|
|
Post by bdfinally on Nov 24, 2009 0:01:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by john on Nov 24, 2009 0:27:52 GMT -5
JSOC has being doing this crap for YEARS. It's the way they get around being held accountable by the laws governing rules of engagement and around edicts banning assassinations.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 24, 2009 1:16:17 GMT -5
I haven't read the full story, but there are some things in that graf that don't smell right. For starters, given Blackwater's epic record of fucking up sensitive missions it is hard to imagine them having any serious role in a JSOC operation inside Pakistan. Especially because there is a massive amount of resentment between active duty Special Ops (including commanders) and the contractors who make five times as much.
The rule on assassination only applies to heads of state, and how assassination is defined has been widely interpreted by presidents when necessary. (See Reagan bombing Khadaffi's tents in the early 80's. That wasn't assassination?) Al Qaeda and the Taliban have no status as heads of a state, so there is no problem with the president issuing an order authorizing uniformed military to kill them.
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 24, 2009 11:57:08 GMT -5
Especially because there is a massive amount of resentment between active duty Special Ops (including commanders) and the contractors who make five times as much. Resentment between former SF personnel (Xe) and current SF personnel?! Ehh... perhaps more likely (and logically) the later appreciate the opportunity to network with the former vis a vis their post service employment plans...  |
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 24, 2009 12:07:58 GMT -5
I too think the story waits to be illuminated. It just doesn't seem right.
I have no problem with the actions, BTW. I think that's how this is done. But I have trouble imagining Blackwater doing it.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeromeoneil on Nov 24, 2009 12:22:00 GMT -5
I haven't read the full story, but there are some things in that graf that don't smell right. For starters, given Blackwater's epic record of fucking up sensitive missions it is hard to imagine them having any serious role in a JSOC operation inside Pakistan. Especially because there is a massive amount of resentment between active duty Special Ops (including commanders) and the contractors who make five times as much. The rule on assassination only applies to heads of state, and how assassination is defined has been widely interpreted by presidents when necessary. (See Reagan bombing Khadaffi's tents in the early 80's. That wasn't assassination?) Al Qaeda and the Taliban have no status as heads of a state, so there is no problem with the president issuing an order authorizing uniformed military to kill them. Yup. Something there has a distinct smell of bullshit. They wouldn't need Blackwater for that kind of operation. That's something they could do themselves, and frankly, would be better off doing themselves. |
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 24, 2009 12:39:14 GMT -5
They wouldn't need Blackwater for that kind of operation. That's something they could do themselves, and frankly, would be better off doing themselves. Funny, that report sounds like "business per usual" to me. I cannot see any advantages over using military personnel (and thus accord "official" into their defacto military actions within a sovereign nation whom we "officially" consider an ally)--rather it makes much more sense, from a "deniability, ass-covering POV, to use private contractors--then, when/if shit hits the fan... the gov't can always cry "rogue private operatives..." rather than be stuck tapdancing around what would be ipso facto an official operation conducted by US forces. |
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 24, 2009 13:00:48 GMT -5
Interesting how y'all's PsOV influence your take on the article.
Being a subscriber to The Nation myself, I'd have to say that they can be easily persuaded to buy into right wing conspiracy stuff. Some of the stuff they do winds up being right on and some of it is just, well, a stretch.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimschmidt on Nov 24, 2009 14:25:01 GMT -5
I subscribed for a couple of years. It was mostly unreadable.
|
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 24, 2009 14:26:53 GMT -5
I subscribed for a couple of years. It was mostly unreadable. I agree. |
|
bigbadboom
Full Member
Pay attention to me!!!
Posts: 151
|
Post by bigbadboom on Nov 24, 2009 15:16:24 GMT -5
I subscribed for a couple of years. It was mostly unreadable. I agree. Whew, I thought I was the only one. |
|
|
|
Post by flylooper on Nov 24, 2009 16:52:22 GMT -5
By and large, it's a pretty good book. But it has a POV, for sure. I think the quality of the writing is pretty good, but the look of the magazine makes it very difficult to read, AFAIC.
|
|
|
|
Post by baldheadeddork on Nov 24, 2009 19:17:55 GMT -5
Funny, that report sounds like "business per usual" to me. I cannot see any advantages over using military personnel (and thus accord "official" into their defacto military actions within a sovereign nation whom we "officially" consider an ally)--rather it makes much more sense, from a "deniability, ass-covering POV, to use private contractors--then, when/if shit hits the fan... the gov't can always cry "rogue private operatives..." rather than be stuck tapdancing around what would be ipso facto an official operation conducted by US forces. If they need that, they'd use CIA personnel with non-official cover (NOC) covert status. |
|
|
|
Post by bdfinally on Nov 24, 2009 19:58:52 GMT -5
I'm sorry but, is there an American firm that makes us look worst in the Arab world?
|
|
|
|
Post by kitkat on Nov 24, 2009 20:28:50 GMT -5
If they need that, they'd use CIA personnel with non-official cover (NOC) covert status. Where's the privatization (corp profit) in that? Geez, keep up guy...we're all about war profiteering and outsourcing, nowadays--the CIA is so "ollie north"... ;D |
|
