The New York Times wrote:
> Second, just like lawyers, some military contractors work only for ethical
> clients while others choose to make money from less savory types. As a
> result, some companies have helped save democratic regimes and aided
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> humanitarian groups while others have supported dictators, rebel groups,
> drug cartels and terrorists. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ahemm... this was already true _before_ privatization: The U$ supported
Pinochet (dictator), the Contras (rebel group), the KLA (drug cartel)
and Osama bin Laden (terrorist) -- to name just one of many per category!
> Also, privatized operations do not always go as planned. In 1998 the
> Colombian Air Force, working from intelligence supplied by an American
> company, mistakenly bombed a village, killing 17.
Ditto for "collateral damage" -- or was e.g. the bombing of the Chinese
embassy in Belgrad based on _company_ intelligence ?
> International and national laws must be updated so that governments gain
> some control over whom military firms are allowed to work with and can be
> certain the companies can be held accountable when things go wrong.
Maybe first these laws must be updated so that the United Nations gain
some control over unilateralistic outlaws in the White House and Downing
St, and that they can be held accountable (ICC!) when things go wrong.
But of course, with privatization, these things will become even wilder...
and, btw, open many opportunities for "unlawful combatants".... (this time
on the U$ side)
Chris
___________________________________________________________________________
"This is the future for the world we're in at the moment. We'll get better
as we do it more often." --Lawrence Di Rita, special assistant to Rumsfeld,
on U$ takeovers of foreign countries [LA Times]
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
