Are Blackwater Employees Mercenaries?

Blackwater’s Prince is a Frog

Are Blackwater Employees Mercenaries

Blackwater doesn't want to hear the word. Gordon Hammers, chair of the Potrero Planning group says it should not be used. What is this word that is so terrifying?

Mercenary.

It's a word that has been around for a very long time, and it comes with a lot of baggage. But how much of this really applies to Blackwater?

First of all, let's eliminate the possibility that we should trust the opinions of Blackwater, who will pick and choose the words they use to give their company the best marketing spin. And Gordon Hammers is not much more than their lap dog, so we should discount his words as well.

We could go to all the best dictionaries and see how well Blackwater squares with the word, perhaps pointing out how well it fits, and the like, and then someone can choose a different definition and we'd be no closer to understanding what is sitting before us. We may find that the word is not the best but still be faced with a very evil situation nonetheless.

Here, I will take a different approach. Let's start with the meaning, or the semantics first, and then map back into the situation. In the end, we'll understand the full implications of what a mercenary is, and understand if Blackwater fills the bill.

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Generally taken as the 6th of the Ten Commandments, this was modified by Pope Urban II in 1095 so that the ruthless crusades could be undertaken. The faithful, which comprised most of the crusaders, wondered how they could violate the commandment and kill the Turks and Muslims on their way to free the Holy Sepluchre -- Jesus's tomb -- from the grip of the Islamic infidels. The Pope simply redefined the Ten Commandment verse as "Thou shalt not murder Christians" and that was that. Now, it was actually encouraged to kill non-Christian infidels, resulting in an eternity in heaven.

But apart from the theological interpretation, killing is not always considered wrong. If a man enters your home and threatens you with a knife, and you happen to have a gun on hand, you can kill him on the spot and face no charges.

In a similar way, if you witness your neighbor being raped or held at knife-point and you shoot the assailant, you will probably be honored as a hero.

Even outright killing is not clearcut. For years, the courts treat homicide using a number of grades, from manslaughter -- accidentally killing someone, with no intention -- to third-degree murder -- killing in a rage -- all the way to first-degree murder, when it is cold and preplanned.

And, on top of that, there is also the assassin, the hit-man who will kill for a price -- for profit.

Swords from Plowshares

The actions of countries in war can be compared with that of individuals committing murder. If your town or country is attacked, you will arm yourself and get ready to fight. If you're like me, I felt a desire to defend my country after the attacks of 9/11. There's no problem with recruitment quotas in such a situation. You either fight or die. Everyone fights; there is need for payments, promises of college, or training. All you get is subsistence. Historically, peasants would convert plowshares, the sharp components of a plow, into swords to be used in battle.

After the industrial revolution, war required sophisticated machines: ships, planes, tanks, missiles, and rockets. These implements of war take time to design and build, so it became an apparent necessity to prepare in advance for any attacks by enterprising neighbors. Just like defending yourself, it is not "wrong" to defend yourself as a country.

In contrast, attacking another country when not first attacked is just like first-degree murder. It is always preplanned and with some motive for profit or conquest. The trouble is that very frequently, "false-flag" operations are rigged to make it appear that the enemy has attacked the homeland to justify striking back. And more recently, just the threat of possible attacks has been all that was necessary to make war palpable, even though the threats were all just smoke and mirrors.

Comparing with killing on an individual level, is it considered murder if you kill someone who you incorrectly believe is attacking another person? Probably not, but the person who gave you that impression, if there is one, should be held responsible. Even though that person did not perform the killing, they deceived you to make the killing seem legitimate. Now that you know you were deceived, you may feel terrible, but you should not be charged with murder, in my view. But the person who orchestrated this activity should be charged with first-degree murder.

Unfortunately, this is precisely the situation we are faced with in the case of our current occupation of Iraq. We were deceived to believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, and he was bent on using them against our country, as images of mushroom clouds were sold to the American people. Our troops performed their patriotic duty, based on this deception, and have conducted a war, killing some 650,000 Iraqis. The troops should not be held responsible for conducting themselves according to their promises and according to the deceptive information provided to them. However, those who orchestrated the deception should be held as criminals, and treated no better than a mass murderer.

Enter the assassin who needs no deception to perform his killing, but simply does it for profit. Certainly, this is the ultimate in murder, surpassing the evil of first-degree murder as the motive now is simply profit, and typically at the direction of some other person, of course, who will be paying the assassin.

Do we have a volunteer military? Those branches of the military wish it was that easy. No, the current military should be regarded as recruited contractors. They expect to be paid and they are not allowed to leave, under their signed contract. This is dramatically different from the

-- Raymond Lutz - 25 May 2007