets issue some subpoenas...:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Kelly Rupert]

24. I'm pretty sure it is.

Something about well-regulated militias keeping and bearing arms and the like.

[tuckessee]

28. If the US Army is Constitutional then so is Blackwater.

They ARE listed as part of the US Total Forces by the Pentagon so that makes them officially part the US military.

Rummy added them to the list back in Feb. 2006, I believe.

Besides, there's really no difference anyway. They serve the same masters & the results are usually the same.

[dailykoff]

30. Isn't there a military code of justice that doesn't apply to mercs?

Blackwater might be "legal" by some Gonzo-written pretzel logic but it doesn't sound any more Constitutional than any other post-911 legal fiction.

[ManiacJoe]

32. As a private security company,

Blackwater is just a bunch of armed security guards and armed body guards. The people employed to be those guards just happen to be mostly former military, especially Special Forces.

They can buy guns for their guards, just like everyone else.
They can buy ships and helicopters and planes, just like everyone else.
They are normally subject to the same laws governing the use of all the above equipment as everyone else. (Iraq and Katrina falling outside the norm.)

[Odin2005]

33. Mercenaries were common when the Constitution was written, so probably not.

I don't remember reading anything in the Constitution that could be reasonably interpreted as forbidding mercenaries, but I do think they are a bad idea; a republic should have a military of citizen-soldiers, not mercenaries.

[dailykoff]

39. Ideas of what is constitutionally allowed evolve constantly.

Remember slavery? Women's suffrage? The voting rights act? It's taken many decades to achieve some the rights we think are guaranteed by the Constitution partly because ideas about them change.

So what was constitutional in Washington's time (if in fact he hired mercenaries) may not be today. What we need is somebody with cojones to challenge the whole stinking set-up.

[Bluerthanblue]

41. something was changed in the mid 1800's because of people paying others to

do their military service-

I read about it not long ago, but i can't remember.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. what is the difference between Mercenaries like Blackwater and

an organized insurgency?




Old black water, keep on rollin

Mississippi moon, wont you keep on shinin on me

Yeah, keep on shinin your light

Gonna make everything, pretty mama

Gonna make everything all right

And I aint got no worries

cause I aint in no hurry at all



Well, if it rains, I dont care

Dont make no difference to me

Just take that street car thats goin up town

Yeah, Id like to hear some funky dixieland

And dance a honky tonk

And Ill be buyin evrybody drinks all roun



Old black water, keep on rollin


can't get the damn song out of my head