Page 1 of 1

#1 Blackwater Loves Sharia Law.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:05 pm
by SirNitram
Link

[quote]RALEIGH - To defend itself against a lawsuit by the widows of three American soldiers who died on one of its planes in Afghanistan, a sister company of the private military firm Blackwater has asked a federal court to decide the case using the Islamic law known as Shari’a.

The lawsuit “is governed by the law of Afghanistan,â€

#2

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 7:30 pm
by Batman
So, how often is that done when local laws DON'T benefit the involved american company?

#3

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 8:17 pm
by Derek Thunder
Well, Blackwater was pretty spoiled in Iraq - not covered by the military code of justice or the transitional coalition authority. They also can't be tried post facto by the Iraqi government, and can't be tried in US civilian courts either.

Machiavelli even pointed out that using mercenaries was a bad idea.

Also, given the amount of money Blackwater execs have contributed to socially conservative causes, maybe they just like the idea of sharia generally.

#4

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 9:40 pm
by Cynical Cat
Blackwater is just trying to escape responsibility for their unsafe flying practices. And, to be fair, Machiavelli was a republican idealist who was a proponent of the state being defended by a republican militia. Republican militias in Renaissance Italy had a shitty track record against mercenaries because militias have a shitty track record in general. He wasn't an unbiased party. He was trying to get a job.

#5

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:32 pm
by LadyTevar
And, if Religious Law is allowed to be used in the lawsuit, that sets Precedence.

What Religion will try that next? Jeff Whatisname's little group of polygamous Mormon breakaways, pointing out their laws say "spiritual marriage' is ok? The Mainline Mormons setting up their own courts of law, and trying gays and other 'sinners' against their religious rules?

Please dear God, someone shoot this down hard!

#6

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:33 pm
by Derek Thunder
His criticisms of mercenaries were entirely correct though, at least in the sense of not owing allegiance to any sort of body politic or nation-state. We see this with Blackwater, Halliburton, and other security and contracting firms that have taken over basic functions of our professional army; they feel no particular need to 'do the right thing,' but are instead only focused on maximizing shareholder value. I suspect that if another country were to offer better contracts, these companies would not hesitate to move their headquarters and even work against us.

Machiavelli did criticize mercenaries after "The Prince", if I recall. It's likely that "The Prince" was an attempt to find employ with the Medicis, but his later works weren't meant as job applications.

It just seems like such a bizarre way to escape legal accountability. On the other hand, as a private corporation they're required to, lest they incur the wrath of shareholders, so I guess it's hard to fault them in that sense.

#7

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:44 pm
by Cynical Cat
You'll want to edit the above post. You use "militia" when you mean "mercenaries" and yes they were not a good thing. They defeated militias, which was why they staid around so long in Italy because they were the only professionals.

Blackwater is the company that has charged profit as an expense and sent its people into harms way (including these flights) without the support that they were supposed to provide. For them there is nothing unusual about these sleazy tactics.

#8

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 10:58 pm
by Derek Thunder
Post edited. Send PM next time please.

There may be a risk of this setting precedent, but I don't think it'll create scenarios of independent Mormon courts. It does make one wonder though - many crimes are punished by either lashings or stoning in sharia as opposed to imprisonment, and since these punishments would not fly in light of the eight amendment, would this lead people such as Blackwater operatives getting off scot-free for crimes such as rape in islamic countries?

The only way the US government can rein in Blackwater is by making this sort of private contracting completely illegal. Corporations will always find ways to escape regulation and going against the interest of the shareholders. Best way to deal with them is just pull them out by the roots.

#9

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 11:34 pm
by Cynical Cat
Rape convictions are almost impossible under Sharia because the woman needs witnesses to support her claim. The usual result is that the attackers go free and the woman is punished for fornication.

#10

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 10:44 am
by frigidmagi
Cat wrote: Rape convictions are almost impossible under Sharia because the woman needs witnesses to support her claim.


3 adult males must personally witness the penetration. On a modern twist, Saudi religious judges have ruled that a video or a picture (even a cell phone video or picture) is worth at least 3 witnesses.
Derek wrote: The only way the US government can rein in Blackwater is by making this sort of private contracting completely illegal.
This is a great idea and I am all for it. You do realize however that for this to work you'll have to expand the military? Many functions within the military are done by private contractors now. For example in Camp Pendleton, my food was cooked and served by employees of a private contractor. Supplies were transported by private contractor. The mail during the war was brought from the US to Kuwait by private contractor (from Kuwait to the Iraqi combat zone it was handled by US troops at least it was when during the invasion, I honestly have no idea now).


Side note: Our bases in Japan must employ a set number of native Japanese citizens contractors according to treaty. They do lawn care and a variety of other functions in regards to maintaining the base, they are not allowed to maintain or play with military gear, so it's all low level stuff.

#11

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:10 pm
by Hotfoot
Having read Machiavelli's "The Art of War", I can officially say that he's a long-winded bastard who takes forever when getting to the point of things, and his method of writing is prone to strawmanning positions in that tome.

Mercenaries are not ideal under any circumstance, but as CynCat noted, sometimes they become a necessary evil, if you will. If your only two options are untrained militia and trained mercenaries, well, if you don't want to lose your country, there's really only one option.

I posted a thread a while back about Mercenaries in the modern world, and the general consensus was that the ones that behaved badly were the ones that didn't have to worry about where their paycheck was coming next week. Once they are comfortable and well shielded from the consequences of their actions, they end up doing whatever the hell they want, like what we see in Blackwater.

Now, getting rid of private contracting is not the solution I think we need. Bottom line, it can end up being a necessity in this day and age when we can't draft kids into service. If we need boots on the ground and there aren't enough boots to go around, we need a way to bolster the ranks.

That said, we need to revise the terms of these contracts. A PMC working for the US Government should be held to the same general standards as any soldier in our armed forces. UCMJ applies for every thing you do out there. You work in concert with our armed forces and you ultimately report up the same chain of command. That, I think would stop most of the abuses we're seeing, if they are held accountable for their actions.

#12

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:09 pm
by SirNitram
Machiavelli wrote The Prince. The Art Of War is Sun Tzu.

#13

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:13 pm
by Hotfoot
My dear Nitram, I have read both "The Art of War" books, and I assure you, Machiavelli wrote one of them. I even have photographic evidence of it.

Image

I read it in college, and if pressed, can even provide quotes from it if needed.

Edit: Here's the book on Amazon, in case the author's name isn't legible from that photo.

#14

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:17 pm
by LadyTevar
You're so cute, Hotfoot

But we can't see your hair in that pic :wink:

#15

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:24 pm
by Hotfoot
Not much I can do, that image was taken back when I was actually reading the book. As it is right now, the book is collecting dust in my parent's basement, along with most of my college texts until I can find the space to put them on my own shelves.

Oh man, back when I used to wear a watch. Wow...

#16

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 1:49 pm
by LadyTevar
You make it sound like forever... :roll:

#17

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:35 pm
by Hadrianvs
Machiavelli was a deft politician, but not so good at military matters. That said, saying he advocated citizen militias is not the whole truth. He advocated emulating the Roman Republic, which had something a bit more advanced than a militia levy. Not exactly a bad example to follow, it did manage to become the dominant power in the Western Mediterranean and the lower Balkans solely on the strength of armies composed of citizen soldiers. On top of that, the first of those two feats involved their citizen armies defeating mercenary armies.

#18

Posted: Thu Jun 19, 2008 9:57 pm
by Cynical Cat
Machiavelli had the little problem of working with Renaissance Florence, not ancient Rome. He did want professional standing armies, but his intent was to change the city's militia into such an organization. To be fair to him, he never had much time to accomplish it.