Hey Fanta,

Your point is taken. We cannot allow our ranks to be dependent on
foreign recruits lest we find ourselves in a serious mess. Although we
have always permitted the enlistment of green card/appropriate visa
holders, this has been a very small percentage. If the current levels
are in fact at 2% then we need to keep it in that range.

The current mentality of recruiting is way off. I think I'll starg a
thread devoted just to that subject. Take care

Daniel,

You make a good point about the draft. Perhaps they should bring it
back. If they do, I hope they make it fair across the board and not
just look at the lower and middle economic classes.

Nice to hear some suggestions and I actually like the way your heading
with this. Might make an interesting topic for a seperate thread.

See ya.. Jerry

Hi Ayira,

This can get confusing so let me start by restating your question and
then show you the answer.

You said "Jerry, am I to understand that if a Merc is captured and found
out to be a National or a resident of a territory Party of the conflict,
it won't be considered a Mercenary?"

In the first sentence try changing the word Merc for person, then
re-read it i.e . "Am I to understand that if a person is captured and
found out to be a National or a resident of a territory Party of the
conflict, they won't be considered a Mercenary?" If you ask the
question this way, the person captured would not be considered a Merc
but if you ask the question as you originally did, you are assuming the
person is a Merc and then proving later they are not.

A person is only considered a Merc if meet those guidlines listed
earlier. The debate is whether or not those people seving as
contractors, even as security guards in Iraq are or are not mercs
because they are a resident of a territory Party of the conflict and
they are not directly involved in combat activities..

I hope that clears up your question. It is confusing. See ya Kiddo.
Jerry

Interesting thought but based on what we have seen to date in Iraq I
think it's moot. I really do believe they would put forth an effort to
recover anyone captured or injured but I can't honestly recall a single
instance where a soldier or contractor was ever recovered alive.
Perhaps it has happened but I'm not aware of any with the exception of
the hospital rescue at the start of this war and perhaps others.

Time to call it a night. See you later...

Sicdir = F-Off

Azerbaijani

Hey Oceans,

It's a little windy and I did cut and paste a bit but I think it coveres
what you asked about

A captured soldier must be treated as a lawful combatant, and,
therefore, is a Protected Person, with Prisoner of War status until
facing a competent tribunal. That tribunal may decide that the soldier
is a mercenary using criteria in APGC77 or some equivalent domestic law.
At that juncture, the mercenary soldier becomes an unlawful combatant
but still must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall
not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". If after a
regular trial, a captured soldier is found to be a mercenary, then he
can expect treatment as a common criminal and may face punishment up to
and including execution. The legal status of civilian contractors
depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with
respect to that of the combatants. If they have not in fact, taken a
direct part in the hostilities they are not mercenaries soldiers and are
entitled to Geneva Convention protections.

The situation in Iraq shows some of the problems with defining what is a
mercenary soldier. While the United States governed Iraq, any U.S.
citizen working as an armed guard could not be defined a mercenary,
because he was a national of a Party to the conflict. With the hand-over
of power to the Iraqi government, some argue that unless they declare
themselves residents in Iraq, i.e. a resident of territory controlled by
a Party to the conflict they are mercenary soldiers. However, the
United States is a party to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq. Therefore, the
U.S. armed guards cannot be called mercenaries. (At least that's the
other side of the arguement)

I really do not believe these contractors are subject to the UCMJ but
they would be subject to local laws and if memory serves me correctly,
they would be subject to jurisdiction of the U.S. where the U.S. has
exclusive or concurant jurisdiction (A Base or military compound)

I'm not too surprised they are participating in things outside of
logistics or support but I would be surprised if they were being used as
combatants. Going on a convoy or patrol may be necessary for their
duties and based on the environment, it's only smart to be armed. They
do not wear uniforms per say but they are issued BDUs/DCU's etc. They
are clearly identified as civilian by the insignia/name patches. Using
contractors for security guards or trainers seems smart as it frees up
the military to do the other work.

The procurement issue sounds like politics as usual especially if you're
one of the people who believe these contractors to be within full
compliance of the Geneva Convention.

Even with all that, To the average terrorist or freedom fighter
(depending on ones persective) the status is unimportant. If you're
caught there, you will almost certainly die there without regard to your
status. We however, have an obligation to hold ourselves to a higher
standard. I'm not so naive to believe we are perfect but if there are
Mercs in that region (and I believe there are) it's doubtful they are
the ones you are hearing about.

See you later Jerry

Hey Zap, we posted at the same time. At least we said the same thing.

No Invisible, you are not stupid. We are actually talking about both.

Foreigners do join the armed forces of the U.S. but there are
restrictions. For example, They must be in the U.S. legally (usually
with work visas) and they must pass background investigations. If they
are able to enter the military they must gain U.S. citizenship within
their first enlistment (Each enlisment is between 2 - 6 years depending
on branch of service)or they have to get out. This process is fast
tracked for them so there's very few problems obtaining citizenship.
While they are on active duty during their 1st enlistment they are bound
by both U.S. laws and the UCMJ just like any US cit.

Citizens are the average gay or gal on the street who is either a
nutural citizen or someone who has earned citizenship.

On a different note and not directed towards you, just the public in
general -

Contractors are a completely different story. Contactors used in Iraq
are valid contractors either drivers, engineers, etc..

Both contractors and foreigners as described above are often referred
to as Mercenaries or Mercs. Mercernaries are identified in Art 47 of
the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as:

(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.

This makes it clear that the legitimate contractors and non-cit service
members are not Mercs. Are there Mercs over there? More than likely,
they've been in every other conflict.

Hey Oceans,

A hoot indeed...

Still working on that book and looking forward to discussing it with
you. See ya..

Bl8ant, Oceans, Fanta & Invisible,

Sometimes I'm rather slow but even I got this one. I only got about 1/3
of the way through that post and realized who it was. The writing style
and "LOL" has not changed. May as well put a photo up and cede defeat.

Haven't had a good laugh all day until now..

Oceans, You got it, as soon as I finish it. May take a a few days
given my schedule right now but I will definately get back to you on it.
Cheers

I'll just wish you luck AB. At least there are some who care. Take
care.. Jerry

Oceans, It's OK, I don't need the flowers.

I am in the midst of Cobra II. Thus far I see it as biased but
interesting.

Invisible, I understand what you're saying about money and weapons, and
equipment. Very tangled web..

See you guys later

Oceans, Exercise is good for you, keep running...

Invisible, I can see how you might have come to that conclusion.
Personally, I know next to nothing about contributions received but your
idea makes as much sense as mine does.

Oceans,

Thanks for your replies, I would like to see those reports or a link to
them if you have them handy. You can e-mail if you like.

It's not surprising that even members of the Republican party are
abandoning their relationships with the Pres. They are simply
practicing self preservation for their political careers.

I am having trouble understanding why these manipulations of Tenet's
intell briefings have not come to greater light. Seems if he or his
analysts had witnessed a falsification of the facts, they would have had
an obligation to report same. Or better yet, sell the story to someone.
It seems the dems would be scrambling to find proof of this and would
have published it if it were available.

There's also another thing that bugs me about this. If one believes
what you say is true then it almost (and I want to emphasize almost)
means that one must believe in the government's culpability and at least
prior knowledge if not the orchestration of the 911 attacks since they
were the event that preceeded the GWOT. I'm simply not prepared to make
that connection. Of course, it could be argued that the attacks were
simply an opportunity after the fact but it just doesn't seem to fit.


Well, gotta run. It's feed bag time but I'll be back.

Invisible,

Well, you may be right that someone wanted that war badly. I feel the
same way but I'm coming from a different perspective than you.

From my perspective, I went to the desert for the first Gulf War and
every year thereafter for 3 - 6 months at a time in support of Northern
& Southern Watch. It was frustrating to say the least to go over there
and play a part in trying to get Saddam to comply with UNSCR's. I, like
many, was tired of playing with Saddam and wanted it to end. Several
times we threatened and in fact mobilized to go after him and each time
he would allow inspectors back into the country only to thwart them
after we stood down our forces. I thought, like many did, the push
before the war and his compliance with inspectors was simply more of the
same.

Throw in the 9/11 attacks and the erronious ties of AQ to Saddam, the
bad intel on WMD's and WMD programs and it doesn't take much to see why
people (including our leadership) would want this war and the end of
Saddam. I'm not saying it was right but it is at least understandable.

In retrospect, we would have been much better off continuing the
enforcement of the no fly zones and maintaining a policy of containment
but hind sight is much easier than the heat of the moment.

Invisible, that's a good question

It's not that I won't think that, it's that I don't think it. Is it
possible? Perhaps but is it probable or factual? I haven't seen
anything to prove that. I'm not prepared to convict a man of that type
of crime without proof.

Besides, if it had happened it would more than likely have come out by
now and contrary to what some may believe, I don't believe the President
is dumb and certainly not dumb enough to be a willing participant to a
lie of that magnitude.

I also don't believe those people briefing the president would have
changed thier briefings at his request nor would others present during
those briefings have allowed it to happen. Most notable of these being
former Sec State Powell.

I do believe it was possible for someone to influence the interpretation
of raw data several levels below the president but even if that had
happened and there were real concerns about the manipulation of raw
data, there would have been a huge outcry from the intell world. I just
feel we are looking more at errors than a great fraud. Perhaps I'm
wrong and I guess time will tell.

Ahhhh, if only it were that simple... Unfortunately, not everyone has
the same concept of what is necessary for survival.

Don't get me wrong. I think it would be great but our evolution towards
tolerance, acceptance, sharing and peace has always been well surpassed
by our abilities to hate, fear and kill each other with greater and
greater efficiency.

Very Nice

Oceans,

You said "the officials (from DoD, CIA, etc.) said that Iraq had WMD,
had participated in the attack on Sep 11, had an active nuclear weapons
program, etc. So it was impossible for Congress, which relies of those
who brief it on what is going to tell the truth (which is why they have
closed door- and classified briefings)"

I agree but at the same time aren't those the same people who briefed
the President? If this is the case, why do so many people feel that
Bush is the only one culpable and not the Congress? It's a given the
intell was bad but there's a big difference between bad intell and out
and out lies. If this is indeed a case of manipulation of intell for a
personal agenda on the President's part than I would have thought
someone would have proved it and initiated action against him by now. On
the other hand, I have heard allegations of manipulation of data on the
part of some key players within the intell community but nothing
concrete.

Maybe I'm missing something but it appears as though there's a lot of
finger pointing in all directions with no real attempts at preventing or
correcting the problem.

See you later. Jerry