Hey kitty cat! A foreigner can join the military ifall following apply:
They must have entered the U.S. on either a permanent residence visa or
an Alien Registration Receipt Card (INS Form 1-551/I-551 green card or
stamped I-94).
They must have established a bona fide residence in the United states.
They must have established a home of record in the United States.

Pretty simple fast track to citizenship that has been in place for many
years. Haven't seen you ask a stupid question yet
Andrea.

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

Thank you

So I join the army through the front entrance as a foreigner,
and when I leave through the back door I'm a citizen.





Or go I in through the back and come out at the front???

Zap....I havent voted democrat for 20 yrs...liberal?..not even
close...libertarian?..definitely...as far as conspiracy nut?
If being open minded & intelligently informed means you are a conspiracy
nut..then maybe it fits...I dont nod my head yes like a sock puppet when
the government or any politician coughs up some explanation for
something..I actually look behind the scenes for the truth...black
heliocopters?....boring metaphor...

Zap, that's the problem when you put labels on people....



Oceans

Good explanation Jerry, re. marcenaries.

Quick question: are mercenaries covered by the Geneva Conventions, or
the Convention against Torture?

I read several accounts now of 'contractors' carrying weapons and
dressed in US military uniforms. Also, of their participation in foot
patrols, and of several instances where 'security' guard contractors
rough up the Iraqis.

The new DoD procurement (which has been held up as the procurment
process and award has been challenged) that I referred to above is for
contractors to serve in Iraq as MPs and intelligence officers, including
interrogation.

So my sense is that they are not limited to support logistics.

What is their legal status in terms of UCMJ? Geneva?

If the Iraqi resistence/insurgency seizes one of these contractors, what
is his status, from the US point of view? US soldiers seized should be
treated as PoWs, but should contractors? Should mercenaries?

Thanks,

Oceans

Do you see Zap there round the corner, waiting with his label to get
me????????

I have met many and english man and irish men at the veterans hospital..
I go there often.. They were in Vietnam, as they volunteered for
service, and also the fact they became citizens of the usa... Good
people.. I salute them..at least they didnt have to sneak into the usa
like they are doing now on our southern border.

This story might be interesting for some, and if it is only the amount
of money mentioned.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102261.html

Those darn labels just won't cooperate!

Davinci, I know where you stand and you know where I stand. I apologize
fo not opening a new paragraph when my post changed. If you read it
again you will see I was addressing oceans directly after you.

Oceans, if the label fits...... is neocon a label? Perhaps it is your
hypocrisy which won't stick. Companies have a right to hire armed
personnel to protect their workers in areas where they feel it is
necessary and if they provide camo outfits for them does that make them
mercenaries? Ever been out in the woods during hunting season? Are all
those hunters mercenaries? You say you have heard that some of those
folks have done things. You hear what you want to hear and it is not
necessarily truthful as long as it supports your point. Mercenaries?
Gotta get a grip man, you are really reaching lately. I have faith in
you and I know you can conquer the fear that haunts you....

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

Jerry, many thanks.

I'll have to re-read the posting a couple of times.

I have a question that may be hard to answer....

In the US Army/Delta mission to Mogadishu, a soldier fell from a
helicopter on one of their missions, and injured himself badly. The
commanding general had repeated the word, "No one left behind," and so
there ensued a series of cycles, in which in the effort to protect and
rescue the first soldier from the gathering opponent others got wounded,
and more went to their rescue and more were wounded and killed.

In the end, 18 soldiers died, nominally as a result of the first injury.
I can't remember now if the first injured soldier made it out alive.

Do you think that US contractors in Iraq would be covered by the "No one
left behind" doctrine? Would an equivalent effort be made by the Army
to recover captured contractors as is made for military personnel?

Or does this question call for too much conjecture?

Thanks for all the information!

Oceans

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...

That is the best description or definition of the status of civilian
contractors in this thread sparks! The only correct one and I couldnt
add a thing to it.

I will say that if you go back and read the article I posted, you will
find it said, that the citizens and the military, will never put up with
a large group of foreign soldiers in our Armed forces. 2%, they probably
(common soldier) ***** about that.
I believe one thing given credit for the fall of Rome was too many
foreign troops in their ranks, they turned on them esp. in England and
Germany! A foreigner will not stand when the chips are down, instead
they have a history of switching sides.
The 3rd Infantry is known as the Rock of The Marne. (My former unit)
This name comes from a battle in WWI along the Marne river outside
Paris. They and they alone stood and held the line during a German
offensive when the soldiers, French and British, on both sides crumbled
and retreated. Sourounded and out numbered they stood alone and took
great casualties. They were credited with saving Paris from being over
run by the Germans. They did that not because they were French or for
France, they did that out of pride that they were American Soldiers, the
best in the world. There are numerous accounts of American soldiers
doing the same thing, in all wars they have participated in.
I do understand what you are saying devinci, if they recruit too many
foreigners in our Armed forces, we like the Romans can expect nothing
more than falling into a footnote of history! Even the illegals that
come here from South America, who will not stay and fight for their
homeland, can not be counted on to fight for America. People ask, if it
meant a better life for you wouldnt you go somewhere else? I say, hell
no, I would stay and fight to make America better, thats what makes us
American, and why our country is what it is.
Maybe 1 or 2 in a unit works, but as a whole seperate unit they would
trade sides, (jump the fence) if they thought it would meant survival.
Their are no foreign soldiers that will stand for the US under such
circumstances as the 3rd ID, or the 101st did. None!!

"(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"

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? What will the status be? Because if this
person is not part of the armed forces or under official mission, he
will be a civilian abroad. He will be tried as a common criminal? No
crimes of war? Please, I think I am getting over my head. Enlighten me
please.

Hi, everyone!

I think in part that this is complicated because in invading Iraq the US
itself did something illegal, and so then the implementation of any
legal code becomes contentious. To get around the legal problem that the
US created for itself, the Bush administration has been inventing
legal-sounding concepts, and trying to convince people and jurists that
they are acceptable concepts.

So they invented: preemptive defense first strikes (the Soafer
Doctrine), 'unlawful combatants', people we detain outside the US have
no legal rights under US law, rendition, definitions of torture,
application of military tribunals to civilians, suspension of habeas
corpus, denial of legal assistance to detainees, indefinite detention,
etc, etc.

I am not even mentioning the domestic legal inventions, e.g. privacy,
wiretapping without warrant, provocation infiltration, refusal to
confront accussee with evidence, refusal to allow accussees to confront
witnesses, etc, etc.

The courts, both in the US and outside, have steadily dismissed or
narrowed the legal claims of the Bush administration, but there is a way
to go. In some cases, (e.g. General Sanchez re. torture/abuse
techniques in Iraq) the administration has voluntarily pulled back on
some of its legalistic claims when it became clear that either they
insolubly violated existing law or that public opinion would oppose the
measure.

So I am thinking that the legal status of:

- US soldiers in Iraq, those who abide by the Geneva Conventions and
UCMJ
- and those who don't

- US contractors, mercenaries (wherever they are from and whoever they
fight for)

- black team operatives

- US civilians working for the US occupation

- Iraqi civilians, Iraqis resisting the US occupation via non-violent
resistance,
- or via use of force and weaponry

- non-Iraqis fighting with the Iraqi resistance, etc.

- US 'detainees' who were kidnapped and who are released uncharged
(innocent)

- US detainees who were kidnapped and who are charged

- US detainees who were detained lawfully and are released uncharged
(innocent)

- US detainees who were detained lawfully and are uncharged

The legal status of each and all of these groups, it seems to me, is
wholly garbled and up for dispute -- given the legal status of the US
invasion and occupation, and the various legal inventions that the Bush
administration has tried to use.

Perhaps the key problem is that when one party breaks the law it can
hardly demand that the law then protect it.

The 'War on Terror' itself has strained both domestic and international
law, and creates an extra layer of legal confusion.

It is going to take years for all this to get into the court system and
get straightened out, and a functioning legal structure reestablished.

Oceans

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

An old acquaintance was a mercenary in east Africa in the 80s. He was
part of a team living in South Africa who hired themselves out to
various war lords. Didn't matter who, didn't matter why.

If we view the contractors in Iraq as people who are embedded in the
activitites of the US occupation and who are, in a sense committed to
it, it would seem to me that the term mercenary does not apply.

Let's keep in mind, too, that the term contractor applies to a wide
range of people -- not just those supporting the US military. Thus there
are political scientists, legal beagles, secretaries, nurses, mechanics,
electricians, cooks, entertainers, ORSA people, communications,
translators -- all part of the massive effort that fleshes out the US
occupation and who have little to do with the military part of that
effort.

I'm not sure what their legal status is either, but I imagine that they
will not want to hang around when the US troops are evacuated.

But, to Jerry and Alada's basic question, I wouldn't call these people
mercenaries.


Oceans