Tweet
PMC stands for private military company. Basically many of them are contracted to all kinds of conflicts, and their legal status is pretty much unknown. However, the best of them come from the western parts of the world.
You know, executive outcome and the likes. People can believe that they are all about support and other types of services but they really are private armies. Of course, their deployment is an ethical issue but not a clear one. I can't argue one way or another and be consistent. They can be used for good, they can be used for bad. They can be useful, but they can be a pain in the ass.
I just remembered the latest debates about the geneva convention and the wild interpretations of them when it came to the torture bill. One of the most weird ones for myself personally was that illegal combatant is someone not wearing a uniform. I argued against this very strongly. In my opinion this can't be the ONLY thing, it can be a sign, it can be something that you consider when taking out these combatants and maybe putting them on trial, however it can not be the only evidence you have.
And this is a perfect example, we have all these westerners out there, contracted by governments and armies or one of them, and these people don't wear uniforms. Why? Because they aren't officially part of the army. But they do carry guns.
I'm not talking about truck drivers here, I'm talking about military personnel that has been contracted there via PMCs. We used a word mercenary for these types before, except there's little difference, they are not individuals hired but workers hired from company that got the contract.
But in this case, it does not make a difference since they do not wear uniform and they do carry weapons. Often times those weapons are stolen, smuggled in to the country and whatnot, since the army can't provide them with weapons legally. They choose to ignore how they go their weaponry which is fine because it really is not their concern. However, you have a situation where they are officially paid, not wearing uniforms, definitely not belonging to any active official armies, theres thousands of them, and they are all 'on our side', but we choose to think they are legal, or at least semi-illegal.
Even if we decide they are illegal, we still choose not to categorize them as illegal combatants under the geneva convention.
Most often these people are experts, professional soldiers looking for higher pay and some action. But they do not wear official uniforms. Maybe they have some of their own, but that's not official.
So are these folks illegal combatants by that standard, I don't think so because I don't believe that it is enough for one not to wear uniform to be categorized as such unless other circumstances lets us believe so. And many of them might be illegal regardless, because the status is unknown.
You know, executive outcome and the likes. People can believe that they are all about support and other types of services but they really are private armies. Of course, their deployment is an ethical issue but not a clear one. I can't argue one way or another and be consistent. They can be used for good, they can be used for bad. They can be useful, but they can be a pain in the ass.
I just remembered the latest debates about the geneva convention and the wild interpretations of them when it came to the torture bill. One of the most weird ones for myself personally was that illegal combatant is someone not wearing a uniform. I argued against this very strongly. In my opinion this can't be the ONLY thing, it can be a sign, it can be something that you consider when taking out these combatants and maybe putting them on trial, however it can not be the only evidence you have.
And this is a perfect example, we have all these westerners out there, contracted by governments and armies or one of them, and these people don't wear uniforms. Why? Because they aren't officially part of the army. But they do carry guns.
I'm not talking about truck drivers here, I'm talking about military personnel that has been contracted there via PMCs. We used a word mercenary for these types before, except there's little difference, they are not individuals hired but workers hired from company that got the contract.
But in this case, it does not make a difference since they do not wear uniform and they do carry weapons. Often times those weapons are stolen, smuggled in to the country and whatnot, since the army can't provide them with weapons legally. They choose to ignore how they go their weaponry which is fine because it really is not their concern. However, you have a situation where they are officially paid, not wearing uniforms, definitely not belonging to any active official armies, theres thousands of them, and they are all 'on our side', but we choose to think they are legal, or at least semi-illegal.
Even if we decide they are illegal, we still choose not to categorize them as illegal combatants under the geneva convention.
Most often these people are experts, professional soldiers looking for higher pay and some action. But they do not wear official uniforms. Maybe they have some of their own, but that's not official.
So are these folks illegal combatants by that standard, I don't think so because I don't believe that it is enough for one not to wear uniform to be categorized as such unless other circumstances lets us believe so. And many of them might be illegal regardless, because the status is unknown.
Comment