Mercenary Helicopter shot down in Iraq

Gator

U of B and B Alumnus
Iraqi official says U.S. firm's chopper shot down No information on passengers, crew after downing in Baghdad
AP
BAGHDAD - A senior Iraqi defense official said a private U.S. security company helicopter was shot down over central Baghdad on Tuesday.
The official, who would not allow use of his name because the information had not been made public, said a gunman with PKC machinegun downed the small helicopter Tuesday afternoon over the heavily Sunni Fadhil neighborhood in north-central Baghdad.
A U.S. military official in the Middle East confirmed the helicopter had gone down in a heavily populated Baghdad neighborhood but had no information on why or how many were on board. That official also refused to be identified because he was not authorized to release the information.

Full Story here http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16767353/
******************************


I wonder if the US Taxpayer will get the bill for a new Helicopter?
 
Last edited:

You know Major, someone working for the US Government had the audacity to ask me once when he was dealing with the case of a wounded Merc from Iraq about getting Department of Veterans Affairs Benefits for said individual.... and, when I asked if the person had ever been in the US Military, at all, in his entire adult life, I was told no.
I asked what would make a DoD Employee even ask such a question, and that the answer was of course, no.
I was then asked what the person who was wounded would do if the VA would not step in, and I said don't know, more importantly don't care, as the person signed up as a Mercenary to make lots of money in Iraq, and should have thought ahead about some good health coverage, just in case.
I then thought about it a second, and said it sounds like a Workmans Compensation case to me, and was told that was already looked into and as of that time the outcome had not been favorable to the Merc, and that it looked like he would not be covered under any such law.
 
most of those guys are retired or ex military and most likely have very good medical coverage as part of their contracts going over there. probably better than USG

Washington Post
January 24, 2007
Pg. 10
Contractor Helicopter Downed In Iraq
5 Killed as Guards Respond to Attack on Embassy Convoy
By Ernesto Londono, Joshua Partlow and Karen DeYoung, Washington Post Staff Writers
BAGHDAD, Jan. 24 -- A private security company helicopter was shot down after responding to assist a U.S. Embassy convoy that came under attack in central Baghdad on Tuesday afternoon, U.S. officials said.
One contractor traveling with the convoy and four contractors aboard the helicopter were killed. The contractors, officials said on condition of anonymity, were employed by North Carolina-based Blackwater USA. Blackwater officials declined to comment.
The convoy came under small-arms fire while traveling through a Sunni neighborhood en route to an Iraqi government ministry, officials said. The helicopter, a small, lightly armed surveillance craft, was dispatched to assist. According to a summary of events drafted by a U.S. Embassy employee and made available to The Washington Post, the convoy was also targeted with rocket-propelled grenades.
The helicopter crashed after being "riddled with small-arms fire," a State Department official said. The official said it was unclear whether the men aboard died from gunfire or from the impact of the crash.
No State Department employees were hurt in the attack, but some vehicles were destroyed, according to the summary of events in the report. Other vehicles in the convoy returned safely to the Green Zone.
Two separate Sunni insurgent groups, Ansar al-Sunnah and the Islamic Army in Iraq, asserted responsibility for the attacks on Web sites used by the groups. The accounts differ in significant detail, although Ansar published photos of what it said were the U.S. Embassy badge, credit cards and dog tags of one of the men killed in the attack.
The authenticity of the statements, translated and made available by the Washington-based SITE Institute, could not be independently confirmed.
The identification posted by Ansar was that of Arthur Laguna, 52, a pilot for Blackwater. His mother, Lydia Laguna, said in an interview that she received a call early Tuesday morning from her other son, also a Blackwater pilot in Baghdad, notifying her that Arthur had been killed.
"As far as any details, we're waiting for representatives from Blackwater to come by tomorrow," said Mary Beth Laguna, 52, Arthur Laguna's wife. "All I know is he's gone."
Arthur Laguna joined Blackwater about six months ago, after a military career that spanned about three decades with the U.S. Army and the California National Guard, she said.
The Pentagon has estimated that there are 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq. More than 700 civilian contractors have been killed since 2003.
Doug Brooks, president of the International Peace Operations Association, an industry group that includes security contractors, said the type of helicopter downed, known as a "little bird," is among the safest modes of transportation in war zones.
"Their crews are the best -- they really know their stuff," he said in an e-mail. "They are very good at avoiding fire, flying low and fast -- and the tiny helicopters are very hard to hit."
It appears to be the second civilian helicopter downed in Iraq since the war began. The attack occurred three days after a U.S. military Black Hawk crashed north of the capital, killing 12.
In another development, U.S. military officials said Tuesday that they have in custody four people suspected of unleashing a brazen attack on U.S. troops Saturday at a government building in Karbala.
The assailants apparently drove to the building in GMC trucks, slipping through checkpoints by displaying official-looking badges and wearing what looked like U.S. military uniforms. U.S. and Iraqi officials were discussing security plans for a Shiite holiday in the holy city when the assailants attacked the Americans with grenades and other weapons.
Also Tuesday, the military reported the deaths of three U.S. service members. Their deaths bring the death toll of American troops over the weekend to at least 29.
A soldier with the 89th Military Police Brigade was killed Monday in Baghdad by an improvised explosive device; a Marine with the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force died Sunday from wounds suffered in fighting in Baghdad; and a service member assigned to the Marine Regimental Combat Team 5 was killed Monday in Anbar province in western Baghdad.
DeYoung reported from Washington. Special correspondent Waleed Saffar in Baghdad and staff researchers Julie Tate and Robert E. Thomason in Washington contributed to this report.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's important to point out that none of those guys were Mercenaries. They served their time in the military, earned their right to go out and do what they loved to do through another venue. To say they were Mercs implies they had no loyalty to any country, and that's just not true. I guess if a guy does his time and decides to go the civvy route and continue his job, his service and honor to his country gets tossed out of the window. Kinda shitty to me. Just in case you cared, these guys are credited with saving the lives of a lot of AD guys that have gotten in a bind, too.

RIP guys.
 
They were all Mercenaries, I do not care if you wish to call them "Non-Military but Armed Security Consultants Working for lots of money in a Combat Zone" or not.


Article 1
For the purposes of the present Convention,

1. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an
armed conflict;

(b) 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 rank and functions in the armed
forces of that party;

(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

(d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and

(e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on
official duty as a member of its armed forces.

2. A mercenary is also any person who, in any other situation:

(a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad for the purpose of
participating in a concerted act of violence aimed at:

(i) Overthrowing a Government or otherwise undermining the
constitutional order of a State; or

(ii) Undermining the territorial integrity of a State;

(b) Is motivated to take part therein essentially by the desire for
significant private gain and is prompted by the promise or payment of material
compensation;

(c) Is neither a national nor a resident of the State against which such
an act is directed;

(d) Has not been sent by a State on official duty; and

(e) Is not a member of the armed forces of the State on whose territory
the act is undertaken.

http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

And the United States of Amreica restricted by Treaty from using Mercs.

Do you really believe just because someone puts a few years in the Military (and is paid to do so) that the action entitles them to do whatever they may wish once they get out of the Military?
 
They were all Mercenaries, I do not care if you wish to call them "Non-Military but Armed Security Consultants Working for lots of money in a Combat Zone" or not.




http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r034.htm

And the United States of Amreica restricted by Treaty from using Mercs.

Do you really believe just because someone puts a few years in the Military (and is paid to do so) that the action entitles them to do whatever they may wish once they get out of the Military?

A few years? Most of them are retired and have served in some pretty harsh units.

Anyway, to quote your own post:

c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of
territory controlled by a party to the conflict;

You've obviously never met any Mercs, I have. Some were from the US and did have military service, but they were for the most part shitbags that got through.

Funny how you claim service, but you knock guys that put in time because they go out and find jobs to a) continue doing whatever it was they did in the military and b) make a little money from it. I guess that's a product of the new Bravo Foxtrot thinking.

Anyway, you can disrespect our fallen if you want, that's your perogative. I was interjecting my 2 cents for those that don't have a grudge. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.
 
Which treaty restricts the US from hiring contractors Gator? Can I have a link because this one here is from a UN white paper and last time I checked the UN does not pass binding legislation in the US.
 
A few years? Most of them are retired and have served in some pretty harsh units.

Anyway, to quote your own post:



You've obviously never met any Mercs, I have. Some were from the US and did have military service, but they were for the most part shitbags that got through.

Funny how you claim service, but you knock guys that put in time because they go out and find jobs to a) continue doing whatever it was they did in the military and b) make a little money from it. I guess that's a product of the new Bravo Foxtrot thinking.

Anyway, you can disrespect our fallen if you want, that's your perogative. I was interjecting my 2 cents for those that don't have a grudge. You and I will just have to agree to disagree.

True, I do not think we will find any common ground on this, and I would like to point out that you are free of course to forward your concerns about my Military Service to the Admin Staff.
 
That is not a treaty restricting the US... this is a general statement of principles of the UN. This is not a binding treaty.
The US is not party to this agreement... only the following nations signed the agreement.

Participant
Angola
Azerbaijan
Barbados
Belarus
Cameroon
Congo
Cyprus
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Georgia
Germany
Italy
Maldives
Mauritania
Morocco
Nigeria
Poland
Qatar
Romania
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Seychelles
Suriname
Togo
Turkmenistan
Ukraine
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Yugoslavia

http://untreaty.un.org/sample/EnglishInternetBible/partI/chapterXVIII/treaty6.htm
 
Last edited:
Do you view the International Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War as non-buinding as well? How about any International Convention from the UN?
 
If my country does not sign the declaration and make our country a party to the agreement then NO I do not consider my nation nor its citizens bound by any such agreement. And that's not just my opinion, that's the way treaties work. If you dont sign it you are not bound by it. Its a very simple black and white matter. Now if you wish to start selling postage stamps and form your own nation and sign onto such agreement upon attaining a seat in the UN you, yourself, are more than welcome to avail yourself of this and any other resolution or treaty that the UN puts out. But the US is not, nor is any other nation that is not signatory to the agreement, bound by the treaty.

To restate for clarity, under international law if a country makes itself party to a treaty then it is bound by the terms and conditions of the treaty, if it does not then it is not bound by any such restrictions, rules or conventions laid out in the document.

Now do you have a link or were you stating your opinion which was in fact not a fact?
 
If my country does not sign the declaration and make our country a party to the agreement then NO I do not consider my nation nor its citizens bound by any such agreement. And that's not just my opinion, that's the way treaties work. If you dont sign it you are not bound by it. Its a very simple black and white matter. Now if you wish to start selling postage stamps and form your own nation and sign onto such agreement upon attaining a seat in the UN you, yourself, are more than welcome to avail yourself of this and any other resolution or treaty that the UN puts out. But the US is not, nor is any other nation that is not signatory to the agreement, bound by the treaty.

To restate for clarity, under international law if a country makes itself party to a treaty then it is bound by the terms and conditions of the treaty, if it does not then it is not bound by any such restrictions, rules or conventions laid out in the document.

Now do you have a link or were you stating your opinion which was in fact not a fact?




How about the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (GC) of 12 August 1949 and the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977?

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 47.-Mercenaries[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2. A mercenary is any person who:[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) Is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) Does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](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;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](d) Is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](e) Is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](f) Has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Edit: Seems the US Law has been repealed dealing with Mercs, but the definition of a Merc still stands, although as I pointed out PJ is free to call them what he wishes, as are you if you so choose.

And I had mistakenly thought the US was bound because the United States was listed http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/447/67/PDF/N0444767.pdf?OpenElement
In a UN document dealing with such, but only as a violator by the country of Cuba, which I personally do not see the US Government in volation of, nor do I see the US Government legally in violation of in terms of Iraq, I just do not see them as Military Hero's due the CMH, any other Medal, (unless they are prior service in the US Military) any Veterans Benefits, or even said to be Hero's in any sense of the word for any action in the Combat Zone, while the honorable job of being in the United States Military is looked upon as merely being one held by someone too stupid to make the big bucks as a Mercenary.
 
Last edited:
True, I do not think we will find any common ground on this, and I would like to point out that you are free of course to forward your concerns about my Military Service to the Admin Staff.

I don't recall saying I had concerns about your military service. You have it claimed on your profile, do you not? That was my only reference. If I thought you were a liar, I'd just tell you up front and make no bones about it. I just found it funny (not funny ha ha) that someone that served, esp. in EOD (I know a lot of those cats, and many that have gone over to the civvy side) would dump his brothers so quickly just because they've moved on to civilian careers.

But either way, the contractors do not meet the criteria for a merc required in your own definition.
 
That is from your Post, and you are, as I have said free to view the Mercs as you wish, but the definition is the definition, regardless.

Yes, and nowhere does it say that I doubt your claim. I'll say what I mean and mean what I say.

And your definition doesn't fit the contractors. If you're going to use that definition, at least read it and make sure the guys you're calling "Mercs" fit the criteria.
 
I don't think of the Blackwater types as mercenaries at all. They are simply working for the United States in a private capacity, rather than working for the highest bidder.
 
Back
Top