Conquer Club

Essential security providers or loose cannons?
(Iraqi civilians killed by Blackwater mercenaries, who say they were insurgents).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle ... 000642.stm

They get paid well.

Not the guys who got killed.

While I find the thought that there are thousands of armed men (mercenaries, effectively) in Iraq without any actual oversight frightening, as well as definitely dimming the distinctions between us and insurgents, it's not clear to me that they were actually in the wrong here. Don't get me wrong, less "contractors" in Iraq the better, but the story would seem to bail them out, if these civilians were, in fact, shooting at them.

spurgistan wrote:Not the guys who got killed.

While I find the thought that there are thousands of armed men (mercenaries, effectively) in Iraq without any actual oversight frightening, as well as definitely dimming the distinctions between us and insurgents, it's not clear to me that they were actually in the wrong here. Don't get me wrong, less "contractors" in Iraq the better, but the story would seem to bail them out, if these civilians were, in fact, shooting at them.

Well they're not exactly going to admit to randomly shooting civilians are they!

I for one really have a problem with them having immunity from Iraqi law. They're really no different to bodyguards and personal security forces anywhere else in the world, and therefore should be bound by the laws of the country in which they are employed.

The only people allowed to shoot innocent bystanders, lie about their status as insurgents, and then keep operating is the US military.

Sorry Blackwater, you ain't in the club.

We will win their hearts and minds.....or we will shoot them

should these mercenaries and others like them be prohibited by US law? and how is it that blackwater ops aren't accountable to US and iraqi law? i guess that would make them the quintessential loose cannons.....

I am intolerant of Backwater.