by Jose L. Gomez del Prado
November 8, 2010
from
GlobalResearch Website
The
United Nations Human
Rights Council, under the Universal Periodic Review,
started on
5 November 2010 in Geneva, reviewing the human rights record of
the United States.
The following is an edited version of the
presentation given by
Jose L. Gomez del Prado in Geneva on 3
November 2010
at a parallel meeting at the UN Palais des Nations
on that occasion.
Private military and security companies (PMSC)
are the modern reincarnation of a long lineage of private providers of
physical force: corsairs, privateers and mercenaries.
Mercenaries, which had practically disappeared
during the XIXth and XXth centuries, reappeared in the 1960’s during the
decolonization period operating mainly in Africa and Asia. Under the United
Nations a convention was adopted which outlaws and criminalizes their
activities.
Additional
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions also contains a
definition of mercenary.
These non-state entities of the XXIst century operate in extremely blurred
situations where the frontiers are difficult to separate. The new security
industry of private companies moves large quantities of weapons and military
equipment. It provides services for military operations recruiting former
militaries as civilians to carry out passive or defensive security.
However, these individuals cannot be considered as civilians, given that
they often carry and use weapons, interrogate prisoners, load bombs, drive
military trucks and fulfill other essential military functions.
Those who are armed can easily switch from a
passive/defensive to an active/offensive role and can commit human rights
violations and even destabilize governments. They cannot be considered
soldiers or supporting militias under international humanitarian law either,
since they are not part of the army or in the chain of command, and often
belong to a large number of different nationalities.
PMSC personnel cannot usually be considered to be mercenaries for the
definition of mercenaries as stipulated in the international conventions
dealing with this issue does not generally apply to the personnel of PMSCs
which are legally operating in foreign countries under contracts of legally
registered companies.
Private military and security companies operate in a legal vacuum: they pose
a threat to civilians and to international human rights law.
The UN Human Rights Council has entrusted the UN
Working Group on the use of mercenaries, principally, with the mandate:
“To monitor and study the effects of the
activities of private companies offering military assistance,
consultancy and security services on the international market on the
enjoyment of human Rights (…) and to prepare draft international basic
principles that encourage respect for human rights on the part of those
companies in their activities”.
During the past five years, the Working Group
has been studying emerging issues, manifestations and trends regarding
private military and security companies.
In our reports we have informed the Human Rights
Council and the General Assembly about these issues.
Of particular importance are the reports of,
-
the Working Group to the last session of
the Human Rights Council, held in September 2010
-
on the Mission to the United States of
America (20 July to 3 August 2009), Document A/HRC/15/25/Add 3
-
on the Mission to Afghanistan (4-9 April
2009), Document A/HRC/15/25/Add 2
-
the general report of the Working Group
containing the Draft of a possible Convention on Private Military
and Security Companies (PMSCs) for consideration and action by the
Human Rights Council, Document A/HRC/15/25
In the course of our research, since 2006, we
have collected ample information which indicate the negative impact of the
activities of “private contractors”, “private soldiers” or “guns for hire”,
whatever denomination we may choose to name the individuals employed by
private military and security companies as civilians but in general heavily
armed.
In the cluster of human rights violations
allegedly perpetrated by employees of these companies, which the Working
Group has examined one can find: summary executions, acts of torture, cases
of arbitrary detention; of trafficking of persons; serious health damages
caused by their activities; as well as attempts against the right of
self-determination.
It also appears that PMSCs, in their search for
profit, neglect security and do not provide their employees with their basic
rights, and often put their staff in situations of danger and vulnerability.
Summary executions
On 16 September 2007 in Baghdad, employees of the US-based firm
Blackwater
[1] were involved in a shooting incident in Nisoor Square in which 17
civilians were killed and more than 20 other persons were wounded including
women and children.
Local eyewitness accounts indicate the use of
arms from vehicles and rocket fire from a helicopter belonging to this
company.
There are also concerns over the activities and approach of PMSC personnel,
their convoys of armored vehicles and their conduct in traffic, in
particular their use of lethal force. This particular incident was not the
first of its kind, neither the first involving Blackwater.
According to a congressional report on the behavior of Xe/Blackwater in
Iraq, Xe/Blackwater guards were found to have been involved in nearly 200
escalation-of-force incidents that involved the firing of shots since 2005.
Despite the terms of the contracts which
provided that the company could engage only in defensive use of force, the
company reported that in over 80 per cent of the shooting incidents, its
forces fired the first shots.
In Najaf in April 2004 and on several other
occasions, employees of this company took part in direct hostilities, as
well as in May 2007, where another incident involving the same company
reportedly occurred involving guards belonging to the company and forces
belonging to the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior allegedly exchanged gunfire
in a sector of Baghdad.
Also in central Baghdad the shooting of employees of the PMSC,
Unity
Resources Group (URG),[2] protecting a convoy, left two Armenian
women, Genevia Antranick and Mary Awanis dead on 9 October 2007 when their
car came too close to a protected convoy. The family of Genevia Antranick
was offered no compensation and has begun court proceedings against URG in
the United States.
This company was also involved in the shooting of 72-year-old Australian
Kays Juma.
Professor Juma was shot in March 2006 as he
approached an intersection being blockaded for a convoy URG was protecting.
Professor Juma, a 25-year resident of Baghdad who drove through the city
every day, allegedly sped up his vehicle as he approached the guards and did
not heed warnings to stop, including hand signals, flares, warning shots
into the body of his car and floodlights.
The incident occurred at 10am.[3]
Torture
Two United States-based corporations,
CACI and L-3 Services (formerly
Titan
Corporation), were involved in the
torture of Iraqi detainees at Abu Ghraib.
CACI and L-3 Services, contracted by the
Government of the United States, were responsible for interrogation and
translation services, respectively, at Abu Ghraib prison and other
facilities in Iraq.
Seventy two Iraqi citizens who were formerly detained at military prisons in
Iraq, have sued L-3 Services, Inc. (“L-3”), a military private contractor
which provided civilian translators for United States military forces in
Iraq and Adel Nakhla, a former employee of L-3 who served as one of its
translators there under the Alien Tort Statute.
They allege having been tortured and physically
and mentally abused during their detention and that they should be held
liable in damages for their actions.
The plaintiffs assert 20 causes of action, among
which:
-
torture
-
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment
-
assault and battery
-
intentional infliction of emotional distress.[4]
Arbitrary detention
A number of reports indicate that private security guards have played
central roles in some of the most sensitive activities of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) such as the arbitrary detention and clandestine
raids against alleged insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan [5] and the
involvement in CIA rendition flights [6] as well as joint covert
operations.[7]
Employees of PMSC would have been involved in
the taking of detainees, from “pick up points” (such as Tuzla, Islamabad or
Skopje) transporting them in rendition flights and delivering them to drop
off points (such as Cairo, Rabat, Bucharest, Amman or Guantanamo) as well as
in the construction, equipping and staffing of CIA’s “black sites”.
Within this context, the American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit
in May 2007 against
Jeppesen DataPlan Inc. (a subsidiary company of Boeing)
on behalf of five persons who were kidnapped by the CIA disappearing in
overseas prisons kept by USA secret services. Jeppesen would have
participated in the rendition by providing flight planning and logistical
support.
The five persons were tortured during their
arbitrary detention.[8]
Health
The 2009 annual report of
DynCorp International refers to four lawsuits
concerning the spraying of narcotic plant crops along the Colombian border
adjacent to Ecuador on behalf of 3 Ecuadorian Providences and 3266
plaintiffs.[9]
From 1991, the United States Department of State contracted the private
company DynCorp to supply services for this air-spraying program against
narcotics in the Andean region.
In accordance with the subscribed contract of 30
January 1998, DynCorp provides the essential logistics to the anti-drug
Office of activities of Colombia, in conformity with three main objectives:
-
eradication of cultivations of illicit
drugs
-
training of the army and of personnel of
the country
-
dismantling of illicit drug laboratories
and illicit drug-trafficking networks
An NGO report indicated the consequences of the
spraying carried out within the
Plan Colombia had on persons living in the
frontier region.[10]
One third of the 47 women in the study exposed
to the spraying showed cells with some genetic damage. The study established
the relationship of the air fumigations of the Plan Colombia with damages in
the genetic material.
The study demonstrates that when the population
is subjected to fumigations,
“the risk of cellular damage can increase and
that, once permanent, the cases of cancerous mutations and important
embryonic alterations are increased that prompt among other possibilities
the rise in abortions in the area."
This example is particularly important given
that Plan Colombia has served as the model for the arrangements that the
United States would apply later to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Plan Colombia provides immunity to the employees
of the PMSC contracted (DynCorp) the same as Order 14 of the Coalition
Provisional Authority did in Iraq.
Self-determination
The 2004 attempted coup d’état, which was perpetrated in Equatorial Guinea
is a clear example of the link between the phenomenon of mercenaries and
PMSCs as a means of violating the sovereignty of States.
In this particular case, the mercenaries
involved were mostly former directors and personnel of Executive Outcomes, a
PMSC that had become famous for its operations in Angola and Sierra Leone.
The team of mercenaries also included security guards who were still
employed by PMSCs as was the case of two employees of the company Meteoric
Tactical Systems providing security to diplomats of Western Embassies in
Baghdad-among which to the Ambassador of Switzerland.
It also included a security guard who had
previously worked for the PMSC “Steele Foundation” and had given protection
to President Aristide of Haiti and conducted him to the plane who took him
to exile.[11]
Trafficking in persons
In 2005, 105 Chileans were providing/or undergoing military training in the
former army base of Lepaterique in Honduras.
The instruction consisted in anti-guerrilla
tactics such as possible ambushes and deactivation of explosives and mortars
how to avoid them. The Chileans had entered Honduras as tourists and were
illegally in Honduras. They used high-caliber weapons such as M-16 rifles or
light machine guns. They had been contracted by a subsidiary of
Triple
Canopy.
They were part of a group, which included also 189 Hondurans recruited and
trained in Honduras. Triple Canopy had been awarded a contract by the United
States Department of State. The strong contingent left the country by air
from San Pedro Sula, Honduras, in several groups with a stopover in Iceland.
Then reached the Middle East and were smuggled into Iraq.[12]
The majority of the Chileans and Hondurans were engaged as security guards
at fixed facilities in Iraq.
They had been contracted by Your Solutions
Honduras SRL, a local agent of
Your Solutions Incorporated, registered in
Illinois, United States of America, which in turn had been subcontracted by
Triple Canopy, based in Chicago, United States of America.
Some of the Chileans are presently working in
Baghdad providing security to the Embassy of Australia under a contract by
Unity Resources Group (URG).
Human rights
violations committed by PMSC to their employees
PMSC often put the contracted private guards in situations of danger and
vulnerability, such as the ‘private contractors’ of Blackwater, killed in
Fallujah in 2004 allegedly due to the lack of the necessary safety means
that Blackwater was supposed to provide in order to carry out the mission.
It should not be forgotten that this incident
changed dramatically the course of the war and the occupation by the United
States in Iraq.
It may be considered as the turning point in the
occupation of Iraq. This led to an abortive US operation to recapture
control of the city and a successful recapture operation in the city in
November 2004, called Operation Phantom Fury, which resulted in the death of
over 1,350 insurgent fighters.
Approximately 95 America troops were killed,
and 560 wounded.
The U.S. military first denied that it has use white phosphorus as an
anti-personnel weapon in Fallujah, but later retracted that denial, and
admitted to using the incendiary in the city as an offensive weapon.
Reports following the events of November 2004
have alleged war crimes, and a massacre by U.S. personnel, including
indiscriminate
violence against civilians and children.
This point of view is presented in the 2005 documentary
film,
“Fallujah, the Hidden Massacre”
below.
In 2010, the International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health, a leading medical journal,
published a study, which shows that the rates of cancer, infant mortality
and leukemia exceed those reported in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[13]
The over 300 000 classified military documents made public by
Wikileaks show
that the “Use of Contractors Added to War’s Chaos in Iraq”, as has been
widely reported by the international media recently.
The United States has relied and continues to rely heavily on private
military and security contractors in conducting its military operations. The
United States used private security contractors to conduct narcotics
intervention operations in Colombia in the 1990s and recently signed a
supplemental agreement that authorizes it to deploy troops and contractors
in seven Colombian military bases.
During the conflict in the Balkans, the United
States used a private security contractor to train Croat troops to conduct
operations against Serbian troops. Nowadays, it is in the context of its
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular that the State is massively
contracting out security functions to private firms.
In 2009, the Department of Defense employed 218,000 private contractors (all
types) while there were 195,000 uniformed personnel. According to the
figures, about 8 per cent of these contractors are armed security
contractors, i.e. about 20,000 armed guards.
If one includes other theatres of operations,
the figure rises to 242,657, with 54,387 United States citizens, 94,260
third country nationals and 94,010 host-country nationals.
The State Department relies on about 2,000 private security contractors to
provide United States personnel and facilities with personal protective and
guard services in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and Pakistan, and aviation
services in Iraq.
The contracts for protective services were
awarded in 2005 to three PMSCs, namely,
These three companies still hold the State
Department protective services contracts today.
Lack of transparency
The information accessible to the public on the scope and type of contracts
between the Government of the United States and PMSCs is scarce and opaque.
The lack of transparency is particularly
significant when companies subcontract to others. Often, the contracts with
PMSCs are not disclosed to the public despite extensive freedom of
information rules in the United States, either because they contain
confidential commercial information or on the argument that non-disclosure
is in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.
The situation is particularly opaque when United
States intelligence agencies contract PMSCs.
Lack of accountability
Despite the fact of their involvement in grave human rights violations, not
a single PMSC or employee of these companies has been sanctioned.
In the course of litigation, several recurring legal arguments have been
used in the defense of PMSCs and their personnel, including the Government
contractor defense, the political question doctrine and derivative immunity
arguments. PMSCs are using the Government contractor defense to argue that
they were operating under the exclusive control of the Government of the
United States when the alleged acts were committed and therefore cannot be
held liable for their actions.
It looks as if when the acts are committed by agents of the government they
are considered human rights violations but when these same acts are
perpetrated by PMSC it is “business as usual”.
The human rights violation perpetrated by private military and security
companies are indications of the threat posed to the foundations of
democracy itself by the privatization of inherently public functions such as
the monopoly of the legitimate use of force. In this connection I cannot
help but to refer to the final speech of President Eisenhower.
In 1961, President Eisenhower
warned the American public opinion
against the growing danger of a military industrial complex stating:
“(…) we must guard against the acquisition
of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military
industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced
power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.
We should take nothing for granted. Only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the
huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful
methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together”.
Fifty years later, on 8 September 2001,
Donald Rumsfeld in his speech in the Department of Defense warned the
militaries of the Pentagon against,
“an adversary that poses a threat, a serious
threat, to the security of the United States of America (…) Let's make
no mistake: The modernization of the Department of Defense is (…) a
matter of life and death, ultimately, every American's. (…) The
adversary. (…) It's the Pentagon bureaucracy. (…)
That's why we're here today challenging us
all to wage an all-out campaign to shift Pentagon's resources from
bureaucracy to the battlefield, from tail to the tooth. We know the
adversary. We know the threat. And with the same firmness of purpose
that any effort against a determined adversary demands, we must get at
it and stay at it.
Some might ask, how in the world could the
Secretary of Defense attack the Pentagon in front of its people? To them
I reply, I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it.
We need to save it from itself."
Rumsfeld should have said the shift from the
Pentagon’s resources from bureaucracy to the private sector.
Indeed, that shift had been accelerated by
the
Bush Administration: the number of persons employed by contract which had
been outsourced (privatized) by the Pentagon was already four times more
than at the Department of Defense.
It is not anymore a military industrial complex but as
Noam Chomsky has
indicated,
"it's just the industrial system operating
under one or another pretext”.
The articles of the Washington Post “Top Secret
America - A hidden world, growing beyond control”, by Dana Priest and
William
M. Arkin (19 July 2010) show the extent that,
“The top-secret world the government created
in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so
large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it
costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or
exactly how many agencies do the same work”.
The investigation's findings include that some
1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs
related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about
10,000 locations across the United States; and that an estimated 854,000
people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold
top-secret security clearances.
A number of private military and security
companies are among the security and intelligence agencies mentioned in the
report of the Washington Post.
The Working Group received information from several sources that up to 70
per cent of the budget of United States intelligence is spent on
contractors. These contracts are classified and very little information is
available to the public on the nature of the activities carried out by these
contractors.
The privatization of war has created a structural dynamic, which responds to
a commercial logic of the industry.
A short look at the careers of the current managers of BAE Systems, as well
as on their address-books, confirms we are not any longer dealing with a
normal corporation, but with a cartel uniting high tech weaponry,
...with speculative financiers,
-
Lazard Frères
-
Goldman Sachs
-
Deutsche Bank,
...together with raw
material cartels,
-
British Petroleum
-
Shell Oil,
...with on the ground, private
military and security companies.[14]
The majority of the private military and security companies has been created
or are managed by former militaries or ex-policemen for whom it is big
business. Just to give an example
MPRI (Military Professional Resources
Incorporation) was created by four former generals of the United States Army
when they were due for retirement.[15]
The same is true for Blackwater and its
affiliate companies or subsidiaries, which employ former directors of the
C.I.A..[16] Social Scientists refer to this phenomenon as the
Rotating Door Syndrome.
The use of security contractors is expected to grow as American forces
shrink.
A July report by the
Commission on Wartime
Contracting, a panel established by Congress, estimated that the State
Department alone would need more than double the number of contractors it
had protecting the American Embassy and consulates in Iraq.
“Without contractors:
-
the military engagement would have
had to be smaller--a strategically problematic alternative
-
the United States would have had to
deploy its finite number of active personnel for even longer
tours of duty -a politically dicey and short-sighted option
-
the United States would have had to
consider a civilian draft or boost retention and recruitment by
raising military pay significantly - two politically untenable
options
-
the need for greater commitments
from other nations would have arisen and with it, the United
States would have had to make more concessions to build and
sustain a truly multinational effort.
Thus, the tangible differences in the type
of war waged, the effect on military personnel, and the need for
coalition partners are greatly magnified when the government has the
option to supplement its troops with contractors”.[17]
The military cannot do without them. There are
more contractors over all than actual members of the military serving in the
worsening war in Afghanistan.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES
COMMITTEE
Impact of Private Security Contracting on U.S. Goals in
Afghanistan [18]
-
Conclusion I
The proliferation of private security
personnel in Afghanistan is inconsistent with the counterinsurgency
strategy. In May 2010 the U.S. Central Command's Armed Contractor
Oversight Directorate reported that there were more than 26,000
private security contractor personnel operating in Afghanistan.
Many
of those private security personnel are associated with armed groups
that operate outside government control.
-
Conclusion 2
Afghan warlords and strongmen operating
as force providers to private security contractors have acted
against U.S. and Afghan government interests. Warlords and strongmen
associated with U.S.-funded security contractors have been linked to
anti Coalition activities, murder, bribery, and kidnapping.
The
Committee's examination of the U.S. funded security contract with ArmorGroup at Shindand Airbase in Afghanistan revealed that
ArmorGroup relied on a series of warlords to provide armed men to
act as security, guards at the Airbase.
Open-ended
intergovernmental working group established by the HR Council
Because of their impact in the enjoyment of human rights the Working Group
on mercenaries in its 2010 reports to the UN Human Rights Council and
General Assembly has recommended a legally binding instrument regulating and
monitoring their activities at the national and international level.
The motion to create an open ended intergovernmental working group has been
the object of lengthy negotiations, in the Human Rights Council, led by
South Africa in order to accommodate the concerns of the Western Group, but
primarily those of the United States and the United Kingdom and of a lot a
pressure exerted in the capitals of African countries supporting the draft
resolution.
The text of the resolution was weakened in order
to pass the resolution by consensus.
But even so the position of the Western
States has been a “fin de non recevoir”.
The resolution was adopted by a majority of 32 in favor, 12 against and 3
abstentions. Among the supporters of this initiative are four out of the
five members of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China and South Africa) in addition
to the African Group, the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the
Arab Group.
The adoption of this resolution opens an interesting process in the UN Human
Rights Council where civil society can participate in the elaboration of an
international framework on the regulation, monitoring and oversight of the
activities of private military and security companies.
The new open ended intergovernmental working
group will be the forum for all stakeholders to receive inputs, not only the
draft text of a possible convention and the elements elaborated by the UN
Working Group on mercenaries but also of other initiatives such as the
proposal submitted to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
the Montreux Document and the international code of conduct being elaborated
under the Swiss Initiative.
However, the negative vote of the delegations of the Western Group indicates
that the interests of the new staggering security industry - its annual
market revenue is estimated to be over USD one hundred billion - have been
quite well defended as was the case in a number of other occasions. It also
shows that Western governments will be absent from the start in a full
in-depth discussion of the issues raised by the activities of PMSC.
We urge all States to support the process initiated by the Council by
designating their representatives to the new open-ended intergovernmental
working group, which will hold its first session in 2011, and to continue a
process of discussions regarding a legally binding instrument.
The participation of the UK and USA main exporters of these activities (it
is estimated at 70% the industry of security in these two countries) as well
as other Western countries where the new industry is expanding is of
particular importance.
The Working Group also urges the United States Government to implement the
recommendations we made, in particular, to:
-
support the Congress Stop Outsourcing
Security (SOS) Act, which clearly defines the functions which are
inherently governmental and that cannot be outsourced to the private
sector
-
rescind immunity to contractors carrying
out activities in other countries under bilateral agreements
-
carry out prompt and effective
investigation of human rights violations committed by PMSCs and
prosecute alleged perpetrators
-
ensure that the oversight of private
military and security contractors is not outsourced to PMSCs
establish a specific system of federal licensing of PMSCs for their
activities abroad
-
set up a vetting procedure for awarding
contracts to PMSCs
-
ensure that United States criminal
jurisdiction applies to private military and security companies
contracted by the Government to carry out activities abroad
-
respond to pending communications from
the Working Group
Notes
[1] Blackwater Worldwide abandoned its
tarnished brand name in order to shake its reputation battered by its
criticized work in Iraq, renaming its family of two-dozen businesses
under the name Xe’, see Mike Baker, ‘Blackwater dumps tarnished brand
name’, AP News Break, 13 February 2009.
[2] URG, an Australian private military and security company, uses a
number of ex military Chileans to provide security to the Australian
Embassy in Baghdad. Recently one of those “private guards” shot himself,
ABC News, reported by La Tercera, Chile, 16 September 2010.
[3]J.Mendes & S Mitchell, “Who is Unity Resources Group?”, ABC News
Australia, 16 September 2010.
[4] Case 8:08-cv-01696-PJM, Document 103, Filed 07/29/10. Defendants
have filed Motions to Dismiss on a number of grounds. They argue, among
others, that the suit must be dismissed in its entirety because they are
immune under the laws of war, because the suit raises non-justiciable
political questions, and because they possess derivative sovereign
immunity. They seek dismissal of the state law claims on the basis of
government contractor immunity, premised on the notion that Plaintiffs
cannot proceed on state law claims, which arise out of combatant
activities of the military. The United States District Court for the
district of Maryland Greenbelt Division has decided to proceed with the
case against L-3 Services, Inc. It has not accepted the motions to
dismiss allowing the case to go forward.
[5] Mission to the United States of America, Report of the Working Group
on the use of mercenaries, United Nations document, A/HRC/15/25/Add.3,
paragraphs 22.
[6] James Risen and Mark Mazzetti, “Blackwater guards tied to secret
C.I.A. raids ”, New York Times, 10 December 2009.
[7] Adam Ciralsky, “Tycoon, contractor, soldier, spy”, Vanity Fair,
January 2010. See also Claim No. HQ08X02800 in the High Court of
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Binyam Mohamed v. Jeppesen UK Ltd,
report of James Gavin Simpson, 26 May 2009.
[8]ACLU Press Release, UN Report Underscores Lack of Accountability and
Oversight for Military and Security Contractors, New York, 14 September
2010.
[9] The reports also indicates that the Revenues of DynCorp for 2006
were of USD 1 966 993 and for 2009 USD 3 101 093
[10] Mission to Ecuador, Report of the Working Group on the use of
mercenaries, United Nations document, A/HRC/4/42/Add.2
[11] A number of the persons involved in the attempted coup were
arrested in Zimbabwe, other in Equatorial Guinea itself the place where
the coup was intended to take place to overthrow the government and put
another in its place in order to get the rich resources in oil. In 2004
and 2008 the trials took place in Equatorial Guinea of those arrested in
connection with this coup attempt, including of the British citizen
Simon Mann and the South African Nick du Toit. The President of
Equatorial Guinea pardoned all foreigners linked to this coup attempt in
November 2009 by. A number of reports indicated that trials failed to
comply with international human rights standards and that some of the
accused had been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. The government
of Equatorial Guinea has three ongoing trials in the United Kingdom,
Spain and Lebanon against the persons who were behind the attempted
coup.
[12] Report of the Working Group on the use of mercenaries, Mission to
Honduras, United Nations document A/HRC/4/42/Add.1.
[13] Wikipedia
[14] Mercenaries without borders by Karel Vereycken, Friday Sep 21st,
2007
[15] Among which General Carl E. Vuono, Chief of the Army during the
Gulf War and the invasion of Panama; General Crosbie E. Saint, former
Commander in Chief of the USA Army in Europe and General Ron Griffith.
The President of MPRI is General Bantant J. Craddock.
[16] Such as Cofer Black, former Chief of the Counter Terrorism Center;
Enrique Prado, former Chief of Operations and Rof Richter, second in
command of the Clandestine Services of the Company
[17] Article published in the Spring 2010 issue of the University of
Chicago Law Review, titled "Privatization's Pretensions" by Jon D.
Michaels, Acting Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law
[18] INQUIRY INTO THE ROLE AND OVERSIGHT OF PRIVATE SECURITY CONTRACTORS
IN AFGHANISTAN, REPORT TOGETHER WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES UNITED STATES SENATE, 28 September 2010
