Gus > I find "mercenary" too sympathetic a name --they are TERRORISTS, plain and simple
Which is exactly what the US government wants because the mercenaries/contractors/terrorists act for the US government but the government is relieved of all responsibility for their actions. And that's why the mercenaries get paid such a lot for what they do -- and why being a mercenary/contractor/terrorist is so attractive for someone with military experience who is down and out.
metrotimes.com
>>For his part, Greg believes some of the subcontracting — especially for security detail and other work that leads to some combat operations — is part of a U.S. government plan to relieve itself of potential blame if contractors improperly engage in combat, injure civilians or commit other possible human rights violations.
"It's plausible deniability," Greg says. "The government can point and say, 'those fucking Blackwater guys did it.' "
Scahill and other critics of this system say that's exactly the point. Since they're not enlisted military, employees of private military contractors can't be court-martialed. The Coalition Provisional Authority — the temporary government between the invasion and the transfer of power from the U.S. military back to Iraqis — exempted contractors from Iraqi law before it disbanded in 2004.
The Department of Defense contractors are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and Congress broadened the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdictional Act to cover contractors accompanying the forces. But for private security forces for other employers, the laws are more ambiguous.
The IOPA, Brooks says, is addressing the ethics and accountability issues. The association has requirements for its 34 corporate members that include supporting an ethics policy. Private contractors should screen their employees, he says, and discipline them if they need to. The problem, according to Brooks, is that short of firing them, the private sector has limited recourse for wayward employees.<< |
