U.N.: Blackwater contractors are ‘mercenaries.’
By on Nov 6th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
U.N.: Blackwater contractors are ‘mercenaries.’
“Private security companies operate without supervision or accountability in war zones, including Iraq and Afghanistan, and represent a new form of mercenary activity,” according to a new U.N. report. As Spencer Ackerman points out, Blackwater CEO Erik Prince recently said that he didn’t like his employees being called “mercenaries,” which he coined “a slanderous term, kind of an inflammatory word [used] to malign us.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Hannity
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
Kristol
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Maddow
McCain
Media
Military
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Public Plan
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Technology
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
if it looks like a turd, smells like a turd, guess what… its a loyal bushbot.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pmGee, sure don’t want to hurt Erik Prince’s feelings….somebody better apologize. Wonder if the Billion he has made in Iraq over the last few years will make him feel better.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:29 pmDo not even call them mercenaries > they are paid assassins. They are thugs who kill people for money > PERIOD.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:33 pm“Mercenary” sounds positively polite to me. “Anti-American war leech” is more like it. So sorry if I’ve offended Mr. Prince’s delicate sensibilities.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:34 pmYOU ARE FUC*ING MERCENARIES, PRINCE.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:36 pmIt’s nice to know that our terrorists cannot be called terrorists. After all, and by the Grace of God, they’re not Muslims and “everybody” knows only Muslims can be terrorists.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:37 pmOT – listening to randi…
she’s watching cspan, the vote on the floor…
over 120 repugs have voted to NOT table the bill…
more pugs than dems… the dems are switching to kill it…
i’d guessed that the pugs were doing this to call the dems,
to force them to debate this, thinking it will work against them…
brent budowsky comes on and confirms it…
November 6th, 2007 at 3:40 pmi say, go dennis! … get this out there and TALK about it…
.
“who says the span is not exciting!” -rr
.
So someone kills our people on 9/11 and they are terrorists then we kill people back in two countries but we are liberators. Wonder if the Iraqi and Afganistan people realize that?
Again, 15 hijackers were from Saudi….so why did we choose two other countries for retaliation.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:41 pmErik is right…we should call them what they are , truly…KILLER PROSTITUTES!
November 6th, 2007 at 3:44 pmDeadliest year for US troops in Iraq
November 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
Eric Prince is second to George Bush as the world’s most evil terrorist.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pmrepublicans just might put impeachment back on the table… heh…
http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS
November 6th, 2007 at 3:45 pm.
Blackwater CEO Erik Prince recently said that he didn’t like his employees being called “mercenaries,†which he coined “a slanderous term, kind of an inflammatory word [used] to malign us.â€
Actually, the term “mercenaries” is very accurately applied. Hired guns. I wouldn’t say “paid assassins” because that implies competence and I haven’t seen much of that from Blackwater.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmWell, Prince has a point. After all, the proper definition of “mercenary” is “a soldier who fights for pay for a FOREIGN army.”
In that case, the only thing that keeps Blackwater employees from technically being mercenaries is that they are Americans fighting alongside the U.S. military.
This situation (mercenaries fighting for their own country) probably doesn’t occur often enough to have spawned a term. After all, why would any leader hire his own countrymen for an obscene amount of money to fight when he could just draft them them into his army?
Oh…right…
November 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pmKaty, I’m watching the vote now and it looks like the motion won’t be tabled and the majority of Nays have come from the repubs
Major vote switching so this is a snapshot and will change:
YEA 176, NAY 235
D – YEAS 146, NAY 75
R – YEAS 28, NAY 163
Very interesting….
November 6th, 2007 at 3:49 pmhits isn’t here (yet) but if he were he’d correct us all by claiming they’re “not mercenaries but peace keepers”.
that hits. he’s a funny guy.
November 6th, 2007 at 3:51 pm“BUSH: We’re winning”
If Bush says so, then it must be!
November 6th, 2007 at 4:16 pmMercenary: one that serves merely for wages; especially : a soldier hired into foreign service.
How does this malign Blackwater?
November 6th, 2007 at 4:19 pmThe closet comparison we can find to Eric Prince is Heinrich Himmler.
Those folks over at the Republican Party sure are swell!
November 6th, 2007 at 4:23 pmAnd Blackwater FITS that definition precisely. Blackwater DOES fight for a foreign army, one that happens to be occupying Iraq. US soldiers are as foreign to Iraqi citizens as anyone gets. That definitively marks Blackwater employees as mercenaries, in the strictest sense.
Further, they’re paid to fight: mercenaries. They’re an ostensibly private company: mercenaries. That general, basic, common sense definition matters even more than the legalistic one you cite.
Most important, my first point gets at the nub of the problem: our nation was founded on the objection to King George III using Hessian mercenaries against our own fellow English Citizens. They were a foreign army, employed by our own leaders against his own people.
The Hessians were paid by the British Army to attack British citizens. Paid by the Crown’s own army to do it’s bidding, by your logic missmolly, it wasn’t mercenary or foreign at all.
That Blackwater is an (ostensibly) American company in the employ of the American Army, does not mean they aren’t foreign. They are most assuredly being used as mercenaries. Blackwater is obviously wreacking exactly the kind of havoc the American Revolution was fought to prevent entirely, and the Constitution designed to outlaw.
Our Constitution was designed to avoid inflicting this same fatal error on other countries! And designed to spare the country the cost of the resulting blowback.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:27 pmI think Blackwater is moving it’s corporate headquarters to Dubai which pretty much beats the crap out of Prince’s main rhetorical argument.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:08 pmIt’s Dick Chaney’s company that is moving to Dubai.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:18 pmmaybe mr. prince would prefer “killers-for-hire”?
November 6th, 2007 at 5:38 pmBlackwater appears to be setting up shop in the Phillipines.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:49 pmmer·ce·nar·y [ múrss'n èrree ]
noun (plural mer·ce·nar·ies)
Definition:
1. soldier fighting for money: a professional soldier paid to fight for an army other than that of his or her country
2. somebody interested only in profit: an employee who works only for personal gain
November 6th, 2007 at 6:16 pmWe are looking at this ALL WRONG!!! Price is just an excellent manager . . . he has managed to convince the Bush Administration to pay him QUITE well to arm and supply an Army, AND make a profit at it . . .
My question is why can’t the U.S. Government pay our Patriot Soldiers at least $150,000 a year each (a lot less than the $950 a day plus expenses, we get billed for “Mercenary Service”) and instantly solve our recruiting problem?
I’ll bet even some Young Republicans might consider joining . . . naw, they’d have to room with knee-grows and mess-skins . . .
November 6th, 2007 at 10:44 pmi’d like to see the us marines “cleanse” baghdad of blackwater….that would win hearts and minds
November 7th, 2007 at 1:51 amA mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and “is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party”.[1][2]
As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is essentially motivated by money, the term “mercenary” carries negative connotations. There is a blur in the distinction between a “mercenary” and a “foreign volunteer”, when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas are not mercenaries under the laws of war, but some journalists do describe them as mercenaries.[3][4]
While the United States and many other countries are not signatories to the Protocol Additional GC 1977 (APGC77), it provides the most widely accepted international definition of a mercenary, albeit one not universally accepted. In the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 it is stated:
Art 47. Mercenaries
1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.”
In 2003 the french actually criminalised mercenaries..
I see nothing at all slanderous in the term mercenary being applied to his ” Employees ” Known a few years ago in my time as ” Mercs ” the term ‘ Contractor ‘ summons up the image of someone who fixes my roof or re-lays my drive way..
November 7th, 2007 at 4:47 amSlander :-
A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person’s reputation or standing in the community.
I SEE NO SLANDER [at any] PRICE..
“Blackwater CEO Erik Prince recently said that he didn’t like his employees being called “mercenaries,†which he coined “a slanderous term, kind of an inflammatory word [used] to malign us.â€
The truth hurts…but if the damn shoe fits, wear it!
November 7th, 2007 at 11:16 amblackwater doesnt torture..they started a new company for that…
November 8th, 2007 at 5:32 amyeah but if they kill black gangbangers thats a good thing right?
in my opinion they should kill half of new orleans, point blanc on the street. Lock down the city and kill everyone that looks like a gang banger.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:31 pm