Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[Uboat509]

Given that the there is no front in this war and engagement may be initiated anywhere at any time by the opposition I am not clear on the distinction between warfighting and security operations.

Warfighting operations are those operations where we are seeking contact with the enemy. Security operations are those operations which are concerned with just that, security. They are not seeking contact with the enemy and, in fact, often take steps to avoid it but can and will fight if neccesary.

Anyone with a weapon (or even just their bare fists) should be subject to some form of rules of engagement and punishable if they use excessive force. If the DoS have armed employees who are operating outside the law (isn't that a fair definition of a terrorist?) they should be culpable for allowing that situation to develop and the buck should stop with the Secretary of State.

No one is saying that they should not be subject prosecution if they are operating outside the law. They absolutely should face the full penalty of law if they did violate the law. I am just unwilling to make the assertion that they did violate the law based on media reports.

(isn't that a fair definition of a terrorist?)

That's part of the definition.

SFC W

[marct]

From CBC.ca

Iraq has incriminating Blackwater tape: official
Last Updated: Saturday, September 22, 2007 | 9:04 PM ET
The Associated Press

Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in a shooting last week that left 11 people dead, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday.

He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary.

Interior Ministry spokesman Maj.-Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf said Iraqi authorities had completed an investigation into the Sept. 16 shooting in Nisoor Square in western Baghdad and concluded that Blackwater guards were responsible for the deaths.

He told the Associated Press that the conclusion was based on witness statements as well as videotape shot by cameras at the nearby headquarters of the national police command. He said eight people were killed at the scene and three of the 15 wounded died in hospitals.

More...

I'm sure it will be on YouTube soon

[Steve Blair]

Warfighting operations are those operations where we are seeking contact with the enemy. Security operations are those operations which are concerned with just that, security. They are not seeking contact with the enemy and, in fact, often take steps to avoid it but can and will fight if neccesary.

I think part of the argument here is that many PMCs currently in theater are exceeding their security brief. Overly aggressive security operations are often only a hair's breadth away from combat operations, and can in fact do major damage to the mission. But since the average PMC is operating on its own brief they only really have to pay attention to their bottom line.

No one is saying that they should not be subject prosecution if they are operating outside the law. They absolutely should face the full penalty of law if they did violate the law. I am just unwilling to make the assertion that they did violate the law based on media reports.

And that again gets to heart of it: whose law are they subject to? If any. I know there's been a stampede of jurisdictions rushing in here, but that almost guarantees that any proceedings will drag on forever and in the immediate scheme of things become useless. And we're still faced with an IO disaster, which is compounded many-fold if it turns out that what we had was a bunch of trigger-happy mercs who unloaded on a crowd (as opposed to a PMC team defending itself against an attack).