vaporeyes said:
I am an American Citizen

I moved recently from LA to New Zealand.

I love how my hard earned tax dollars don't fund the shelling of civilians with White Phosphorus, or the infringement of my Constitutional Rights to Freedom.

Now if all my friends and family could migrate too life would be perfect.

Sometimes its hard and lonely to follow a self imposed quest of moral protest.

LA Raza means The Race

La Raza (Andalusian Spanish IPA: [la %u02C8rasa]; Castilian Spanish IPA: [la %u02C8ra%u03B8a]) is a Mexican Spanish phrase which literally translated as "The Race" however a more accurate translation would be "the people" or "the community". It is used to denote the people of Latin America and the Hispanic world, who share the cultural and political legacies of Spanish colonialism, including the Spanish language and culture. The term La Raza is mostly used by patriotic Mexicans and Mexican Americans. The term may also refer to a racial significance associated with mestizo (mixed race).
The term originated in the book La Raza Cósmica written by a Mexican writer, José Vasconcelos. He described La Raza Cosmica as the product of racial mixing over time that was already in progress in the Hispanic world. Vasconcelos believed that eventually all of the people within the Spanish Empire would completely become mixed into a new race that had the best attributes of all the cultures; armies of these people would then go forth around the world professing their knowledge and initiating the "universal era of humanity".

It so easy to play that race card Zarth.

vaporeyes said:
Um news flash Zarth!

I am an American Citizen . . .

vaporeyes said:
. . . and you can fuck off trying to attack me as a racist.

vaporeyes said:
LA Raza means The Race, so for pointing out The Azatlan Reconquista Movement that makes me racist?

vaporeyes said:
Those aren't my views.

vaporeyes said:
But they exist ask anyone living in the Southwest that speaks rudimentary Spanish.

vaporeyes said:
You are an ignorant fuck!

vaporeyes said:
You can attack me but can't take the time to address an issue.

vaporeyes said:
Its History, its documented.

vaporeyes said:
I am a human and equal to all others.

vaporeyes said:
It so easy to play that race card Zarth.

scylis said:
the title sounds like a Dethklok song.

and the middle east seems to be once again taking on an aspect much akin to what it did back during the Crusades. except, instead of traveling there to amass a fortune and gain land of your own, it's to have the chance to be a complete dick and act like a fucked up action movie hero, only without the "being a hero part." and shoot people in the face.

Colinism said:

And now your post sounds like a Dethklok song.

vaporeyes said:
Um news flash Zarth!

I am an American Citizen, and Disabled Veteran and you can fuck off trying to attack me as a racist.

LA Raza means The Race, so for pointing out The Azatlan Reconquista Movement that makes me racist?

Those aren't my views.

But they exist ask anyone living in the Southwest that speaks rudimentary Spanish.

You are an ignorant fuck!

You can attack me but can't take the time to address an issue.

Its History, its documented.

I am a human and equal to all others.

It so easy to play that race card Zarth.

FearTheReaper said:

I'm going to go ahead and call your statement defending mercenaries as complete and utter bullshit, then.

Go stand up for pedaphiles, while you're at it. If you think that is my way of going after a group of people, you clearly have not been paying attention to my writing. I don't like the mercenaries our government employs. I think they are inherently fucked up individuals who should receive nothing but scorn. To fight simply for money is an example of how to be human trash. They can go fuck themselves eternally. If they really wanted to fight for patriotism, they would sign up for the armed forces and stand alongside those who actually do. What they are doing, is taking advantage of a reckless government and a chaotic, deadly situation to increase their bank accounts. They are parasites.

So, if you believe I attacked these parasites, you are sadly mistaken. But, I do get most of my ideas from people's posts and you can be sure in the future I will shine a bright light on your friends who kill for money.

Zarth said:
and drawing an analogy of Latinos to "barbarians" is as absurd as it is offensive.

When I see Latinos talking realistically about dismembering the United States (the way, for instance, Ron Paul would), I'll start treating talk like that more seriously.

PsylentNemo said:

DhD_No_Pants said:

First off, I, also want to thank you for your service. I'm a military wife, and probably one of the staunchest troop supporters around.

The largest problem that I see with private security firms like Blackwater is that they aren't held to the same rules as our military, but are often put into situations where they have to act like troops.

You have to question what their rules of engagement are, and whether or not they are properly trained when it comes down to firefights. They can't come under court martial, nor be tried by the Iraqi government when they cause civilian casualties. That may foster a lot of resentment in people when they realize that they don't have to truly account for their actions in any way.

PsylentNemo said:

I see what you are saying, however I would like to let you know that they are very well trained. They way my buddy Devin put it, it sounds like they are required to do more EOF/ROE (escalation of force/rules of engagement) training than we had when we were in the Marines. And they don't just accept anybody to carry a gun. They are very aware of the consequences of doing so, and heavily recruit out of Army SF, SEALs, and the Marines. The guys that REALLY know how to handle themselves, not just with a gun or a fist, but with words and actions as well.

Furthermore, no body is above reproach from the international courts, and as far as I know, they are still subject to all articles of the geneva convention. Unfortunately neither Devin or Nate are answering their phones right now, and I don't want to call Jeff and risk waking his kid up. All the rest of the guys I know are in theater right now. I will look into this further, if you all would like, and report back if you so desire.

Should any Iraqis ever seek redress for the deaths of the civilians in a criminal court, they will be out of luck. Because of an order promulgated by the Coalition Provisional Authority, the now-defunct American occupation government, there appears to be almost no chance that the contractors involved would be, or could be, successfully prosecuted in any court in Iraq. CPA Order 17 says private contractors working for the U.S. or coalition governments in Iraq are not subject to Iraqi law. Should any attempt be made to prosecute Blackwater in the United States, meanwhile, it's not clear what law, if any, applies.

"Blackwater and all these other contractors are beyond the reach of the justice process in Iraq. They can not be held to account," says Scott Horton, who chairs the International Law Committee at the New York City Bar Association. "There is nothing [the Iraqi government] can do that gives them the right to punish someone for misbehaving or doing anything else."

L. Paul Bremer, then the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the initial occupation government of Iraq, issued CPA Order 17 in June 2004, the day before the CPA ceased to exist. "Contractors," it says, "shall not be subject to Iraqi laws or regulations in matters relating to the terms and conditions of their Contracts."

The Iraqi government has contested the continued application of this order, but because of restraints that inhibit the Iraqi government from changing or revoking CPA orders, Order 17 technically still has legal force in Iraq. Furthermore, as Peter W. Singer, an expert on private security contractors who is a senior fellow at the center-left Brookings Institute, points out, in order for the Iraqi government to prosecute those contractors, the U.S. government would have to accede to it. And that, Singer says, poses a whole new set of thorny questions.

"The question for the U.S. is whether it will hand over its citizens or contractors to an Iraqi court, particularly an Iraqi court that's going to try and make a political point out of this," Singer says. If the United States is not willing to do so because of concerns that the trial will be politically motivated, he adds, there's a new question at hand. "If we really say that openly, doesn't that defeat everything we heard in the Kabuki play last week with [General David] Petraeus and [U.S. Ambassador Ryan] Crocker, that everything was going great? What happens if we say, 'No, we don't think you can deal with this fairly in your justice system?'"
Choose your degree...


That leaves international and U.S. law. But international law is probably out. Even before the Bush administration, the United States had established a precedent of rejecting the jurisdiction of international courts. The United States is not, for example, a member of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. (In 2005, the government of Iraq announced its decision to join the court; it reversed that decision two weeks later.)

U.S. law, meanwhile, is hopelessly murky. More so than in any of America's previous conflicts, contractors are an integral part of the U.S. effort in Iraq, providing logistical support and performing essential functions that were once the province of the official military. There are currently at least 180,000 in Iraq, more than the total number of U.S. troops. But the introduction of private contractors into Iraq was not accompanied by a definitive legal construct specifying potential consequences for alleged criminal acts. Various members of Congress are now attempting to clarify the laws that might apply to contractors. In the meantime, experts who spoke with Salon say there's little clarity on what law applies to contractors like the ones involved in Sunday's incident, and the Bush administration has shown little desire to take action against contractor malfeasance.

artpie said:

But you chose to leave & not be involved in the process.

from your page..

Look man, we actually have some common ground here. But you kinda lose the right to pull the USA card once you decide to bail out.

Actually... it's a bit less simplistic.

At worst, that is no more ethnically biased than the decidedly paranoid & "manifest destiny" oriented sight you linked to.

Umm... you broke the deck out brotha.

Look man, we actually have some common ground here. But you kinda lose the right to pull the USA card once you decide to bail out.

Zarth said:

Yeah, I thought you were a foreign idiot at first, but I checked your profile and it turns out you're actually just another homegrown national embarrassment.

You're the guy who sourced your claims from a white supremacist website. I just pointed that out.

You showed a YouTube photomontage created by who knows who and linked to an article on a white supremacist website.

I don't know what you think you were doing, but that's what you actually did.

You take your news from a white supremacist website, but they're not your views.

Yeah, sure, whatever.

Yes, I know white supremacist websites exists. I don't need to ask anyone who speaks rudimentary Spanish.

Did your white supremacist website tell you that, too?

You call that a personal attack? Me pointing out that your article from a white supremacist website didn't count as proof?

Your white supremacist website is History, now?

You're a human, yes. You have equal rights. But you're not equal.

You make it especially easy when you link to articles from white supremacist websites, you know.

In fact, at that point, it's actually you playing the race card. I just observed it.

vaporeyes said:
Seems the kettle calls the pot black if you ask me.

Under this definition, it appears that contractor personnel who are not U.S.
nationals, the nationals of other coalition allies or Iraqi nationals, and who were hired
to %u2014 and in fact do %u2014 take part in hostilities might be considered to be mercenaries,
assuming the definition in Protocol I applies as customary international law in the
context of the current hostilities in Iraq. On the other hand, it is not altogether clear
what constitutes "direct participation in an armed conflict," and some of the other
requirements are inherently difficult to prove, particularly the element of
motivation.64

CPA Order Number 3, as revised on December 31, 2003,67 governs the use of
weapons. It restricts the authority to carry weapons to members of Iraqi security
forces and Coalition forces, and "groups and individuals who have been authorized
to carry weapons in the course of their duties by the CPA or Commander, Coalition
Forces or their duly authorized delegates," (section 3). It further provides that
"private security firms may be licensed by the Ministry of the Interior to possess and
use licensed Firearms and Military Weapons, excluding Special Category Weapons,
in the course of their duties, including in public places." Id. All others must apply
to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior for a license in order to possess a weapon. The
unauthorized use or possession of weapons is subject to penalty.

CPA Memorandum Number 1768 provides for the registration and regulation of
private security companies (PSC) operating in Iraq. Two annexes to the
Memorandum provide for binding Rules for the Use of Force (Annex A) and is a
Code of Conduct (Annex B) that all PSC employees must follow. Section 9 prohibits
PSC employees from conducting law enforcement activities; however, section 5 of
Annex A permits PSC employees to stop, detain, search, and disarm civilians where
the employees' safety requires it or if such functions are specified in the contract.

Prosecution in U.S. Federal Court. U.S. contractor personnel and other
U.S. civilian employees in Iraq are subject to prosecution in U.S. courts under a
number of circumstances. Jurisdiction of certain federal statutes extends to U.S.
nationals at U.S. facilities overseas that qualify as part of the special maritime and
territorial jurisdiction (SMTJ) of the United States.72

Criminal statutes that apply within the SMTJ include maiming,73 assault,74
kidnapping,75 murder76 and manslaughter.77 The Department of Justice (DOJ) is
responsible for prosecuting crimes in this category. A CIA contractor was convicted
under this provision for the assault of a detainee in Afghanistan.78

PsylentNemo said:
After further investigation...


Bottom line, the Ministry of Information has authorized the private security companies to keep the war going in Iraq. If they thought that Blackwater was in violation of any articles set forth in the permission to operate there, they could "change their story to suit whatever happens" at any time. This has not happened yet, and I believe this will lead to the assumption that there is more to the story than "the lying, paid for hire, propaganda machine." Maybe not? At any rate, if any of the contractors were suspected of commiting murder, murder for hire, assault, etc., they would be punished by no one as usual.