(abridged)
British PM tells families hostages probably dead
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Two British hostages held in Iraq since 2007 are probably dead, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's office said Wednesday.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has told the families of two hostages that they are probably (read: they are) dead.
Five men were kidnapped from the Iraqi finance ministry in Baghdad in May 2007 -- computer analyst Moore and security guards ( Iraqi FM needing British guards?) McMenemy, MacLachlan, Creswell and Swindlehurst.
The security guards worked for Canadian-based security firm GardaWorld, according to the company. (Mercenaries...)
Moore worked for U.S.-based BearingPoint.( CIA? MI5?)
In February 2008,Peter Moore appeared in a second video, pleading with the British government to perform "a simple exchange" of prisoners with his captors so "we can go home."
"It's a simple exchange -- release those that they want so we can go home. It's as simple as that. It is a simple exchange of people. This is all they want, just have their people released," he said.
(and? What did the UK do about that?)
The British Embassy in Iraq received a third video in March of this year but refused to disclose its contents. (must have been real embarrassing to the government...
How about exchanging the UK parliament for the hostages? That would work for me.)
sad
AntwortenLöschenDidn't Gordon Brown almost say "Mission Accomplished" recently?
AntwortenLöschenI know he did.
Yes sad indeed
AntwortenLöschenWhat's with the word "probably?" Either wait until it's confirmed or just break the news to the families as it is!
AntwortenLöschenHopefully I'm not going to upset too many people with my response. I assume the "probably" is to prepare the families for the bad news which will come out in the next couple of weeks. Either intelligence already shows that these individuals are already dead or the UK government have been given a deadline saying they will be executed on a given date unless certain demands are met. Sadly (and wisely) the UK government (and the US government) do not pay ransoms and will seldom meet the demands of kidnappers. This is based on the fact that, long term, those that carry out such acts will realise it is futile and so, again in the long term, minimise any purpose in taking their citizens hostage.
AntwortenLöschenThese private "security guards" know the risks when they take the contract and if they took a similar contract in a country where the Allied Forces were not in control they would indeed be called mercenaries.
I am a bit at a loss here. How so that an occupation force being in a country makes them not-mercenary.
AntwortenLöschenAfter all, they were filling a need of the occupation forces, which should have been filled by the military personnel.
I suppose here the definition of them being civilians or mercenaries is important as civilians I think the following applies "The legal status of civilian contractors depends upon the nature of their work and their nationalities with respect to that of the combatants. If they have not "in fact, taken a direct part in the hostilities" (APGC77 Art 47.b), they are not mercenaries but civilians who have non-combat support roles and are entitled to protection under the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII 4.1.4)." but if they took part in actual combat and not in a uniform to distinguish them from civilians then I would think they would come under Article 47. Protocol 1. and treated as mercenaries.
AntwortenLöschenI agree that that is the current legalize, which do not seem to have hardly any enforceability.
AntwortenLöschenI am thinking more in term of common people like you and me.
When a foreign power occupies a country and takes hold of its administration and its offices, that calls for a need to protect those offices against "insurgents" (hostile patriots?). For instance, when Germany had occupied Paris, all such administrative buildings have had "sufficiently many" soldiers standing guard.
Times are changing. The public opinion has changed. As long as these "security guards" and the "computer analyst" (whatever that means) have been hired by the occupation forces, they are assisting the military.
After all, there are many military positions where its members do not ever participate in combat. For example, intelligence officers, radar operators, telecommunication engineers, military vehicle repair personnel, and so on. Nevertheless, they are all part of an occupation force.
These so called guards, I reckon, were well armed and trained. Not like the security guard at my bank, where they just watch and report and remind people.
Furthermore, they are hired by the occupiers.
In most other cases, the occupation force would have placed several well armed soldiers there. Because there is a public sensitivity to engaging more troops in Iraq, in particular the US has been resorting to hired combatants under the disguised name of "contractors".
We all know about the fate of many of them. And we all know about their trigger happy behavior. We also know that they are NOT accountable to the court of the occupied country. It was not even clear if they were to a civilian court of THEIR country.
Essentially, they are commissioned by the military to fulfill certain jobs for which the military has had assumed the responsibility.
Here is a re-hash of those times (2007) (http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/25/opinion/oe-scahill25)
Bush's rent-an-army
...
Now, Blackwater is back in the news, providing a reminder of just how privatized the war has become. On Tuesday, one of the company's helicopters was brought down in one of Baghdad's most violent areas. The men who were killed were providing diplomatic security under Blackwater's $300-million State Department contract, which dates to 2003 and the company's initial no-bid contract to guard administrator L. Paul Bremer III in Iraq. Current U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, who is also protected by Blackwater, said he had gone to the morgue to view the men's bodies, asserting the circumstances of their deaths were unclear because of "the fog of war."
Take particular note of "... U.S. Ambassador ... is also protected by Blackwater". I had always watched the US marines when they stood guard at any US embassy I have entered. What next?
Of course, the US and the UK would try to make them appear as "legally" innocent as they can. This, however, does not change the intent: a private army.
Instead of making us speculate here, should the PM not shed a clear light on who when how why?
IMO, they owe it to us to show that our elected officials are squeaky clean.
In my dreams...
I would have thought that as the US have given over the govern ship of Iraq to the Iraqi people, then all private armies albeit that they are trained and sponsored by the US automatically become treated as mercenaries, then they could be treated as criminals by Iraq. Hmmm talk about rod for ones own back.
AntwortenLöschenAs for any PM of the UK, he has at the moment a teflon coating but it is starting to wear a bit thin and some of the grime is starting to show through, that goes for the Bliar too.
At least you have something called "vote of (no)confidence".
AntwortenLöschenIn the US, the prez and his cabinet have four years to do whatever. There is no means to stop them once they take office...
But, my real point is that the politicians have no liability to keep the voters enlightened. Instead, everything is done among a clique and then sugar coated for the public.
This is not unique to UK, or the US. It is -and has been- universally so.
My error is in my gullibility to have believed all the baloney "taught" (brainwashed?) in school and later.
As Dr Kissinger had once firmly said:
****The issues are much too important for the voters to be left to decide for themselves***
I wish that would be taught in schools, not the motherhood and apple pie.