Blackwater security

[bradclark1]

The Blackwater security firm is banned from Iraq. Too free with weapons fire it seems.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/index.html

[Happy Times]

The Blackwater security firm is banned from Iraq. Too free with weapons fire it seems.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/09/17/iraq.main/index.html

Or too good at taking out the right people, we dont know yet.

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder how many of the so called civi's that were shot dead that are not really civi's?

-S

[Subnuts]

I wonder how many of the so called civi's that were shot dead that are not really civi's?

-S

Why don't you ask them?

[August]

From what i understand they're going to loose their Afghanistan contracts as well.

[SUBMAN1]

I wonder how many of the so called civi's that were shot dead that are not really civi's?

-S
Why don't you ask them?

I did. No reply. Seems they are hiding something. :D

-S

[sunvalleyslim]

Seems like more to the story.........They (Blackwater) drives through the square. They are attacked by persons in the square. Either an explosion or small arms fire from the square started things. If the convoy was forced to stop, then I would have probably jumped out and opened up on any targets I saw. I would be thinking ambush and I don't think they just wanted to talk to us about the weather..........:nope: :nope:

[The WosMan]

Exactly, some innocent people probably were killed in a gunfire exchange between some terrorists hiding between civilians.

[darius359au]

Blackwater has had a long history of being "Indescriminate" in their fire disipline ,most military forces in Iraq stay clear of Blackwater personell as theyv'e got a reputation of being Cowboys.

[fatty]

Blackwater has had a long history of being "Indescriminate" in their fire disipline ,most military forces in Iraq stay clear of Blackwater personell as theyv'e got a reputation of being Cowboys.

From the videos I've seen of Blackwater in action, that would seem to be accurate. One thing is for sure, these mercenaries have been controversial from day one.

[The Avon Lady]

Blackwater has had a long history of being "Indescriminate" in their fire disipline ,most military forces in Iraq stay clear of Blackwater personell as theyv'e got a reputation of being Cowboys.

From the videos I've seen of Blackwater in action, that would seem to be accurate. One thing is for sure, these mercenaries have been controversial from day one.
I have no idea how common incidents like this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902136_pf.html) have been. If they're sporadic, then this would seem to be an -pardon the term - overkill reaction.

[Fish]

Found this about Blackwater:

#7 Behind Blackwater Inc.
Source: Democracy Now! January 26, 2007
Title: “Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush’s Undeclared Surge”
Author: Jeremy Scahill
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/26/1559232)
Student Researcher: Sverre Tysl
Faculty Evaluator: Noel Byrne, Ph.D.
The company that most embodies the privatization of the military industrial complex—a primary part of the Project for a New American Century and the neoconservative revolution is the private security firm Blackwater. Blackwater is the most powerful mercenary firm in the world, with 20,000 soldiers, the world’s largest private military base, a fleet of twenty aircraft, including helicopter gunships, and a private intelligence division. The firm is also manufacturing its own surveillance blimps and target systems.
Blackwater is headed by a very right-wing Christian-supremist and ex-Navy Seal named Erik Prince, whose family has had deep neo-conservative connections. Bush’s latest call for voluntary civilian military corps to accommodate the “surge” will add to over half a billion dollars in federal contracts with Blackwater, allowing Prince to create a private army to defend Christendom around the world against Muslims and others.
One of the last things Dick Cheney did before leaving office as Defense Secretary under George H. W. Bush was to commission a Halliburton study on how to privatize the military bureaucracy. That study effectively created the groundwork for a continuing war profiteer bonanza.
During the Clinton years, Erik Prince envisioned a project that would take advantage of anticipated military outsourcing. Blackwater began in 1996 as a private military training facility, with an executive board of former Navy Seals and Elite Special Forces, in the Great Dismal Swamp of North Carolina. A decade later it is the most powerful mercenary firm in the world, embodying what the Bush administration views as “the necessary revolution in military affairs”—the outsourcing of armed forces.
In his 2007 State of the Union address Bush asked Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. He continued, “A second task we can take on together is to design and establish a volunteer civilian reserve corps. Such a corps would function much like our military reserve. It would ease the burden on the Armed Forces by allowing us to hire civilians with critical skills to serve on missions abroad when America needs them.”
This is, however, precisely what the administration has already done—largely, Jeremy Scahill points out, behind the backs of the American people. Private contractors currently constitute the second-largest “force” in Iraq. At last count, there were about 100,000 contractorsin Iraq, 48,000 of which work as private soldiers, according to a Government Accountability Office report. These soldiers have operated with almost no oversight or effective legal constraints and are politically expedient, as contractor deaths go uncounted in the official toll. With Prince calling for the creation of a “contractor brigade” before military audiences, the Bush administration has found a back door for engaging in an undeclared expansion of occupation.
Blackwater currently has about 2,300 personnel actively deployed in nine countries and is aggressively expanding its presence inside US borders. They provide the security for US diplomats in Iraq, guarding everyone from Paul Bremer and John Negroponte to the current US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad. They’re training troops in Afghanistan and have been active in the Caspian Sea, where they set up a Special Forces base miles from the Iranian border. According to reports they are currently negotiating directly with the Southern Sudanese regional government to start training the Christian forces of Sudan.
Blackwater’s connections are impressive. Joseph Schmitz, the former Pentagon Inspector General, whose job was to police the war contractor bonanza, has moved on to become the vice chairman of the Prince Group, Blackwater’s parent company, and the general counsel for Blackwater.
Bush recently hired Fred Fielding, Blackwater’s former lawyer, to replace Harriet Miers as his top lawyer; and Ken Starr, the former Whitewater prosecutor who led the impeachment charge against President Clinton, is now Blackwater’s counsel of record and has filed briefs with Supreme Court to fight wrongful death lawsuits brought against Blackwater.
Cofer Black, thirty-year CIA veteran and former head of CIA’s counterterrorism center, credited with spearheading the extraordinary rendition program after 9/11, is now senior executive at Blackwater and perhaps its most powerful operative.
Prince and other Blackwater executives have been major bankrollers of the President, of former House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, and of former Senator, Rick Santorum. Senator John Warner, the former head of the Senate Armed Services Committee, called Blackwater, “our silent partner in the global war on terror.”

[Skybird]

A nation should not leave it's national wars to mercenaries. War is no business that should be left to private enterprises. Becasue such enterprise do not have iunterest in acchieving peace, but in keeping wars alive (else they become short on incomes). Nations claiming sovereignity about controlling there own armed foces were a great acchievement in European history, that of course had to be acchieved against the bitter opposition of private war enterprises, and the unorgnaized, payed warbands that dominated the european battlefields before with uncountered brutality and arbitrariness against civil population (30-years-war being the prime example). Outsourcing of military capacity is no acchievement, but a huge step back in history.

It only makes sense if a nation wishes to wage wars for which it does not want to claim responsibility, saying the state does not interfere with private business. Nevertheless such a practice is questionable, at best.

[Huskalar]

A nation should not leave it's national wars to mercenaries. War is no business that should be left to private enterprises. Becasue such enterprise do not have iunterest in acchieving peace, but in keeping wars alive (else they become short on incomes). Nations claiming sovereignity about controlling there own armed foces were a great acchievement in European history, that of course had to be acchieved against the bitter opposition of private war enterprises, and the unorgnaized, payed warbands that dominated the european battlefields before with uncountered brutality and arbitrariness against civil population (30-years-war being the prime example). Outsourcing of military capacity is no acchievement, but a huge step back in history.

It only makes sense if a nation wishes to wage wars for which it does not want to claim responsibility, saying the state does not interfere with private business. Nevertheless such a practice is questionable, at best.I totally agree with you.

[bradclark1]

I've read a couple of articles where "Rent an Army" is going to become common place.

[Etienne]

Wow, I actually agree wholeheartedly with Skybird. I'll mark the calendar.

And Fish, that article is obviously very biased, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. Or, you know, the whole shaker.

[bradclark1]

A nation should not leave it's national wars to mercenaries. War is no business that should be left to private enterprises. Becasue such enterprise do not have iunterest in acchieving peace, but in keeping wars alive (else they become short on incomes). Nations claiming sovereignity about controlling there own armed foces were a great acchievement in European history, that of course had to be acchieved against the bitter opposition of private war enterprises, and the unorgnaized, payed warbands that dominated the european battlefields before with uncountered brutality and arbitrariness against civil population (30-years-war being the prime example). Outsourcing of military capacity is no acchievement, but a huge step back in history.

It only makes sense if a nation wishes to wage wars for which it does not want to claim responsibility, saying the state does not interfere with private business. Nevertheless such a practice is questionable, at best.
Blackwater is used for security of sites and personnel. They don't take on tactical missions so I wouldn't call it a step back to the middle ages. I'm not defending Blackwater but don't say what they aren't unless you are talking out of scope for the thread title. I'd be willing to bet a virtual hundred dollar bill that Blackwater and that British outfit don't do any 'jobs' without clearance from their respective State Departments so don't look for them to conquer any countries at least in the near future. Those days are over at least as far as government sanctioned groups go. Non sanctioned groups are squeezed and forced out by governments. Today they free up government resources to perform the primary mission and not be part of the primary mission. Rent an army is here and won't be leaving and they will be security focused and not tactical combat focused. Your reasoning is too politically unstable for todays wars.

[The Avon Lady]

Further analysis: The Blackwater affair: Licenses? Who needs licenses? (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/09/18/the-blackwater-affair-licenses-who-needs-licenses/)

Besides discussing the corruption involved in getting such license issued, the article also goes into the recent event which triggered BW's dismissal.

[Skybird]

Blackwater is used for security of sites and personnel. They don't take on tactical missions so I wouldn't call it a step back to the middle ages. I'm not defending Blackwater but don't say what they aren't unless you are talking out of scope for the thread title. I'd be willing to bet a virtual hundred dollar bill that Blackwater and that British outfit don't do any 'jobs' without clearance from their respective State Departments so don't look for them to conquer any countries at least in the near future. Those days are over at least as far as government sanctioned groups go. Non sanctioned groups are squeezed and forced out by governments. Today they free up government resources to perform the primary mission and not be part of the primary mission. Rent an army is here and won't be leaving and they will be security focused and not tactical combat focused. Your reasoning is too politically unstable for todays wars.

I know that merc companies operate not only in Iraq, but in South America, SE Asia as well, and also can be hired bo non-US governments and organizations. I do not know their current focus of action in Iraq, but when they were brought in their cenrtred on patrolling oil fields and oil-related sites and installations. But I know that in Columbia they are very well conducting tactical operations, and are often are supported by regular army or air force when requesting for example transportation capabilities. you said they do not become active without order from state department. That is not true - they are a private business company that become actiove by order of it's customers. and that can be everyone having the money. Also, if hired by the US goivernment, their activities escape congressional control, and are not part of the regular mechanisms of political counter-countral which is part of the system of checks and balances. They do not report to the public/the people. And the secrecy of their operations is protected by American laws that say that the state does not need to take responsebility for actions and consequences of private enterprises.

In other words: such companies are operating in a legal no-man's land, and nobody really holds them responsible for anything. The deep entanglement of merc organizations in drug smuggling in Columbia - where they officially are staying to protect company properties and give support in the war on drugs, but in reality are fighting against those guerillas that are in the way of US biotech companies that wish to secure the ground with the ressouces they mean to harvest in the future, is a result. Locals complain heavily about their presence, and two years ago their have been several allegations of drug-related murder commited by mercs. You may say those figures are single exmaple only, and the company is not to be hold respoinsible for the failing s of their emploey. But that is wrong. The company IS responsible for what it's employees are doing, and are doing in a systematical, routine way. The miserable record of merc operations in Columbia - well rejected in the US, I know - is one of the more prominent reasons for the massive detoriation of US reputation in South America over the the last couple of years. It's just that here in the West not many people take note of this hidden, criminal war in Columbia that so misleading is called war on drugs, where in reality it is a war against resiotance about raising Us cpomany presence in areas of economical interest - drugs have little to do with it, and Americans seem to be satisfied anyway as long as it is labelleld "war on drugs" nevertheless - and then all is good.

You see merc companies, their legal status, and the freedom of action, and their support by the regular army, too rosy and too harmless.

[Fish]

Wow, I actually agree wholeheartedly with Skybird. I'll mark the calendar.

And Fish, that article is obviously very biased, so you might want to take it with a grain of salt. Or, you know, the whole shaker.

This one is from The New York Times:


BAGHDAD, Sept. 18 — A preliminary Iraqi report on a shooting involving an American diplomatic motorcade said Tuesday that Blackwater security guards were not ambushed, as the company reported, but instead fired at a car when it did not heed a policeman’s call to stop, killing a couple and their infant.

More:
http://www.nytimes.com:80/2007/09/19/world/middleeast/19blackwater.html?th&emc=th

[The Avon Lady]

Suddenly, Blackwater is becoming a more and more appropriate name.

[Skybird]

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,506554,00.html

[bradclark1]

you said they do not become active without order from state department. That is not true - they are
a private business company that become actiove by order of it's customers. and that can be everyone having
the money.
No, what I said was 'without clearence', without a nod.
That is not true - they are a private business company that become actiove by order of it's
customers. and that can be everyone having the money.
You are talking about individuals here, not mercenary unit's.
The miserable record of merc operations in Columbia - well rejected in the US, I know
Not at all. It's no secret that the CIA hires ex-special forces and pilots to work in South America against rebel's and drug lords. I'd call that sanctioned. There was even two stories last year on it. One was on the dangers of the job ( a wife complained because her husband was killed), and another was when a plane went down and the pilot and operaters were gone when rescue got to them. presumably by the bad guys, never to be seen again.
Locals complain heavily about their presence, and two years ago their have been several allegations
of drug-related murder commited by mercs.
Haven't heard a thing.
You see merc companies, their legal status, and the freedom of action, and their support by the regular army, too rosy and too harmless.
I think you like to see bogeymen. I'll stick with what I have said. Being a 'freelance merc' just isn't an healthy occupation anymore. Mostly todays mercs are bodyguards, security and trainers.

In 2003, France criminalized mercenary activities.
In 1998 South Africa passed the "Foreign Military Assistance Act" that banned citizens and residents from any involvement in foreign wars.
In Italy, it is illegal to recruit Italians on Italian soil for fighting in behalf of a foreign government
without the approval of the Italian government.

Merc companies:
Executive Outcomes - Angola, Sierra Leone, and other locations worldwide (closed 31 December 1998)
Sandline International - Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone (closed 16 April 2004)
Gurkha Security Guards, Ltd - Sierra Leone.
DynCorp International - Bosnia, Somalia, Angola, Haiti, Colombia, Kosovo, Kuwait, Afghanistan (active)
Defensecurity [1] - Iraq, Afġānistān, Kuwait, Colobia, Kossovo, East Timor (active)

In February 2002, a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) report about PMCs noted that the military service demands of the UN and international civil organizations might mean that it is cheaper to pay PMCs than use soldiers. Yet, then, after considering using PMCs to support UN operations, the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, decided against it.

Probably the last attempted 'merc' job of our time.
Simon Mann, the British leader of a group of 67 alleged mercenaries accused of plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea has been sentenced to seven years in jail... The other passengers got 12 months in jail for breaking immigration laws while the two pilots got 16 months...The court also ordered the seizure of Mann's $3m Boeing 727 and $180,000 found on board.
On 2 May 2007 a Zimbabwe court ruled that Mann should be extradited to Equatorial Guinea to face charges. One of Mann's co-conspirators has already died at Black Beach prison.
A couple of good links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#Mercenaries_and_municipal_.28domestic.29 _law
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4140/is_200604/ai_n17172984/pg_18

[Skybird]

That is not true - they are a private business company that become actiove by order of it's
customers. and that can be everyone having the money.
You are talking about individuals here, not mercenary unit's.
No I don't.

The miserable record of merc operations in Columbia - well rejected in the US, I know
Not at all. It's no secret that the CIA hires ex-special forces and pilots to work in South America against rebel's and drug lords. I'd call that sanctioned. There was even two stories last year on it. One was on the dangers of the job ( a wife complained because her husband was killed), and another was when a plane went down and the pilot and operaters were gone when rescue got to them. presumably by the bad guys, never to be seen again.
No, I referred to the unpleasant truth behgind the operations, their real intetion, that is widely rejected in the US public awareness. see next below.

Locals complain heavily about their presence, and two years ago their have been several allegations
of drug-related murder commited by mercs.
Haven't heard a thing.
See above concering "rejected". While you may not find it in american press, two and three years ago it made it into major news reporting and lead essays in Germany and Austria. Even radio broadcasters put major efforts into analysing the situation in hours-long features. I must have two such lengthy recordings soimewhere. If you can understand german, I'll find them and copy and send them to you. they are quite revealing, and backed by solid sources at location. It'S about widespread organized murder, drug trafficing and merc units waging offensive guerilla war against local rebels that resist American companies claiming ground property in areas that are of interst for the big business of the future: ressources for biotech companies researching in chemistry, and pharmaceutics in the main, but other areas of economic interest as well.

I say again, you see the true face behind the public mask of the international merc business too tame, believing the claims that are made about nthem by officials in public. "Never trust a public spokesman!" If they are banned here and there, is of little importance. Note that some articles linked in this thread specifically point at that merc companies specifically work outside legal countercontrol, and without licenses, and do not care if they are legalized in their action by the government in place. A widespread problem, obviously. such companies are priovate armies that can be rent by everybody, and that do operate outside recognition and countercontrol by public representatioves and the american congress. that's why they are loved so much: because they cannot be questioned and controlled by Congress.

In 2003, France criminalized mercenary activities.
Absurd. One could argue that the "legion etranger" is nothing else but a mercenary unit.

[bradclark1]

Absurd. One could argue that the "legion etranger" is nothing else but a mercenary unit.
That one statement shows you didn't even look at the links I provided because there is a specific paragraph in the wiki merc link that deals with them. If you won't even bother why bother to argue?

[Skybird]

Rest assured I think i remember the passage you mean. It was also about the Ghurkas, right? I have read it. It's just that I do not agree. a mercenary is somebody who allows himself getting hired for money for war or war-like jobs outside his own national army and that nation's governmental soverignity. The legion is closer to the mercenary armies that were hired by italian city states in the past, than to regular French units. The legion is a unit of foreigners, mercs, that are hired by France and thus - are under French command. In contemporary language, they often are referred to as "mercenaries", too. If the legion is a private enterprise whose services are hired by france, or is directly run by france, does not change the fact that the employees are mercenaries.

the exception is if you fight in a foreign army - but for your original country. An example are the Polish pilots and soldiers fighting with the Brits under British command against the Nazis - to free Poland.

[bradclark1]

I have read it. It's just that I do not agree. a mercenary is somebody who allows himself getting hired for money for war or war-like jobs outside his own national army and that nation's governmental soverignity.
The law says different.

French Foreign Legionnaires deploys and fights as an organized unit of the French Army. This means that as members of the armed forces of France these soldiers are not mercenary soldiers per APGC77 Art 47.e and APGC77 Art 47.f. of the Rules of War. Because you disagree with that law does not make it null and void.

On Columbia the only reference I have found is this in Pravda dated 2001:
The AUC (United Self-Defence of Columbia), which have mercenaries from the United States of America in their ranks, have been responsible for horrendous killings and torture of civilians in recent years.
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/11/22/21621.html

This does not say American mercenary units as you stated. It's saying they have Americans in their ranks so it's not a U.S. government plot. Although the AUC is not known for targeting Americans, it has been explicitly linked to narco-trafficking, which deeply affects the United States. The AUC was designated a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on Sept. 10, 2001.
As far as American sponsored merc units working for pharmaceutical companies I have not been able to find anything. If you can find anything I'm willing to look.

[Skybird]

I have read it. It's just that I do not agree. a mercenary is somebody who allows himself getting hired for money for war or war-like jobs outside his own national army and that nation's governmental soverignity.
The law says different.
Laws... If everything would be like accoridng the laws rules, and the officials are telling us, then we would not need any police,a nd no politician would ever lie. someone once said "laws are the whores of those in charge". I gave my reference, and that was to widepsread contemproary understanding of what mercaneries are, and what motvates them, and I referred to the exmasple of european history of the ages before national states formed national regular armies.

but let's not split hairs over... laws. By law, what they are doing in Columbia is highly illegal - suggestions, anyone?


Because you disagree with that law does not make it null and void.
See above. Foreigners serving for financial fee in units of other nations or in prvate enterorises, are mercenaiers. No matter if the ylike to be called like that, or the French laws says this or that on it. From wikipedia:

Mercenary
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A 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] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#_note-0)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#_note-1)
As a result of the assumption that a mercenary is exclusively motivated by money, the term "mercenary" carries negative connotations. There is a blur in the distinction between a "mercenary" and a "foreign volunteer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_volunteer)", when the primary motive of a soldier in a foreign army is uncertain. For instance the French Foreign Legion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Foreign_Legion) and the Gurkhas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkhas) are not mercenaries under the laws of war (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war), but some journalists do describe them as mercenaries.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#_note-2)[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercenary#_note-3)."

You tend to agree with the French law, I tend to agree with the mentioned journalists. I confidently claim that the vast majority of the public would agree with the latter, too. I remember books on the changes of warfare over the past centuries that also support my understanding of what a mercenary is, for example by Münkler, Kennedy, Kolko and van Creveld.


On Columbia the only reference I have found is this in Pravda dated 2001:
The AUC (United Self-Defence of Columbia), which have mercenaries from the United States of America in their ranks, have been responsible for horrendous killings and torture of civilians in recent years.
http://english.pravda.ru/usa/2001/11/22/21621.html

This does not say American mercenary units as you stated. It's saying they have Americans in their ranks so it's not a U.S. government plot.

Although the AUC is not known for targeting Americans, it has been explicitly linked to narco-trafficking, which deeply affects the United States. The AUC was designated a terrorist group by the U.S. State Department on Sept. 10, 2001.
As far as American sponsored merc units working for pharmaceutical companies I have not been able to find anything. If you can find anything I'm willing to look.
You completely missed the point. I talked abiut the abuse of the label "war on drugs" itself, and hinted at a very different agenda behind that whole operation, which is carried out by those armed units that are not officially linked to the US government - like mercenaries are, since they do not belong to the American branches of the anti drug authorities and armed forces. It is done this way so that the government cannot be held officially responsible for it, and the executing units are not made subject to legal and political countercontrol, and thus all the fun is hidden from public awareness. And you are wondering that your governments and authorities do not admit it in public!?

I strongly recommend this book. I admit I read it in parts only, and a leased copy, but what I read already was good enough.
Peter Singer: "Corporate Warriors. The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry"
http://www.amazon.com/Corporate-Warriors-Privatized-Military-Industry/dp/0801489156/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0384474-3408663?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190322447&sr=8-1

The most important merc company active in Columbia is DynCorps, btw. Read this carefully:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?list=type&type=18

more aspects:
http://ciponline.org/colombia/0302ipr.htm

And this for I assume you will hate the site :D
http://eatthestate.org/05-23/PlanColumbiaAndean.htm

there is so much more if you google with "columbia mercenary drug"

[bradclark1]

You completely missed the point. I talked about the abuse of the label "war on drugs" itself, and hinted at a very different agenda behind that whole operation, which is carried out by those armed units that are not officially linked to the US government - like mercenaries are, since they do not belong to the American branches of the anti drug authorities and armed forces. It is done this way so that the government cannot be held officially responsible for it, and the executing units are not made subject to legal and political countercontrol, and thus all the fun is hidden from public awareness. And you are wondering that your governments and authorities do not admit it in public!?
I haven't missed anything. Nothing you provided shows any kind of proof. Basically you are just throwing around conspiracy theories. Show me anything on the world wide web that is a credible source. If what you are saying is true it will be there. The U.S. can't control what's on the web.

The most important merc company active in Columbia is DynCorps, btw. Read this carefully:
http://ciponline.org/colombia/0302ipr.htm
Not news, they are listed in the wiki site. They are used for spraying pesticides and training.
What's more, Kathryn Bolkovac, a U.N. International Police Force monitor filed a lawsuit in Britain in 2001 against DynCorp for firing her after she reported that Dyncorp police trainers in Bosnia were paying for prostitutes and participating in sex trafficking. Many of the Dyncorp employees were forced to resign under suspicion of illegal activity. But none were prosecuted, since they enjoy immunity from prosecution in Bosnia.
They don't say what happened in the lawsuit. "Suspicion of illegal activity" isn't guilty of illegal activity.
Earlier that year Ben Johnston, a DynCorp aircraft mechanic for Apache and Blackhawk helicopters in Kosovo, filed a lawsuit against his employer.
Again they don't say the outcome of the lawsuit which leads me to believe it was found groundless.
If any of these lawsuits were found for the plaintiff I would believe it. None of them do.

http://ciponline.org/colombia/0302ipr.htm
This site is just a fact sheet. It doesn't say anything.
And this for I assume you will hate the site
http://eatthestate.org/05-23/PlanColumbiaAndean.htm
On the header: A FORUM FOR ANTI-AUTHORITARIAN POLITICAL OPINION, RESEARCH AND HUMOR
This site is heavy on political opinion and light in research. They don't back up anything they say.
What is there to hate? What is is. If one is wrong in something then one has learned something in being corrected. You haven't taught me anything but that you are willing to believe any rumor that is anti-US in the region.

Drugs, being a ready source of clandestine money, are in fact a source of income less for FARC and other rebel groups than for the right-wing paramilitaries currently terrorizing Colombia with military (and suspected US) support. In the DEA's own testimony before Congress, "Since the 1970s, drug traffickers based in Colombia have made temporary alliances of convenience with leftist guerrillas, or with right-wing groups."
So the U.S. is spending 750 million dollars for anti drug work but they are suspected of supporting right wing groups who are supporting drug trafficking. Does that sound a little stupid to you? It does to me.

"The U.S. has a hidden agenda in the war on drugs," says Linda Panetta of School of the Americas Watch, after a visit to Colombia."It is getting and keeping control of Colombia's resources: gold, silver, copper. Colombia may have the largest oil reserve in the Americas. The US wants to control it."

I wouldn't call this proof. It's just her opinion.
At least six US military-specialty companies have set up operations in the region, according to US military sources. Two Virginia-based companies, DynCorp Inc. and Military Professional Resources Inc., or MPRI, are completing contracts related to logistical support and training of Colombian police and counterinsurgency forces, under contract.
Nothing you have provided shows that there are U.S. merc units running rampant.

This is my opinion in regards to my research. Companies/Corporations have funneled millions of dollars into the country for there business's. They have hired mercs/security consultants, whatever you want to call them to provide security for there business's. Case in point Shell(?) has the oil contract with Columbia. The pipeline has been dynamited 166 times. Shell employs mercs/security consultants to guard that line. Wouldn't you?

[bookworm_020]

Suddenly, Blackwater is becoming a more and more appropriate name.

Backwater is the name they need for their next posting!

You have to wonder about the conflict of intrest, with policians, directors and lawyers moveing from one side to another.:hmm:

[Skybird]

Okay Brad, I understood - useless effort here. You believe something (not more it is by your sources), and I believe different.

[nikimcbee]

I wonder how many of the so called civi's that were shot dead that are not really civi's?

-S

You are right! I have a friend who fought in Iraq, he said they use "the street demostrations" to move troops into the combat areas.:damn:

[Tchocky]

Patrols are resuming

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2174353,00.html