Room at Gitmo for Blackwater?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

Using private guards in Iraq could expose the U.S. to accusations of treaty violations, some experts think.

...

Unresolved questions are likely to touch off new criticism of Bush's conduct of the unpopular Iraq war, especially given the broad definition of unlawful combatants the president has used in justifying his detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The issues surrounding the private security contractors are being examined by lawyers at the departments of State, Defense and Justice. Disagreements about the contractors' status exist between agencies and within the Pentagon itself.

"I think it is an unresolved issue that needs to be addressed," said a senior Defense Department official who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the subject. "But if that is in fact the case, what the heck are we doing?"

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-center

[NavarreMan 10]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The use of private contractors by the U.S. military and governments worldwide began long before the U.S invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, but it has mushroomed in recent years. With relatively little controversy, contractors have assumed a greater share of support and logistics duties traditionally handled by uniformed military, such as protecting diplomats inside a war zone.

...

but here's where it gets interesting...

The guards also operate under immunity from Iraqi law -- immunity was granted in 2004 by U.S. officials -- and in a murky status with respect to American laws.

The designation of lawful and unlawful combatants is set out in the Geneva Convention.Lawful combatants are nonmilitary personnel who operate under their military's chain of command. Others may carry weapons in a war zone but may not use offensive force. Under the international agreements, they may only defend themselves.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-nation

...

This means that we must treat them like all the other unlawful combatants and send them to Gitmo. Crazy.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

[NavarreMan 10]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

Even so you'd think they'd have enough guys from the various secret services to handle that kind of thing.

[NavarreMan 10]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

[no name 1]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

oh snap. PWNED.

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

oh snap. PWNED.

not hardly dear

[Cassie 8]

There was a big piece about Blackwater and their bad reputation in Iraq (very aggressive, trigger-happy, etc etc) last night on 60 Minutes. Very interesting to watch.

[JODO 2]

There was a big piece about Blackwater and their bad reputation in Iraq (very aggressive, trigger-happy, etc etc) last night on 60 Minutes. Very interesting to watch.

Yes it was interesting and Prince was squirming. I think the Iraqis will make a "last stand" on Blackwater.

[JODO 2]

double post

Edited October 15, 2007 by JODO

[no name 1]

Does it seem strange to anyone else that we find it necessary to contract out security for our diplomats but any grunt can protect the country?

ask a silly question...

perhaps if you were aware of what our armed forces strength was 15 years ago as compared to today, you'd understand it.

plus it's not the mission of the army to protect diplomats.

1) I was in our armed forces 15 years ago. (AFSOC/1SOW/HFLD,FL)

2) I am well aware of the comparison in strength from 15 years ago and today.

3) We are not talking about a flippin' Brigade, only a few well trained, specially equipped soldiers.

4) It is a job that could be done by the Secret Service or other Government employees.

5) It would provide for ACCOUNTIBILITY were there is none.

so then you're quite aware it's not the military's mission to protect diplomats. you're also aware that many of those in blackwater are former seals/special forces/etc and far better trained in this sort of thing than the average 11b. and i'd hardly characterize this as a "few" more probably like upwards of 50 or more.

point 4 is perhaps true, yet the secret service still isn't the military which your original post asked about. point 5 is a waste of typing as they are accountable. just perhaps not to the degree some would like.

oh snap. PWNED.

not hardly dear

Guess they didn't teach grammar or manners in the army...

[Ban Hammer 14,654]

Guess they didn't teach grammar or manners in the army...

you should fit right in then