Talk:Mercenary/Archive 1

Untitled
This is most definitely a dictionary entry. Shall we expand it with a list of mercenaries throughout history, or simply delete it?


 * I disagree; it's one of those topics where a dictionary entry and an encyclopedia entry can't help being similar. An encyclopedia should be able to answer the question "what's a mercenary?". I don't think it's a dictionary entry just because it's short: sometimes there isn't much else to say! Mswake 09:07 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Removed incorrect information....


 * enlists in the military service of a foreign government risks losing their American citizenship. An exception has been made for dual American-Israeli citizens who are required by Israeli law to serve in that nation's military.  Many countries have similar laws, so a mercenary risks losing their home nation's citizenship and becoming a "stateless person."

The Neutrality Act does not provide for the loss of citizenship. Serving in the military of another country was ground for loss of citizen under the Immigration and Naturalization Act but this was ruled unconstitutional in 1967.

The gory details are here

http://travel.state.gov/military_service.html

and there is no special exception in US law for military service or anything else for dual US-Israeli citizens.

User:Roadrunner

Changed wording for Executive Outcomes.

I don't think that anyone would seriously think that Executive Outcomes was a proxy for the current South African government. The staff of EO consisted of members of the South African Defense Forces who realized that they had no future in post-Apartheid South Africa.

User:Roadrunner

---

Who argues this....


 * The legal status of civilian contractors, particularly logistics staff and equipment technicians, serving with miltary forces is unclear. It has been argued that they are functionally mercenaries because they are assisting in active military operations even though they are not firing weapons at the enemy.  This is not a hypothetical concern.  In the United States Navy for example, the typical aircraft carrier has between 50 and 100 civilians aboard acting as technicians, manufacturer's representatives, etc.

"Swiss mercenaries were sought after during the latter half of the 15th century as "

after or during? Omegatron

--- From |Dictionary.com
 * mer·ce·nar·y   ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (mûrs-nr)
 * adj. Motivated solely by a desire for monetary or material gain.
 * Hired for service in a foreign army.


 * n. pl. mer·ce·nar·ies
 * One who serves or works merely for monetary gain; a hireling.
 * A professional soldier hired for service in a foreign army.

The current Wiki definition
 * A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, regardless of ideological, national or political considerations.

I'm unhappy with all these definitions. Almost all soldiers receive money for service. Are all paid soldiers then mercenaries? What about non-traditional soldiers who aren't motivated solely by money?

The Wiki definition is unclear. Which is meant? "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and not for ideological, national, or political considerations." "A mercenary is a soldier who fights for money, and may or may not have ideological, national, or political considerations."

I think the salient characteristics are "uses force" "earns money" and "is not a part of a national army". "Works, directly or indirectly, for a national government" is probably necessary to differentiate between security guards and mercenaries. But then what about a corporate "guard" who does more than passive security (e.g. recovers a captured oil rig by force)? I'll mull this over more, and may attempt a better definition soon. Input is appreciated.--M4-10 07:49, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Mercenary has become a pejorative term, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Historically, mercenaries are professional soldiers who will work on contract. As such, they do not necessary bear allegiance to the side they are fighting for but they are expected to fight loyally for their employer while they are employed. In the past it was common practice for countries to supplement their armed forces with mercenaries with good reputations for fighting--Hessians fought on both sides of the US Revoluntionary War.

Going even further back in history, I think of the Percy clan in England, who were famous for watching an evenly matched battle, then, once they determined to their satisfaction which side had the advantage, would join the winning side for a share of the spoils.

I would say, rhetoric aside, that what makes a mercenary is simple: a professional soldier who will become a part of an armed force on contract, without necessarily having a national or political loyalty to that nation. -- Cecropia | Talk

I am a bit unhappy with this part "These definitions exclude most contractors in Iraq working for one of the Coalition nations"

Let's face it, the only one of the six definitions which does not fit the descriptions of the "PMCs" is d) and possibly b) although this is just a matter of definition. But these Mercs are

- recruited abroad - are motivated by financial gain (they earn a lot of money, much more then soldiers in comparable positions) - not members of any armed forces

I would like to change the sentence so that it says which definitions fit and which not. Anyone opposed ?

Turrican - For the record I made the edits under 195.92.67.75 and 195.92.67.77 I did not notice that I had been logged off Philip Baird Shearer 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stover's Laws of War
I believe there is no such thing as 'Stover's Laws of War'. This was merely the last anon's vandalism, as s/he had prior to this added 'Tony's Laws of War' and subsequently changed it to 'Stover's'. I certainly couldn't find anything in Yahoo Search to that effect. Dieter Simon 01:16, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mercenaries torture and forbidden weapons

 * However, the fact that they are not part of a regular army and therefore are practically unaccountable for their acts means they could be used to sidestep war regulations committing acts forbidden to a soldier, like employing torture to obtain information from prisoners of war, as is suspected happened during and after the 2003 Iraq war. They are also useful for legally testing prototype weapons on live human beings in combat situations, as a soldier is forbidden to use certain kinds of weapons on a human being regardless of circumstances.

I have removed the newly inserted text (above) because it does not make sense:
 * Whether regular soldiers or mercenaries use torture on prisoners of war, the officer of the power holding the POWs would be guilty of a war crime for ordering the torture, so why bother. Also if a person is interrogating prisoners they are not mercenaries because it is not a combat role: (see Protocol I Art 47 a, b)
 * If a weapon is a prototype and built to function within the laws of war then it can be used by regular troops. This is a common phenomenon in wars where peacetime projects are speeded up to get a new weapon into service at the start of a war. Who would pay to develop a weapon forbidden by treaty and if the did why deploy it only with mercenaries? Philip Baird Shearer 12:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi. I wrote that paragraph. My reasons were these: According to press reports I read (mostly Washington Post) torture on Abu Graib was directed by government agencies (I believe it was the CIA but the FBI complained or viceversa) helped by contractors, who gave soldiers indications on "special treatment" to iraqi POWs. You are right -the official is accountable but contractors are harder to prosecute and probably more agreeable (soldiers at Abu Graib seemed to enjoy it, however). You have a point about combat roles. I was wondering what happens if the POWs are "captured" by contractors.


 * Can you give an example of a soldier captured by contractors in combat? Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * No. I was thinking of a fake capture by contractors as a way to sidestep regulations. Asereje 06:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding weapons, they can be used by anyone in all kinds of situations, not just soldiers in war. Bush´s government has made a point terrorists aren´t an army nor a nation so everything goes (e.g. Guantanamo prison). Israel has killed palestinian leaders with missiles fired from helicopters, and there was at least one internationally publicized incident where israeli soldiers tied a palestinian child (also a fighter, I think) to the front of their car as a human shield. So a weapon doesn´t have to follow the rules of war to be developed, and a soldier doesn´t have to follow the rules of war to use it when fighting terrorists. And to be honest, the US government almost never follows treaties even if it bothered to sign them in the first place. Mercenaries (or contractors) are harder to prosecute and their actions harder to trace since they aren´t part of the army. That paragrah came from an article I read (I believe it was in Soldier of Fortune which on further investigation isn´t that reliable) where a contractor tested a new type of bullet that crossed solid objects (walls) but exploded when touching softer ones (human flesh). According to that, a contractor used that bullet on an iraqi, blowing part of his leg with a single shot. The officer was mad because he thought he was a soldier, but as a contractor he got away with it. Perhaps it was a hoax, but in any case using a merc avoids public relations headaches and allows for denial. I don´t know what´s an official to do if he sees a friendly contractor breaking the rules of war. I believe a paragraph that covers this aspects should appear in the article. Contractors are, in my opinion, too similar to mercenaries. And while interrogation isn´t combat, is part of a modern war. Thanks. Asereje 18:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything does not go see: unlawful combatant, the court is still out on that one. The USA takes its treaty obligations very seriously (my word is my bond). For example the whole point of US government Stress and duress used outside US sovereign territory, is to stay within the letter of the treaty definitions on torture, for which most international lawyers use the ECHR sensory deprivation as inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 16 of the UN torture treaty states Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment So if the US government authorises the use of Stress and duress outside US jurisdiction then it has not broken the letter of its treaty obligations even if it has ridden a coach and horses through its moral obligations under the treaty.

Secondly to be mercenary a contractor would have to fulfil the criteria in GC Protocol I. A police action is not conflict as defined under international law. Of course a weapon does not have to follow the rules of war. For example many police forces use hollow nosed bulets explicitly forbidden under the laws of war (Starting with the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight and made universal by the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907). But if they were used by a mercenary, the mercenary would be committing (another war) crime and should be prosecuted as such. This would be true even if the friendly power does not believe them to be a mercenary. If the person is a civilian contractor and they break the laws of war then they are also guilty of a war crime and can be prosecuted by their own side. If it is not an armed conflict then they are by definition not a mercenary so it would not belong in this article. If a mercenary's action was sanctioned or ordered by a superior, then that person can also be prosecuted. If one looks at any NATO country they have a complicated set of laws to cover these contingencies in both military and civilian codes of law. So mercenarys are not useful for legally testing prototype weapons on live human beings in combat situations. Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record the USA has not signed Protocol I so I an not sure what the USA uses domestically for the definition of a mercenary. As the article says the Protocol I is the easiest way to keep this article focused and coherent. If you know what the USA legal system defines as mercenary then that could be an interesting addition to this article. But I do not think it would help this article if everything which the popular press calls a "mercenary action" is included in the article as it would destroy the cohesion and internal logic of the article. Philip Baird Shearer 20:28, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point and agree. I didn't mean to force the definition of contractor into mercenary, my point was more on the grounds that being a contractor doesn't mean war rules and so on will be followed. Thanks. Asereje 06:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Contradictor and Bounty Hunter

 * ''There are exceptions to the rule, however, when there are ideological mercenaries, so-called Contradictors. They fight for whatever is the best cause.

What is a "Contradictor"?

Would they be defined under the Geneva conventions "Protocol I" as a mercenary? A mercenary is any person who: (a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;


 * Another kind of mercenary would be a bounty hunter'', who enlists to a government's or invidual's mission to undertake someone, dead or alive. This sub-kind of mercenary was popularized in Western-movies.

A bounty hunter is not another kind of mercenary because they are not usually employed in an "armed conflict" as defined by the laws of war. Philip Baird Shearer 19:41, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A contradictor is a sort of mercenary who fights for "free", if you can only convince them it is in their best interest to do. In other words: They are ideologists. If the cause is good/evil enough for them then they will join forces - And not necessarily foreign ones.

It is mostly under the definition of the Geneva conventions, although I doubt the "private gain" part. Nevertheless, they are generally considered to be mercenaries no matter what a convention says that HAVE to do it for private gain.


 * Please provide a source which says that "contradictor" is a person who fights for idelogical reasons and that people who fight for idelogical reasons are "generally considered to be mercenaries". Because under the laws of war if a person fights for ideology and not "essentially by the desire for private gain" then they are not a mercenary. In many wars people fight as combatants for ideological reasons. For example the foreign elements of the SS or the  foreigners, (including Americans before the States entered the war in the Eagle squadrons), who fought in the RAF during World War II. None of them were mercenary. But American pilots of the Flying Tigers who had "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party" were.  Philip Baird Shearer

And as for the bounty hunter, "usually" is the key word here. Yes, they might not be a part of the "conventional" war kind, but they might be enlisted by one side of the conflict's participants to help them f.eg track down an enemy leader. Thus they are indirectly a part of the armed conflict, just not directly under a batallion of soldiers fighting in the front lines. I'm not sure what the so-called "laws of war" says although, perhaps you could elobarate. This is the most widespread view of it, nevertheless, and I'm still sure my stance stands corrected. If you are convinced, them please let the text back in to the article.-OleMurder 09:55, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * There are many professions which mercenaries may be employed to do as combatants in an armed conflict. "Bounty hunter" is only one possibility, although if they are not dressed in uniform and are operating behind the front lines they may be guilty of more war crimes than being a mercenary. As we do not list all the possible range of activities which could be ones that a mercenary could do. Eg from private to field marshal. I do not see why "bounty hunter" (BH) should be singled out. Particularly in the introduction, and when a BH can be a defined as a BH without "take[ing] a direct part in the hostilities" as part of an "armed conflict" and so not qualifying as a mercenary. It does not bring any clarity to the article. Philip Baird Shearer 16:02, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gurkhas and French Foreign Legionnaires are not mercenaries
Hi Philip. I see you reverted my change, without responding to the reason I gave. Basically my thinking is, there is no single definition of what a mercenary is, so the section on Gurkha and FFL needs to say according to which definition/s they aren't considered mercenaries. If their is some fundamental law of nature saying they aren't mercs, then why include them in the article on mercenaries at all? (Anymore than a section in the Birds article called Dogs are not birds). Presumably it is included because there is some sort of controversy, and as written it seems very POV. (For the record, I don't think they are mercs, but the section needs to be brought up to wikipedia standard). Regards, Ashmoo 00:31, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The second paragraph in the section explains why they are not mercenaries under Protocol I. The section is structured in a News style (see this also), so the first paragraph is a summary of the second and depending on what you think of what I am going to say here possibly a third! In point of fact Gurkhas are (also) not mercenaries because the common customs of the laws of war dating back before the creation of the British Army say they are not. This is because the officers and men of the British army are paid for by funds raised by the UK parliament but the Officers and men take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. The country that the soldier comes from is irreverent, there are many none UK nationals serving in the British army, none of whom are considered mercenarys under the laws of war. If any of them were captured and denied POW status the person(s) responsible for such an action would be guilty of a war crime. Under the British Regimental system is is quite common to group solders by region and nationality. It would follow that IF the Gurkhas are mercenaries then so is the rest of the British Army which is clearly a nonsense.


 * It seems that sone people who come from a nation state (like the USA) have real difficulties understanding that the the Nation and the State are different things particularly in a state which pre-dates the American constitution. To understand the situation one has to see it from the position of a medieval battle like the battle of Agincourt. The English archers were paid, but they were subjects of King Henry V so they were not mercenaries, as was anyone else who if not a subject had taken an oath of fidelity to him. But in the case of the Genoese crossbowmen who fought for the French king as they had not taken such an oath they were mercenaries. The status of the men who fight for the British army today is not that diffrent from that of the Engish army at Agincourt Philip Baird Shearer 10:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok. I've already said I agree with you, you don't need to convince me. But please re-read my comment and respond to the points I raised. Factually, it is excellent, it is only the tone, which reads a bit like a blog rant entry, that I'm concerned about. Regards, Ashmoo 23:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Philip, since you haven't replied I'm going to tweak the article again. Ashmoo 03:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Jumping in here with two left feet: it seems to me that Ghurkas and Legionnaires both fill every characteristic of the mercenary (as defined in the opening quote from the Geneva Convention protocol) except for receiving a salary substantially in excess of normal. How does taking an oath suddenly remove the onus? And what about these gentlemen:
 * American fliers like Ajax Baumler who served in Spain and received $500/$1000 for each enemy plane shot down?
 * Americans who acquired RCAF rank and served in RAF "Eagle" squadrons (low paid -- but they did not take the oath!)
 * The American Volunteer Group Flying Tigers who served in Burma and China at nearly three times the pay they were earning in U.S. service, plus a bounty for each plane shot down?

Seems to me that contributors here are put off by the negative connotation of the term and therefore try to provide an exemption for any military force they admire! --Cubdriver 21:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The oath is important because it means that they are fully intergrated into the British Army or French army. So Ghurkas are not mercenaries because they are members of the armed forces of a party to a conflict so they fail the 47e test as well as 47c, 47d (they are resident territory controlled by Britain)). The same arguments can be made for the Legion. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Never heard of Ajax Baumler but most volenteers on both sides of the Spanish civil ware were motivated by ideology not money and so were not mercenaries.
 * What is your source to say that the RAF Eagle squadrons did not take an oath? I do not see how they could serve in the British armed forces without taking an oath.
 * The AVF are usually described as mercenaries. As the Flying Tigers article makes clear "The pilots were mostly reserve officers who were discharged to fight as mercenaries in the army of a foreign country."


 * It seems to me that e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and just about rules out most famous cases of mercenary fighters. I don't know about Albert Baumler (who, I find, earned $1,500/month plus $1,000 for each plane shot down, figures that effectively can be multiplied by 20 to find their equivalent in our much-depreciated greenbacks) but the AVG Flying Tigers most defintely were members of the armed forces of a Party (China) to the conflict. Arguably the Hessians in the British army in the nascent U.S. were likewise not merks. That pretty much leaves us with the white guys who occasionally parachute into Africa to bear arms for a month or two. --Cubdriver 22:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It depends on the conditions of employment in a military. For example if one is working for a PMC and engaged in combat then one is a mercenary. To be a mercenary one has to be motivated by private gain and not be a national of a party to the conflict and not a member of the armed forces to the conflict. In practice to be a mercenary one is usually in a unit with other mercenaries who take commands from their captain who is also a mercenary. For example did the AVG's contracts allow them to be posted to any unit in the Chinese air force or only to that of Claire Chennault, and if Chennault was replaced with a Chinese officer were the AVG members still obliged to fight. I see from the alterations that you (Cubdriver) made to the Flying Tigers page that, they were mercenaries because they were employees of the CAMCO and officially employed as training instructors. As soon as they flew a combat mission they were mercenaries as they were not members of the Chinese air force.

In the case of the French Foreign Legion and the Gurkhas they are fully integrated into the armed forces of the French and British armies. Their offices are French and British and their contracts do not specify specific officers, just officers of the respective armies. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:10, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems very clear to me that this whole gig about the Legion and the Ghurkas results from Britain and France having written into the convention language that rules out their own merks being considered as such. Further, I find this discussion very discouraging, as further proof that Wiki articles become captive to folks with an agenda and time to spare. (I have seen this elsewhere, of course.) It serves to make me less apt to rely on the Wikipedia in the future. I mean, where do you get that stuff about officers necessarily being of the nationality of the employing country? In any event, I resign from the effort to straighten out this overtly biased article. --Cubdriver 15:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

American or British spelling
Please ensure words are spelled either the American or British way, not a mixture of both, it's either organization and organized or organisation and organised. There was a tie with three words being spelled -ized / -ization and three -ised / -isation. Have come down on the American -z as first word was spelled that way. Call me pedantic, but minds have to be made up. It's yet another means of making an article encyclopaedic. Dieter Simon 23:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)