US use of "soldiers of fortune"

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-10-2008, 05:33

Originally Posted by Redleg

Then I misread the statement, to mean that you thought more regulation was needed.

Soldiers indeed have been charged with unlawful killings in Iraq. Now I dont know if the military went as far as charging them with murder, but charges indeed have been filed and individuals convicted in a Courts Martial.

From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen?

**Redleg** · 10-10-2008, 05:49

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

From what I read it sounds like we agree perfectly on this issue. Did you ever think it would happen?

Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.

**Kadagar_AV** · 10-10-2008, 05:54

There, edited OP, "murdered" is now "slaughtered" to avoid derailing.

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-10-2008, 05:54

Originally Posted by Redleg

Probably because you incorrectly assumed I was a republican - I am a strict constitutionist, which would indicate that mercs are not to be detested out of principle. That and I detest them for the cowboys that they are.

I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)

**KarlXII** · 10-10-2008, 06:02

And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.

And to Phantom Fury, this was an attack on a known insurgent stronghold. Houses, Mosques etc. were in fact holding insurgents and weapons. The collateral damage was unavoidable in this case.

**spmetla** · 10-10-2008, 06:12

Well I guess the most I can do is accept the differing opinions on mercs. I support their use but not their legal immunity.

I'll try and reserve anymore tangents on the UN and such for other threads.

And I hate to defend Blackwater, but those Mercs were killed delivering food from a catering company, if I recall.

I believe they were unarmed at the time as well.

Also, changing murder to slaughter only pisses me off more so I think I'll make like Panzerjaeger and leave the discussion.

**Redleg** · 10-10-2008, 06:10

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

I had no idea what your party was, all I knew was that I would never vote for it. ;)

Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.

It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-10-2008, 06:19

Accidental Double Mint Power.

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-10-2008, 06:18

Originally Posted by Redleg

Good thing there is no party for me then.. But why would you have a problem with anyone that supported the document that is the foundation of the nation. For instance try reading the document concerning the legislative powers.

It applies in part to the discussion we are having here.

Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.

**Redleg** · 10-10-2008, 06:26

Originally Posted by Koga No Goshi

Because, as I have stated in other discussions, aside from a very tiny miniscule minority of the population who are dedicated Constitutional scholars and share a pure constitution viewpoint, it is generally only employed as a justification for surgical application to befit specific agendas or ideologies. A very general example would be how Republicans whined about states rights for years, and then when getting the White House and a majority of Congress, suddenly believed in Federal power.

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893 (5 USC 3108) forbade the US Government from using Pinkerton National Detective Agency employees, or similar private police companies. In 1977, the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted this statute as forbidding the US Government's employing companies offering mercenary, quasi-military forces for hire. United States ex rel. Weinberger v. Equifax, 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978).

Dont confuse Republicans for constitutionists, since neither party truely follows that path any longer

**Koga No Goshi** · 10-10-2008, 06:34

Originally Posted by Redleg

That is not constitutionist that is politics for power. As before the strict constitutionalist would be agaisnt mercs for the simple reason that its a volation of a probably instituted US Law.

I'm against mercs for ethical, moral and legal reasons. And because I believe their use is counterproductive both to our armed forces and to our goal in Iraq. I'm not a strict Constitutionalist because strict Constitutionalism allowed a lot of nasty stuff like slavery and I'm not going to sell my soul to following the Constitution even if I believe that following the letter of the framework it outlines means doing unethical things.

But, we can always not hammer a dead horse and just say "we are against mercs for different reasons but we're both against mercs." I'm sorry if that is an irritant to you. ;)