More On Bush's Expanding Private Mercenary Army

[malta blue]

To follow up on my post the other day:

Many suggested that Bush was not talking about a permemant force of mercenaries when he suggested setting up a "civilian reserve corps" as suggested in the e-mail I posted from Distressed American. They suggested that Bush was only talking about folks to do laundry, etc. They indicated that such a corps was infact the same thing proposed by Wesley Clark during the 2004 campaign. That interpretation of Bush't SOTU remarks was even referred to by some as "conspiracy theory".

I was skeptical of those claims of benign intent. The following makes it clear that trigger pulling mercenaries are exactly what Bush is talking about when he refers to a "civilian reserve corps". The idea did not come from Clark's porposals but, instead came from the president and founder of Blackwater USA itself.

Please take the time to read through the entire article. It is not long. But, it is packed with information on our ongoing and expanding privitization of our armed forces and the use of troops that are not bound by the legal restrictions that our military are held to, are not counted as American war dead and can be used without Congressional authorization for future military actions as was envisioned by the founders.

Information is power.

Malta Blue
==========================================

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scahill25jan25,0,4485578.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

Our mercenaries in Iraq

The president relies on thousands of private soldiers with little oversight, a disturbing example of the military-industrial complex.

By Jeremy Scahill, JEREMY SCAHILL is a fellow at the Nation Institute and the author of the forthcoming "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army."
January 25, 2007

SNIP

"Such a corps would function much like our military Reserve. It would ease the burden on the armed forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them," Bush declared. This is precisely what the administration has already done, largely behind the backs of the American people and with little congressional input, with its revolution in military affairs. Bush and his political allies are using taxpayer dollars to run an outsourcing laboratory. Iraq is its Frankenstein monster.

Already, private contractors constitute the second-largest "force" in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractors in Iraq, of which 48,000 work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are an undeclared expansion of the scope of the occupation. Many of these contractors make up to $1,000 a day, far more than active-duty soldiers. What's more, these forces are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll.

The president's proposed Civilian Reserve Corps was not his idea alone. A privatized version of it was floated two years ago by Erik Prince, the secretive, mega-millionaire, conservative owner of Blackwater USA and a man who for years has served as the Pied Piper of a campaign to repackage mercenaries as legitimate forces. In early 2005, Prince — a major bankroller of the president and his allies — pitched the idea at a military conference of a "contractor brigade" to supplement the official military. "There's consternation in the about increasing the permanent size of the Army," Prince declared. Officials "want to add 30,000 people, and they talked about costs of anywhere from $3.6 billion to $4 billion to do that. Well, by my math, that comes out to about $135,000 per soldier." He added: "We could do it certainly cheaper."

And Prince is not just a man with an idea; he is a man with his own army. Blackwater began in 1996 with a private military training camp "to fulfill the anticipated demand for government outsourcing." Today, its contacts run from deep inside the military and intelligence agencies to the upper echelons of the White House. It has secured a status as the elite Praetorian Guard for the global war on terror, with the largest private military base in the world, a fleet of 20 aircraft and 20,000 soldiers at the ready.


MORE AT THE LINK


The issue will also be addressed on Democracy Now when Amy Goodman interviews the author of this article later today.

Here's their summary of the upcoming interview:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232

Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge

The private security firm Blackwater USA is back in the news again. On Tuesday, hours before President Bush’s State of the Union address, one of the company’s helicopters was brought down in a violent Baghdad neighborhood. Five Blackwater troops - all Americans - were killed. Reports say the men’s bodies show signs of execution-style deaths with bullet wounds to the back off the head.
Blackwater provided no identities or details of those killed. They did release a statement saying the deaths “are a reminder of the extraordinary circumstances under which our professionals voluntarily serve to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.”

President Bush made no mention of the incident during his State of the Union. But he did address the very issue that has brought dozens of private security companies like Blackwater to Iraq in the first place: the need for more troops.

President Bush.

Is the president looking to further outsource war? My next guest writes that Blackwater is a reminder of just how privatized the Iraq war has become. Jeremy Scahill is a Puffin Foundation Writing Fellow at The Nation Institute and is author of the forthcoming book, “Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army.” He has an OpEd in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times titled “Our mercenaries in Iraq.” He joins me in the firehouse studio.

[ShortnFiery]

1. Mercs don't grow on trees.

And I'll be damned if I sacrifice my children for King George's Oil Wars. :grr:

[havocmom]

2. No nations, only Corporate Powers

and Powers need muscle.

Plan:

Break the real military by wearing it down to weak bones.
Funnel massive amounts of funds to the corporations.
Bankrupt the nation.
Create an economy where the young of the working class and poor have no future but to gamble on war as a career.
Pick enough fights that the people will beg for the mercs to step in.

Ta-DA! Corporate Powers have their muscle and the laws of nations are meaningless.

[Greyhound]

16. Exactly, now expand this process across the whole government

and there is the essence of the master plan to eliminate the hindrance of government to the corporate masters.

[WinkyDink]

33. = Fascism.

[havocmom]

36. You got it

We've all been had.

[alfredo]

3. They could also work as protection for bush when he refuses to leave

the White House.

Where is their allegiance? Is it to the US, their corporate masters, or George Bush?

[teamster633]

15. Like any chimperor,

Little Boots needs his Praetorian Guard. 'Course, that same group of soldiers turned out to be a mixed blessing for his namesake back in the year 41.

[alfredo]

27. That might be a better name for his citizen reserve unit.

[Swamp Rat]

4. k&r

:hi: to DA! ;)

[malta blue]

7. I'll pass the hello along to him!

And I'll return a wave of hello on his behalf. I know he loves your work!

:hi:

[C_U_L8R]

5. What do the Geneva Conventions have to say...

about mercenaries and privatized armies?

[malta blue]

8. Looks Like they are illegal - Here is some info on that from WIKI

In short it says that mercenaries are not lawful combatants under the Conventions and can be treated as "common criminals" if captured. As such they are not bound by the Geneva Conventions. Nor do they enjoy the protections afforded by them.

Under national law, any killing done by such troops is unlawful unless it is in self defense.

That is my reading anyway.

--------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

Mercenaries and the laws of war
See also laws of war.

In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:

Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.
It should be noted that many countries, including the United States, are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77). So although it is the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, it is not definitive.

According to the GC III, a captured soldier must be treated as a lawful combatant, and, therefore, is a Protected Person, with Prisoner of War (PoW) status until facing a competent tribunal (GC III Art 5). That tribunal may decide that the soldier is a mercenary using criteria in APGC77 or some equivalent domestic law. At that juncture, the mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant, but still must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. The only exception to GC IV Art 5 is if he is a national of the authority imprisoning him, but, in which case, he would not be a mercenary soldier as defined in APGC77 Art 47.d.

If after a regular trial, a captured soldier is found to be a mercenary, then he can expect treatment as a common criminal and may face execution. As mercenary soldiers are not PoWs they can not expect repatriation at war's end. The best known, post-World War II, example of this was on June 28, 1976 when at the end of the Luanda Trial an Angolan court sentenced three Britons and an American to death, and nine other mercenaries to prison terms ranging from 16 to 30 years. The four mercenaries sentenced to death were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976<1>.

The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with respect to that of the combatants. If they have not in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities (APGC77 Art 47.b) they are not mercenaries soldiers and are entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

The situation during the Occupation of Iraq 2003 – shows the difficulty in defining what is a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, any U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could not be defined a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). With the hand-over of power to the interim Iraqi government effected, arguably, unless they declare themselves residents in Iraq, i.e. a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d), they are mercenary soldiers. If no trial of accused mercenaries occurs, allegations evaporate in the heat of accusations and counter-accusations and denials. It should be noted that Coalition soldiers in Iraq supporting the interim Iraqi government are not mercenaries, because they either are of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict or they have been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces (APGC77 Art 47.f).

On 4 December 1989 the United Nations passed resolution 44/34 the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries. It entered into force on 20 October 2001 and is usually known as the UN Mercenary Convention<2>. Critics have argued that the convention and APGC77 Art. 47 are designed to cover the activities of mercenaries in post colonial Africa, and do not address adequately the use of private military companies by sovereign states<3>.

See also privateer, Letter of marque, private military contractor.


Mercenaries and domestic law
Some countries try to stop their citizens fighting in conflicts unless they are under the control of their own armed forces:

Under United States law (the "Neutrality Act"), an American citizen who participates in an armed conflict to which the United States is neutral may be subject to criminal penalties. (In actuality, the Neutrality Act only prohibits citizens from participating in conflicts, that the U.S. is involved in, on the side of states that the government has declared war against; also, it appears to have been repealed.) The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) prohibited the US Government from using employees of the Pinkerton Detective Agency or similar companies as strikebreakers. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute to prohibit the U.S. Government's employment of companies that offer "mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards" for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978). A DoD interim rule effective 16 June 2006 revises DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractor personnel other than private security contractor personnel to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense. 71 Fed. Reg. 34826. According to the interim rule, private security contractor personnel are also authorized to use deadly force when necessary to execute their security mission to protect assets/persons, consistent with the mission statement contained in their contract. It is the responsibility of the combatant commander to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize the performance of any inherently Governmental military functions, such as preemptive attacks, or any other types of attacks. Otherwise, civilians who accompany the U.S. Armed Forces lose their law of war protection from direct attack if and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. On August 18, 2006, the U.S. Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that U.S. Army contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by calling for the contractor to provide armed convoy escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at Victory Base Complex, Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned that the act was not violated because the contracts did not require the contractor to provide "quasi-military forces as strikebreakers." Matter of Brian X. Scott, B-298370.
<1>

------------------------------------

It would appear them that such forces are illegal under international law and strictly limited to non-combat roles such as guards under US law. Seems that these folks are routinely violating both national and international law.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

6. He could easily have dropped the words "noncombat roles" into the speech. But didn't.

[xultar]

9. He's going to need them to guard his ass when he leaves office. So the free

training now will help a lot.

[ms liberty]

10. 5th Rec - get thee to the Greatest Page!

Important story. I'd been wondering what had happened to Jeremy Scahill, he used to report for Democracy Now! The last time I saw him he was reporting for them, and writing for The Nation.

[me b zola]

11. I saw the interview with Scahill this morning

His book sounds like a must buy:



http://www.amazon.com/Blackwater-Rise-Powerful-Mercenary-World/dp/1560259795/sr=1-3/qid=1169837329/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-7137217-2819911?ie=UTF8&s=books

[femrap]

12. Let's KICK this....

saw Scahill on Democracy Now! this morning.....his book is a MUST READ!

Blackwater must be dissolved....corporations offering mercenaries must be illegal. These crazy right-wing, Christian supremists have got to stopped.

[geardaddy]

13. Kicked and Rec'd

The thing that burns me most about this is that the US taxpayer is paying for the mercenaries. The source of funding is our treasury and therefore I would think it would be unconstitutional, but I don't know.

[malta blue]

14. The Democracy Now interview is now online for streaming.

It can be found here for all who are interested:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232

It is a must see piece of journalism.

[SanCristobal]

17. Is there *ANY* evidence of this?

Until an actual proposal is made, this is just another conspiracy theory.

[underpants]

19. I'm confused

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3074439

that only took 30 seconds of googling for you to find and now you think it is a conspiracy theory? or is it that you think he is stealing Clark's idea and it is not about Blackwater?

:shrug:

[SanCristobal]

20. I don't think he is proposing a mercanary force for nefarious ends.

I think he picked up an old idea and is running with it. If Bush's plan is half as evil as people are making it out to be how does he expect it to get through Congress? The Republicans aren't doing much agenda setting right now.

[underpants]

22. Well let's not kid ourselves into thinking the Dems will necessarily stop this

I could give several examples but the change in the accounting in the Clinton years so everyone could claim that they balanced the budget is just one.

They have already privatized most of the CIA from what I understand and I didn't see or hear anyone raising hell about that.

I'm just saying.

[malta blue]

23. The same way that they got a war authorization in the first place.

The same way he will get his troop escalation with a Dem controlled Congress.

They do not fear Congress. It is not like there has been much resistance to his plans so far.

That and making it so vague that most will not give it a second look. That leaves it wide open for folks like yourself to simply dismiss it as a benign group of cooks and laundry cleaners.

[malta blue]

21. I trust Democracy Now. and the author.

They have done quite a bit of leg work and research on this.

You seemed very sure the other day that you knew what it was. If I recall correctly you were dead set (IN ALL CAPS) that this was not what it was. You were quite certain based on 30 seconds of googling that this was just the same thing that Clark proposed. How were you so certain? Why so quick to assert it is benign?

--------
From the last thread:

SanCristobal (229 posts) Wed Jan-24-07 12:25 PM
Response to Original message
6. Christ, IT'S NOT MERCENARIES!
After 30 seconds of searching Google it's pretty obvious this is about staffing civilian jobs the military doesn't normally do or is not good at. The reservists would volunteer to be deployed for up to a year, and have to be paid on the same scale as Federal employees.

Bush took this from Wesley Clark. The Civilian Reserve Corp was part of his 2004 campaign platform.

---------

Given that Bush is already using 48,000 tigger pulling "private contractors" it is clear that he values a private (extra-legal) military force. That force is 1/3 as large as our official force. Based on what we have already seen from the administration, this interpretation is far from a big leap.

I offer the full weight of a researched book. I find the info quite on mark given the track record to date.

Have you watched the interview? It is linked above.

Do you have any reliable info refuting this interpretation or do you think that just shouting "conspiracy theory" is adequate to debunk it?

[SanCristobal]

29. From the State Dept. draft proposal for the Civilian Reserve:

Civilian Reservists would be:
• Specialists in fields of security, rule of law, essential services, and civil administration
(followed by others in finance, economics, business development, health)
• Recruited from state, local, federal governments and private sector
• In current jobs until activated for annual training or deployment
• Rapidly deployed, individually or in formed units, within 30 days of call-up and remain
in country for up to one year
• USG employees when on active status
• Paid comparable GS salary, plus wage incentives and allowances (e.g.. to stay proficient in core foreign languages)
• Available to provide DOS surge capacity
• Followed by contracted personnel
Civilian Reservists would NOT Replace or Subsume Capabilities of:
• USG personnel and programs
• US based and local Implementing partners (contractors, NGOs)
• International Partners
• Faith Based Organizations
• Diaspora Networks

I may be wrong, but I take that to mean Civilian Reservists would not replace Blackwater or other contractors (though it would seem this would be the point). The enlistment targets also suggest that the Civilian Reserve would not be focused on a military role (it won't copy/paste correctly into my post, but can be found on page 9), but rather would be used to staff something like the former Coalition Provisional Authority. The recruitment targets are overwhelmingly administrative personal or infrastructure specialists, not military personal. To be fair, the first years target is 600 law enforcement specialists, but given the law enforcement problems Iraq faces that doesn't surprise me.

Reading the draft closely leaves me with the impression that the Civilian Reserve would be used not to set up a mercenary force, but a readily available occupation government. Of course that opens up a whole new can of worms...

I didn't watch the interview yet, but I'm going to now. For anyone who hasn't seen it, the paper I'm referring to is this: http://proceedings.ndia.org/6100/russell.pdf

[malta blue]

30. "specialists in the field of security"

You do realize that is how we refer to the mercenaries that are there right now right?

"Security Contractor" = Mercenary.

Funny how that is the very first thing that they list.

Thanks for the backup in the interpretation.

[WinkyDink]

34. Weren't Blackwater mercs used in the Katrina after-math, against our citizens?

[malta blue]

42. Ask Swamp Rat about that sometime.

I've heard some of his first hand accounts and they are absolutelly chilling. They killed many in NOLA. They have never been held to account. If that is what they do at home. Just imagine the attrocities being carried out overseas.

[underpants]

18. Thanks I had asked about this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3074439

That was what it sounded like to me. I should have known to guess that he already had a vendor in mind or to be more accurate they already finished the sale with him.

[malta blue]

28. I saw that thread. Good looking out.

I'm glad that this proposal has not missed all scrutiny.

We need to know everything that is being proposed here.

[ftr23532]

24. In addition to Erik Prince, Joseph E. Schmitz is another important Blackwater figure

Beyond being the DoD's Inspector General from 2002-2005, Joseph E. Schmitz hails from an important and often overlooked family of the far-Right. Be sure to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2894588#2900312">check him out.

[malta blue]

26. Don't forget Cofer "I'll bring Osama's head in a box" Black.

He is now working very high up in their organization and lobbying hard for them with his administration friends. He still has MAJOR influence despite his failure to bring Osama's head home on dry ice or the rest of the Mujahadeen's heads on pikes with flies crawlig on their eyeballs as he promised.

The Democracy Now interview also covers the Prince/Dobson connections which are extensive. So much for "thou shalt not kill". I guess they got a revise version of the Bible for a post 9/11 world.

[ftr23532]

35. Here's an oldie but a goodie

Remember all the speculation about bin Laden getting captured right before the 2004 election. This might http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2004/09/07/pakistan_dismisses_us_contention_of_progress_in_bin_laden_hunt/">have had something to do with it:

In Pakistan, US official talks of progress in hunt for bin Laden

By Matthew Pennington, Associated Press | September 5, 2004

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- The United States and its allies have moved closer to capturing Osama bin Laden in the past two months, a top US counterterrorism official said in a television interview broadcast yesterday.

"If he has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught," Joseph Cofer Black, the State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, told Geo television network.

Black said progress has been made in the past two months, as Pakistan has arrested dozens of terror suspects, including Al Qaeda operatives.

Black, who briefed a group of Pakistani journalists after talks with officials in Islamabad on Friday, said he could not predict when bin Laden and other Al Qaeda fugitives might be nabbed.

"What I tell people I would be surprised, but not necessarily shocked, if we wake up tomorrow and he's been caught along with all his lieutenants," he told Geo. ''That can happen because of the programs and infrastructure in place."
...

And here's a fun article http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2004/09/07/pakistan_dismisses_us_contention_of_progress_in_bin_laden_hunt/">from the same time:

Pakistan dismisses US contention of progress in bin Laden hunt
Islamabad says it does not know his whereabouts

By Matthew Pennington, Associated Press | September 7, 2004

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistani officials dismissed a top US counterterrorism official's contention of progress in the hunt for Osama bin Laden, saying yesterday that Pakistan does not have any information on the Al Qaeda leader's whereabouts.

The top government spokesman, Sheikh Rashid Ahmed, said the recent comments about bin Laden by Joseph Cofer Black, the US State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, were a "political statement."

"We don't have any information about bin Laden," Ahmed said.

A senior Pakistani security official who attended meetings with Black and other US officials last week in Islamabad said Black did not share information "about any possible hide-outs of Osama."

"We cannot say that we are close to capturing him," the official said on the condition of anonymity.

Black told the private Geo network in an interview broadcast Saturday that if bin Laden "has a watch, he should be looking at it because the clock is ticking. He will be caught."
...

hehe

[yellowcanine]

25. Bush is on thin Constitutional ice here as only Congress has the power to raise an army.

Bush is CIC of the army that Congress raises but he can't pick and choose as to which army he will command - he commands the one Congress authorizes.

[NewJeffCT]

31. They got around it

I think I heard this on Randi Rhodes a while back - but, they passed a law in the Clinton era after a merc was accused of some crime in Bosnia... the law said that any mercs that are working for the military are subject to the same laws as the rest of the military. (Not sure if that included the UCMJ or not)

However, to get around the law, a lot of these mercs in Iraq are being run through the Dept of the Interior, believe it or not. Maybe they'll be coming out of the IRS next time around?

[fed-up]

32. kicking for the night crowd n/t

[ftr23532]

37. and then there's the possible recruitment of Latin American death squad members

Let's hope this isn't as bad as it sounds like http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/18967/">it might be:

Here Come the Death Squad Veterans
By Louis Nevaer, Pacific News Service
Posted on June 16, 2004

If José Miguel Pizarro has his way, he will recruit 30,000 Chileans as mercenaries to protect American companies under Pentagon contract to rebuild Iraq. And undoubtedly, within those ranks will be former members of death squads that tortured and murdered civilians when dictatorships ruled in Latin America.

"There is no comparison with what they can earn in the active military or working in civilian jobs, and what we offer," José Miguel Pizarro, Chile's leading recruiter for international security firms, says. "This is an opportunity that few in Chile can afford to pass up."

Pizarro's firm, Servicios Integrales, was contracted by Blackwater USA to recruit the first batch of Chileans in November 2003. By May 2004 he had placed 5,200 men who, after one week of training in Santiago, head to North Carolina for orientation with Blackwater, the private security firm that made headlines when four of its employees where killed in Falluja, their bodies mutilated and hung from a bridge. After training, Blackwater flies the men to Kuwait City to await their assignments in Iraq.

As democratic governments were voted into office throughout Latin America in the 1990s, Latin militaries were downsized. Thousands of military officers lost their jobs. "This is a way of continuing our military careers," Carlos Wamgnet, 30, explained in a phone interview from Kuwait while awaiting his assignment in Iraq. "In civilian life in Chile I was making $1,800 a month. Here I can earn a year's pay in six weeks. It's worth the risks."

At 30, Wamgnet is too young to have participated in any crime of the Pinochet regime. But not all the Chileans in Iraq are guiltless. Newspapers in Chile have estimated that approximately 37 Chileans in Iraq are seasoned veterans of the Pinochet era. Government officials in Santiago are alarmed that men who enjoy amnesty in Chile -- provided they remain in "retirement" from their past military activities -- are now in Iraq.

"Blackwater USA has sent recruiters to Chile, Peru, Argentina, Colombia and Guatemala for one specific reason alone," said an intelligence officer in Kuwait who requested anonymity. "All these countries experienced dirty wars and they have military men well-trained in dealing with internal subversives. They are well-versed in extracting confessions from prisoners."
...

[malta blue]

41. That makes me ill.

There was some info on Blackwater's international recruiting as well as info on the large number of nations we have deployed them to in the Democracy Now interview.

I am far from suprized that they are trolling Latin America for mercs. We didn't set up the School Of The Americas for nothing. I have no doubt that there are a lot of ruthless killers that we have trained who'd love to be back on the US payrolls.

With Negroponte openly discussing some time back how we could employ the "Salvador Option" in Iraq, it makes a lot of sense to use the guy's we know and who've done our bidding in the past. I keep hearing about how our government wants to disarm the Shi'ite militias. I do not believe a word as I'm quite sure that we are behind many of those death squads just the way we were behind them in Latin America. Of course with the history on that, it would be much better from a skirting Congress perspective to use mercs to do the ugliest work.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6802629/site/newsweek/

‘The Salvador Option’

The Pentagon may put Special-Forces-led assassination or kidnapping teams in Iraq

By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek
Updated: 8:59 p.m. ET Jan 14, 2005

Jan. 8 - What to do about the deepening quagmire of Iraq? The Pentagon’s latest approach is being called "the Salvador option"—and the fact that it is being discussed at all is a measure of just how worried Donald Rumsfeld really is. "What everyone agrees is that we can’t just go on as we are," one senior military officer told NEWSWEEK. "We have to find a way to take the offensive against the insurgents. Right now, we are playing defense. And we are losing." Last November’s operation in Fallujah, most analysts agree, succeeded less in breaking "the back" of the insurgency—as Marine Gen. John Sattler optimistically declared at the time—than in spreading it out.

Now, NEWSWEEK has learned, the Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration’s battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers. Eventually the insurgency was quelled, and many U.S. conservatives consider the policy to have been a success—despite the deaths of innocent civilians and the subsequent Iran-Contra arms-for-hostages scandal. (Among the current administration officials who dealt with Central America back then is John Negroponte, who is today the U.S. ambassador to Iraq. Under Reagan, he was ambassador to Honduras. There is no evidence, however, that Negroponte knew anything about the Salvadoran death squads or the Iran-Contra scandal at the time. The Iraq ambassador, in a phone call to NEWSWEEK on Jan. 10, said he was not involved in military strategy in Iraq. He called the insertion of his name into this report "utterly gratuitous.")

Following that model, one Pentagon proposal would send Special Forces teams to advise, support and possibly train Iraqi squads, most likely hand-picked Kurdish Peshmerga fighters and Shiite militiamen, to target Sunni insurgents and their sympathizers, even across the border into Syria, according to military insiders familiar with the discussions. It remains unclear, however, whether this would be a policy of assassination or so-called "snatch" operations, in which the targets are sent to secret facilities for interrogation. The current thinking is that while U.S. Special Forces would lead operations in, say, Syria, activities inside Iraq itself would be carried out by Iraqi paramilitaries, officials tell NEWSWEEK.

Also being debated is which agency within the U.S. government—the Defense department or CIA—would take responsibility for such an operation. Rumsfeld’s Pentagon has aggressively sought to build up its own intelligence-gathering and clandestine capability with an operation run by Defense Undersecretary Stephen Cambone. But since the Abu Ghraib interrogations scandal, some military officials are ultra-wary of any operations that could run afoul of the ethics codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That, they argue, is the reason why such covert operations have always been run by the CIA and authorized by a special presidential finding. (In "covert" activity, U.S. personnel operate under cover and the U.S. government will not confirm that it instigated or ordered them into action if they are captured or killed.)

MORE AT LINK

Disarm the militians and death squads? Not on your life.

A google serach for "Salvador Option Negroponte" yields pages of such stories. Yet most Americans haven't a clue about this issue. They eat what they are told. They just shovel it in.

The history of the war will be truely disturbing when it is fully written. But, by them it will all be over except the blowback. Then people will still be asking "Why do they hate us?"

[magellan]

38. After hearing Scahill on DN! today, I've concluded

...that our Constitutional Republic is now dead as a doornail, and it'd take a miracle to restore it.

K&R

[yurbud]

39. We need a Geneva Convention on mercenaries. Just take what Bush says about "enemy combatants"

and replace with mercenary.

[malta blue]

43. We've had one in place for decades. Article 47.

Quite simply, the use of mercs is banned under international law. Ever wonder why we call them "security contractors" rahter than what they really are?


http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/93.htm

Article 47.-Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) Is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

They are to be treated as common criminals up to and including execution when captured. Of course as we are the only people doing the capturing over there today, you can bet we are not taking down our own mercs and handing them over to the Iraqi government for a Saddam style neck stretching...

[yurbud]

47. so we have been violating this since at least yugoslavia

[malta blue]

48. As usual it is about definitions.

From WIKI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary

"The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with respect to that of the combatants. If they have not in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities (APGC77 Art 47.b) they are not mercenaries soldiers and are entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

The situation during the Occupation of Iraq 2003 – shows the difficulty in defining what is a mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, any U.S. citizen working as an armed guard could not be defined a mercenary, because he was a national of a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d). With the hand-over of power to the interim Iraqi government effected, arguably, unless they declare themselves residents in Iraq, i.e. a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict (APGC77 Art 47.d), they are mercenary soldiers. If no trial of accused mercenaries occurs, allegations evaporate in the heat of accusations and counter-accusations and denials. It should be noted that Coalition soldiers in Iraq supporting the interim Iraqi government are not mercenaries, because they either are of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict or they have been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces (APGC77 Art 47.f)."


I know that Clinton was the first (in modern times) to employ such "contractors". I am not aware how they were used by Clinton though. Depends if they were taking direct part in hostilities. I'll try to find more info on how Clinton was using them.

Note the definitional issues with Iraq. According to this while the CPA was in effect, we were the government of Iraq. So, not mecenaries. Once the handover took place, Iraqi's ran the government making such folks mercenaries. Kind of "Clintonian" parsing huh?

[yurbud]

50. Clinton later banned their use by DoD--so many in Iraq hired through Agriculture department

experimenting with human blood as fertilizer, I guess.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

40. I tried a short reply and got lost... we stand on a precipice.

Excellent information -- thank you for another revealing post.

On Edit: My reply turned into this:

"Just had my eyes opened, again... and it is not a pretty sight. The massive co-ordination involved to subdue the public -- through the sponsored media, and contrived economic situations -- has evinced itself in the greatest crime/s of the last millennium. A perceived imprisonment within our own borders. The harnessing of a weak-kneed House and Senate over the last 12 years has rendered us far too close to powerless. Yet we are told over and over that we live in the bastion of freedom and democracy.

This is NOT the accomplishment of of a "simple-minded" chimp." http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x54452

[malta blue]

45. It is deeply disturbing everytime you get a glimpse of the man behind the curtain.

Everytime I think these guys have taken us as deep into the bloody swamp, I find out something new and horrible.

I never get used to it. Sadly, much of America is no longer shocked by whatthey find out. Of course that means no one stands up to these criminals. They simply accept it as the "new reality" and adjust.

[malta blue]

44. Please send Keith Olberman some e-mail on this.

Here's a thread I posted with the contact info and an e-mail that Distressed American sent me that tipped me off to this new "civilian reserve corps".

It would be very useful to see at least one major network deal with the issue!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x25983

[snot]

46. How does Blackwater pay $1000/day and still do it cheaper? nt

[SanCristobal]

51. This doesn't replace Blackwater and it's not about mercenaries.

It's about establishing a readily available occupation government. Read the State Dept. draft proposal, it makes this somewhat apparent:
http://proceedings.ndia.org/6100/russell.pdf

[me b zola]

49. kicking a great--and important--thread

[ftr23532]

52. in a related issue, there's also the use (and abuse) of illegal migrant workers by KBR & friends

Here's a terrifying article about the working conditions for the workers building the super-embassy.

Labour Laws Trampled at New US Embassy,
Ex-Foreman Says
By David Phinney*
Inter Press Service
October 25, 2006

Things began looking sketchier than ever to John Owen as he boarded a nondescript white jet on his way back to Iraq in March 2005 following some downtime in Kuwait City. Employed by First Kuwaiti Trading & Contracting, the lead builder for the new 592-million-dollar U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Owen remembers being surrounded at the airport by about 50 company labourers freshly hired from the Philippines and India. Everyone was holding boarding passes to Dubai -- not to Baghdad.

"I thought there was some sort of mix-up and I was getting on the wrong plane," said the 48-year-old Floridian, who was working as a general construction foreman on the embassy project. He buttonholed a First Kuwaiti manager standing nearby and asked what was going on. The manager waved his hand, looked around the terminal and whispered to keep quiet. "'If anyone hears we are going to Baghdad, they won't let us on the plane,'" Owen recalled the manager saying. The secrecy struck Owen as a little odd, but he grabbed his luggage and moved on. Everyone filed out to the private jet and flew directly to Baghdad. "I figured that they had visas for Kuwait and not Iraq," Owen said in an interview.

...

Nor did Owen know that both the U.S. State Department and the Pentagon were quietly investigating contractors such as First Kuwaiti for labour trafficking and worker abuse. In fact, the international news media had accused First Kuwaiti repeatedly of coercing workers to take jobs in battle-torn Iraq once they had been lured to Kuwait with safer offers.

Armenia, Bulgaria, Angola, Cameroon and Cambodia all had their share of dictators, violence and economic disruption, but the companies building the embassies were always fair and professional, he says. First Kuwaiti is the exception. Brutal and inhumane, he says "I've never seen a project more f*cked up. Every U.S. labour law was broken."

Seven months after signing on with First Kuwaiti in November 2005, he quit. In his resignation letter last June, Owen told First Kuwaiti and U.S. State Department officials that his managers physically assaulted and beat the construction workers, demonstrated little regard for worker safety, and routinely breached security.And it was all happening smack in the middle of the U.S.-controlled Green Zone, he said -- right under the nose of the State Department that had quietly awarded the controversial embassy contract in July 2005.

Owen also complained of poor sanitation, squalid living conditions and medical malpractice in the labour camps where several thousand low-paid migrant workers lived. Those workers, recruited on the global labour market from the Philippines, India, Pakistan and other poor south Asian countries, earned as little as 10 to 30 dollars a day. As with many U.S.-funded contractors, First Kuwaiti prefers importing labour because it views Iraqi workers as a security headache not worth the trouble.

Despite numerous emails and phone calls about such allegations, neither First Kuwaiti general manager Wadih Al Absi nor his lawyer Angela Styles, the former top White House contract policy advisor, have responded. After a year of requests, State Department officials involved with the project also have ignored or rejected opportunities for comment. However, on Apr. 4, 2006, the Pentagon issued a new contracting directive following a secret investigation that officially confirms what many South Asian labourers have been complaining about ever since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

...