Blackwater

[SkyTrooper]

I saw some discussion about this topic here (Privatized Military, so "Why Support Israel?"), but the thread doesn't make much sense to me and is a somewhat unstructured discussion being as it seems to respond to another thread.

My question is, should I have any issues working with groups like Blackwater? Should I consider these groups a useful tool to advance freedom or as a threat to freedom?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_USA

(I've included the wikipedia page because it links to primary sources, so provides a good starting point for evaluation)

Virtues of Blackwater include the fact that they are extremely competent fighters and they can operate outside "Just War Theory" meaning they don't have to fight like sacrificial animals. Shortcomings include the fact that unlike soldiers they are not very disciplined, they could conceivably be hired by other governments than the US, do not have to follow any Law of Land Warfare, and are not sworn to protect the US Constitution.

Edited May 1, 2007 by badkarma556

[RationalBiker]

My question is, should I have any issues working with groups like Blackwater? Should I consider these groups a useful tool to advance freedom or as a threat to freedom?

What concerns do you have that they could be a threat?

As they exist now, the only time that can act as a "tool of war" is when contracted by the US Government. They don't have the authority to act on their own, to engage in their own private wars. Now, I suppose another country could try to employ their services and they would have to examine what their interests are versus how helping some other country would impact the US. However, I don't think it's likely they would do something that would hurt the US, which in turn will likely threaten their existence and ability to do business.

Aside from that, I know some folks who know the owner of that organization personally and they have never said anything but good stuff about the guy. I've never been given the impression that the man has mixed loyalties.

As an aside, there is a fictitious group in the TV series Jericho called Ravenwood. There are some similarities between Blackwater and Ravenwood, but the context of the show is not the same as the context of the America we live in right now.

Edited May 1, 2007 by RationalBiker

[KendallJ]

My question is, should I have any issues working with groups like Blackwater?

Not as long as they utlimately answer to a constituted authority.

[SkyTrooper]

What concerns do you have that they could be a threat?

I'm not too concerned, being as most Blackwater guys are former US Special Forces and as you said the owner is a very patriotic individual. One of the questions I'm consiering is if on principle there is anything wrong with employing this method of national defense. In many ways privatizing the military would be desirable since troops wouldn't be getting paid less than they could make right now as civilians.

Looking at an extreme example; do you think it would be moral to dissolve the military and instead hire corporate armies every time a war began? Obviously the government must "provide for the common defense" but there seem to be other ways to do this besides our current system of recruitment.

[KendallJ]

Looking at an extreme example; do you think it would be moral to dissolve the military and instead hire corporate armies every time a war began?

How is this different from a volunteer army? The difficulty I would see is not one of moral issues, but one of financing. How does a private army earn its paycheck, and more importantly finance training, in peacetime.

[SkyTrooper]

Not as long as they utlimately answer to a constituted authority.

So, as long as there is ultimately congressional oversight? I am fairly certain they answer to some military authority, although they may actually be hired by the State Department.

One of the key foundations of the military is that it is restricted in its activities by law. Our military acts only by permission. I'm just thinking of the limitations placed on the military that don't apply to Blackwater:

1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a police force inside the United States

The 3rd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the military from quartering troops in civilian houses

Congress's signing of the Geneva and Hauge conventions severely limits the actions of the military in battle

[RationalBiker]

1878 Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from acting as a police force inside the United States

The 3rd Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the military from quartering troops in civilian houses

Congress's signing of the Geneva and Hauge conventions severely limits the actions of the military in battle

Civilian law prevents them from doing any of those things within the boundaries of the US.

[DavidV]

I think the government that hires a private army is ultimately responsible for ensuring that it respects international conventions.

The real problem is that politicians have hamstringed our military so badly that it has to hire mercenaries as a loophole around those regulations.

Edited May 1, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist

[KendallJ]

I meant it a little more generally. Govt has a monopoly on the initiation of physical force. It could reasonably hire an agent to act on its behalf; however, that agent must answer to the govt, and be bound by its laws. The government could also not hire an agent with the specific intent of having the agent violate it's own laws.

[SkyTrooper]

Civilian law prevents them from doing any of those things within the boundaries of the US.

It certainly prevents them from being quartered in civilian houses. It does not prevent them from acting as police (take Katrina for example).

Also, outside the boundaries of the US they have don't have to follow international conventions on the laws of war.

[SkyTrooper]

I meant it a little more generally. Govt has a monopoly on the initiation of physical force. It could reasonably hire an agent to act on its behalf; however, that agent must answer to the govt, and be bound by its laws. The government could also not hire an agent with the specific intent of having the agent violate it's own laws.

So the military is a unique institution in that the government created the military to "provide for the common defense" and then through time passed laws to restrict the power of the military. By hiring Blackwater contractors to carry out the same job as the military, it seems that congress has essentially created a parallel institution to bypass its own laws.

Could a local government hire private security guards to perform police duties if it felt that the laws it passed restricting its police were overly inconvenient?

[aequalsa]

Looking at an extreme example; do you think it would be moral to dissolve the military and instead hire corporate armies every time a war began?

One problem with that, as I understand, is that they are not able to act aggressively in a foreign country. They can act in self-defense if fired upon, but can not be used to attack as this would be the equivalent of attempted murder. The Geneva convention is not applicable to them since they are basically private armed guards visiting a foreign country. They get around that by using them to guard especially likely targets which frees up the actual soldiers for assaults.

[KendallJ]

So the military is a unique institution in that the government created the military to "provide for the common defense" and then through time passed laws to restrict the power of the military. By hiring Blackwater contractors to carry out the same job as the military, it seems that congress has essentially created a parallel institution to bypass its own laws.

How do you mean? What laws is it breaking? Standing armies were not the norm at the time of the founding and many of the anti-federalists warned against them so I'm not sure about the "institution" of the military.

Could a local government hire private security guards to perform police duties if it felt that the laws it passed restricting its police were overly inconvenient?

Sure, it's called deputizing. I'm not sure however what principle you are concerned about or disputing. The basic principle is that the power rests with the government and it can vest specific parts of those powers to any agency that acts within the governement's own laws.

[DavidV]

I'm not sure about the legality in particular cases, but ethically, the state cannot grant anyone the power to initiate force, which means that it cannot grant anyone the power to violate the Constitution, which means that private forces are just as limited as military forces, except in their freedom to act as private citizens. When acting abroad, a private force should be held to the same standards as the military of that government, as well as the law of the nation it's in, or of the occupying forces.

So, if a mercenary commits an atrocity in Iraq, he cannot be tried under a military tribunal, but he can be tried under Iraqi law, courts set up by the occupation forces, or an international court of justice -- whichever one asserts the de-facto authority. A mercenary on US soil is tried as any other private citizen would be. In no case do they have any "special" powers that the military does not.

[KendallJ]

I'm not sure I understand Dave. Are you saying that a military force cannot initiate force, or is that simply that it cannot initiate force within it's own country?

[RationalBiker]

It does not prevent them from acting as police (take Katrina for example).

Also, outside the boundaries of the US they have don't have to follow international conventions on the laws of war.

Okay, fair point, but then security guards can act as police officers in the manner in which they were employed in the Katrina situation without the need for an emergency. However, they cannot act as the police without first having the government contract them to do so in which case they are acting as agents of the government and are then bound by the same laws as the police. As Kendall mentions, this is deputizing, something the police can theoretically do to anybody should the need arise. However, the government cannot deputize someone in order to attempt to skirt the constitutional restraints placed on the police.

As was addressed, what they do outside the country can be addressed by the law of the jurisdiction where they acted.

[DavidV]

I'm not sure I understand Dave. Are you saying that a military force cannot initiate force, or is that simply that it cannot initiate force within it's own country?

No one, not even a military force, can justly initiate force anywhere. I would not define a preemptive strike as initiating force, if you're thinking of that.

Edited May 2, 2007 by GreedyCapitalist
added quote

[KendallJ]

No one, not even a military force, can justly initiate force anywhere. I would not define a preemptive strike as initiating force, if you're thinking of that.

Dave, I think I see where you're going with this, but I'm not sure of the vernacular, at least as I remember my Rand.

Rand said govt's unique characteristic is that it has a monopoly on the initiation of physical force and that it's proper roles in that capacity were 1) military (to protect against external threat) 2) police (to protect citizenry from threat of force from each other) and 3) courts - to provide a mechanism for peaceful resolution of disputes among citizens.

So, I guess we can sort of define the function of any of these as "not initiating force", but it leads me to ask why Rand made that distinction as she did (if no one can truly justly initiate force anywhere). Owning a monopoly on the initiation of physical force when one is not morally justified in ever using it seems a bit empty. Maybe you can clarify for me.

Certainly, there would be certain types of initiation of force that govt couldn't do even if it did exercise its monopoly, but aren't there actions all of these bodies take that are truly initiations of force? Reasonable search, for example, is the initiation of force (against a party who has not been convicted of any crime), is it not?

[DavidOdden]

Rand said govt's unique characteristic is that it has a monopoly on the initiation of physical force

You know I love to do this, so this is predictable. Where did she way that? I can give you lots of places where she spoke of the use of retaliatory force; nowhere that I can identify did she say anything nice about the initiation of force. It's not a matter of "sorta redefining"... when a man initiates force by attacking you, the police are not initiating force by using guns to arrest, try and punish him. That is retaliation (which the government has a rightful monopoly on). I'm willing to eat my hat, if you're willing to provide the quote.

[KendallJ]

Fair enough. It is what I had in my memory so I didn't quote it. I'll see what I can find. I'll certainly eat my hat if I can't find it.

As to reasonable search. Last time I checked, a suspect was not necessarily a criminal (yet...). The police can search someone reasonably who give probable cause, but it the person turns out to be completely innocent, the police have no moral breech. Implying that probable cause means it's a "retaliatory use of force" just seem to stretch the concept.

[DavidV]

In "The Nature of Government" (1963d, 109) Ayn Rand writes:

The fundamental difference between private action and governmental action—a difference thoroughly ignored and evaded today—lies in the fact that a

government holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force.

...

In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

(Emph. mine)

[KendallJ]

In "The Nature of Government" (1963d, 109) Ayn Rand writes:

(Emph. mine)

I'll accept that. I think this is the passage I was thinking of. Thanks Dave.

/KendallJ goes off to eat his hat...

[DavidOdden]

As to reasonable search. Last time I checked, a suspect was not necessarily a criminal (yet...). The police can search someone reasonably who give probable cause, but it the person turns out to be completely innocent, the police have no moral breech. Implying that probable cause means it's a "retaliatory use of force" just seem to stretch the concept.

I think that's a separate question (or, should be). When force has been initiated (someone steals the jewels), the police may use retaliatory force. Obviously the question is, who do use that force against? It ought to be the actual force-initiator. The problem is that unless you allow the police to use force, in retaliation, before the final conviction and appeal, there can never be any investigation (force, often), arrest (force), or trial (force). In short, no possiblility of justice. Probable cause is a principle that limits when the state can use retaliatory force, so that it is minimal and most probably applied to the actual perp. The moral responsibility for the use of force still lies with the initiator, even if the police use force against an innocent persone -- i.e. there is collateral damage. In other words, retaliatory simply means retaliatory, but in addition, such force should be minimal in case of error. The alternative is to forgo justice, which would be totally disfunctional.

[KendallJ]

So if I understand correctly you are implying that the retaliation of force against someone who is eventually innocent (such as in the case of reasonable searc) is a form of "collateral" damage. Would this be the same sort of collateral damage that occurs in mass bombings during wartime? (which I have argued for vocally on the board, so I could buy that analogy if that is how you mean it).

[BryanG]

According to a recent book critical of Blackwater, (Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army) there is a jurisdictional hole in which these security companies operate. According to the book companies like Blackwater, being private, operate outside the US military code of conduct, but the US Govt. contracts they operate under also protect them from civil liability. BTW, the book was written by a guy who writes for The Nation, so you can be fairly sure he does not like the current administration.

The left is absolutely RABID about Blackwater, they are seen as a right wing Christian paramilitary group doing the bidding of Prez. Bush.

As much attention as Blackwater has gotten, there haven't t really been reports of any negative incidents that I know of, other than the 4 Blackwater guys who were killed in Baghdad, and a Blackwater contracted 'copter crash in Afghanistan - families of the dead employees are suing Blackwater over those.