The Central Intelligence Agency in 2004 hired outside contractors from the private security contractor Blackwater USA as part of a secret program to locate and assassinate top operatives of Al Qaeda, according to current and former government officials.
Executives from Blackwater, which has generated controversy because of its aggressive tactics in Iraq, helped the spy agency with planning, training and surveillance. The C.I.A. spent several millions dollars on the program, which did not capture or kill any terrorist suspects.
Read More
Any thoughts? I thought we had the best military in the world. Last time I checked, we had some of our soldiers in the Middle East. Why are we using mercenaries? There are a couple possibilities I can think of 1) our military is streched too thin (No, it can't be that the neocons were wrong) or 2) We want them to do things that we can't get away with (No, that can't be because, as we all know, America is the epitome of virtue and morality.) I seem to recall reading about our forefathers being livid about a certain colonial power using mercenaries. The times they are a changin'.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blog Roll
Video Bar
Labels
- climate change (1)
- environment (1)
- History (1)
- Presidential Election (1)
- Worldviews (1)
US National Debt Counter
Google News
Followers
Contributors
13 comments:
How is this any different from making use of letters of marque and reprisal? Marque & reprisal is sometning you've previously brought to my attention and which I thought (perhaps incorrectly) you favored. Ron Paul advocates the use of letters of marque and reprisal in the context of going after al qaeda in the video linked below. Is he wrong?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSP9NteApqI
Good question. Didn't marque and reprisal as used by early presidents involve predators on the "high seas" as opposed to going in to a soverign country?
I think that m&r might be better, from a utilitarian standpoint (morally it is no better), than invading countries without a declaration of war by congress, however, we invaded, so where is the advantage of hiring mercenaries here?
I'm not 100% sure where the early presidents stood, or where Ron Paul stands, but I believe that we should respect the sovereignty of other countries in the same way we expect them to respect ours. I think Ron Paul is of the same opinion. I think you may be taking him out of context, but if not, then I would have to disagree with him on this.
Regarding respecting sovereignty of nations, I agree. But when a nation, such as Afghanistan, is either unwilling or incapable of keeping its occupants from attacking another nation - what are is the attacked nation to do? I would expect that if the United States allowed a third party to launch attacks upon foreign country from our territory - we would run the risk that the attacked nation would disregard our sovereignty.
Turning to marque and reprisal - I've always thought of it in the context of the high seas - but must it be? (I really don't know). There is a certainly similarity between pirates, as non-state actors and terrorists as non-state actors. Further, I watched the entirety of the Ron Paul video, and he refers specifically to using Marque and Reprisal to go after non-state actors such as al qaeda. Now, its quite possible that the video doesn't do justice to Mr. Paul's position, but it certainly appears to be what he's advocating.
Personally, I haven't given enough thought to whether its justified in this situation to take a position. It's something, I think, many don't think of, however. Making use of the non-state actor to counter the non-state actor.
"But when a nation, such as Afghanistan....."
You mean Saudi Arabia, don't you?
"There is a certainly similarity between pirates, as non-state actors and terrorists as non-state actors."
True. The important difference for me would be whether they are on waters that belong to no country.
".. it certainly appears to be what he's advocating."
That is how it appears, but I think he may just be saying there are other options besides invading and occupying. I don't think Ron Paul really advocates any kind of aggression.
I don't follow your reference to Saudi Arabia. Perhaps you wish to make a case that they are allowing actors within their territory to launch attacks on the U.S.? If so, what is the appropriate response?
I don't think Ron Paul really advocates any kind of aggression.
How might Marque & Reprisal be carried out in a non-aggressive fashion?
Might it go something like this:
"Pardon me sir, might you be so kind as to allow me to take command of your vessel and imprison you?"
Anyway, here's a Ron Paul press release, issued on October 11, 2001:
Washington, DC: Congressman Ron Paul today presented Congress with the "Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001," legislation designed to give President Bush an additional tool in the fight against terrorism. He also introduced legislation that changes the federal definition of "piracy" to include air piracy.
The Constitution gives Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal when a precise declaration of war is impossible due to the vagueness of the enemy. Paul's bill would allow Congress to authorize the President to specifically target Bin Laden and his associates using non-government armed forces. Since it is nearly impossible for U.S. intelligence teams to get close to Bin Laden, the marque and reprisal approach creates an incentive for people in Afghanistan or elsewhere to turn him over to the U.S.
"The President promised the American people that the federal government would use every available resource to defeat the global terror network," Paul stated. "Congress should immediately issue letters of marque and reprisal to add another weapon to the U.S. arsenal. The war on terrorism is very different from past wars, because the enemy is a group of individuals who do not represent any nation. Western intelligence in the Middle East is exceedingly limited, so we should avail ourselves of the assistance of those with better information to track, capture, or kill Bin Laden." The Act allows Congress to narrowly target terrorist enemies, lessening the likelihood of a full-scale war with any Middle Eastern nations. The Act also threatens terrorist cells worldwide by making it more difficult for our enemies to simply slip back into civilian populations or hide in remote locations.
"Once letters of marque and reprisal are issued, every terrorist is essentially a marked man," Paul concluded. "Congress should issue such letters and give the President another weapon to supplement our military strikes."
http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr101101.htm
Maybe he does advocate it. If so, I disagree with him.
Saudi Arabia provided the people and money behind the 911 attack.
"How might Marque & Reprisal be carried out in a non-aggressive fashion?..."
Argumentum as absurdum. Why do you feel the need to make so many junior high level cracks? You may enjoy it, but I find it gets in the way intelligent discussion.
I think intelligent discussion is what we need in America if we really believe in a government by for and of the people. We need to turn off the the pundits, their rhetorical flourishes, cheap tricks in debate, and their juvenile antics, and their fallacious reasoning. We need to form our consciences according to the eternal law and apply our consciences to the issues of the day.
I think according to what I have heard and read that Ron Paul is for tracking down and eliminating people that target united States citizens. I would agree with him on this. The marques should be used to declare our position on these people or organizations when a particular country with political borders is not the same as the organization. If these non-boundary groups reside in a country that refuses to cooperate then congress should decide the action of war against the now aider of terrorist types.
This does not seem to me to be a interventionist position. We are simply seeking groups that have and intend to attack us aka self defense. Occupation and nation building is where the interventionism should cease. Policing the world and manipulating leadership through subversive and inhumane tactics should cease.
ETERNAL LAW.......... where is this document?
"Junior High Level?".....I get no respect.
I understood it was a ratio, at one time, of one Blackwater to one US soldier.
Northron:
The eternal law is reflected in many documents.
Like Marsh, I'm still pondering the whole M&R thing. I find applying the golden rule useful.
Consider a hypothetical: American drugrunners, (perhaps immune from investigation and prosecution because working with the CIA to gather information and funnel money) repeatedly kill numerous civilians in shoutout or "hits". Perhaps they also assasinate government officials in another country (could be any number of countries). The country hires someone and they go in and blow up the homes of mafia kingpins in several American cities.
What would we say?
Marsh:
Maybe you need to take on the alias "The Joker." I never quite made the switch to "turd in the punch bowl."
Would you name the many documents or one?
The golden rule useful. Yes it always is. I think it might have something to do with the eternal documents you mentioned earlier. The unnamed ones.
I think the procedure I alluded to previously would apply. Their leaders, parliament, council could issue these letters of marque for international areas giving the agents this jurisdiction. If a political boundary is involved, the leaders of both states could discuss, meet, etc. on the issue and proceed from what transpires during the meeting, assuming they have a quorum. The options are endless. The ostensible would be a compromise or a collaboration to work together for the betterment of the world or one or both could declare war on each other to resolve their differences.
The Bible
The Aeneid
The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius
Antogone by Sophocles
Continuing on my hypo....If we don't come to a satisfactory agreement with the country that has a problem with our drug runners and they carry out the attack. In that case we could know for sure that the attack was sponsored by a foreign power.
What would we say?
"The ostensible would be a compromise or a collaboration to work together for the betterment of the world or one or both could declare war on each other to resolve their differences."
If that is the case, it seems like we wouldn't need M&R.
Post a Comment