# US Contractor Charged in Shooting of AFG Accused of Torching Scientist



## The Bread Guy (20 Nov 2008)

Links to other media outlets below - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Contractor who shot Afghan stands trial*
American shot Afghan dead when told of colleague's horrific burns
Written by Quqnoos.com, 20 Nov 08
Article link

An American security contractor who shot an Afghan man is standing trial for murder in America. The American is understood to have shot the man after hearing that the Afghan had injured a fellow contractor, reports say.

Don M. Ayala, 46 and Paula Loyd were accompanying an American foot patrol through an Afghan village near Kandahar on November 4. Afghan Abdul Salam threw a container of flammable liquid onto Loyd during the operation and was detained. _(links to Kansas City Star story on original attack)_

About ten minutes later, when Ayala was told that Loyd was badly burnt, he shot Salam dead, according to American soldiers who witnessed the scene.

Since leaving the US military, Ayala had guarded top Afghan and Iraqi VIPs. He had been working for BAE Systems since September 1.

It is unclear how Ayala was brought before the US District Court in Alexandria, Virginia.

The trial continues. 



More from NBC News and Wired's Danger Room blog

_- edited to add extra links at bottom-_


----------



## Drag (21 Nov 2008)

IMO, "contractors" should have no place doing warfighting in a place like Afghanistan.  They are mercenaries, pure and simple.  Let them drive trucks and do laundry, nothing more than that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2008)

We hire Afghan merc's so whats the difference ?


----------



## Drag (21 Nov 2008)

The difference is that they are locals and fall under local laws.  They are more like native auxiliary forces, different from foreign mercenaries.  They do not represent the coalition as much in the eyes of the locals.  When a local working for the coalition does something stupid it does not create the kind of resentment as a western mercenary.  In my opinion warfighting should be the domain of governments.  It allows you much better of your forces and image.  Also, having to hire mercenaries is a sign of weakness.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2008)

If an interpreter is associated with the coalition so are your so called auxileries.We employ civilian contractors with K9's to go along on patrols for example to detect explosives. Without the contractor we might not even have that capability in country due to manpower shortages which is really what is the driving force behind the PMC/KBR ect.


----------



## Drag (21 Nov 2008)

They are associated with the coalition, but that interpreter will not do as much damage as a Blackwater team that shoots up a market place and is then whisked out of the country because they are immune to local laws.  Governments can exercise much better control over their armed forces than armed mercenaries.  Contractors have their roles, but warfighting is not one of them.  Rome fell after it turned over its defense to mercenary armies.  Armed forces should be funded to the level that they do not need contractors, especially in combat.  I just personally dissagree with using "contractors" in combat roles.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2008)

Contractors are in support and personal security roles,which sometimes requires shooting in self defense.The bad guys are not victims.If this bad guy hadnt thrown acid he would still be alive. In this case the contractor doesnt know what other weapons this attacker might have.He has to be put down.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Contractors are in support and personal security roles,which sometimes requires shooting in self defense.The bad guys are not victims.If this bad guy hadnt thrown acid he would still be alive. In this case the contractor doesnt know what other weapons this attacker might have.He has to be put down.



I call bull-s***.

The suspect was detained.  Ten minutes later, Mr Ayala gunned him down.  That certainly appears pre-meditated - murder in the first degree.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2008)

In this case you are right dapaterson.I was just making a general obeservation as previous posters felt contractors had no place in a war zone.


----------



## Drag (21 Nov 2008)

Governments may be able to outsource tasks but cannot outsource the responsibility for them.  A government will never have as much control over the actions of Blackwater, Executive Outcomes, et al, as over its own military forces, but will still be responsible for their decisions.  This case is a good case-in-point, the contractor shot an unarmed prisoner, and committed at least  murder, and maybe a war crime.  IMO, Armed defense contrators have very valuable roles to play but only when hired by the host government of a country, playing by its laws and under the jurisdiction of their courts ie: security of VIPs, protecting shipping from piracy, protecting installation like oil platforms in the Niger Delta.

edited for spelling


----------



## twistedcables (21 Nov 2008)

The day clients stop going for the lowest common denominator is the end of contractors/mercenaries. D# said it - the Romans lost it after relying so heavily on mercs.  A regular soldier is a noble occupation because it comes with accountability: to superiors, subordinates and self.  Mercs f*ck it up for soldiers and escape accountability: hence the lack of moral value in such professions.

In any event - he could claim extreme rage or shock.  Even IF the guy did do it - we don't summarily execute people - violates our ROE's.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2008)

Justifiable homocide.


----------



## Drag (22 Nov 2008)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Justifiable homocide.



According to the Laws of War... NO


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Nov 2008)

I am just not very sympathetic to the killing of a bad guy that disfigured an unarmed civilian. The civilian security contractor is a very experienced guy. Hope he comes out of it ok.


----------



## Drag (22 Nov 2008)

I am not sympathetic to the SOB either.  But the contractor is an SOB too in the sense that we have the moral high ground and such actions act to erode it.  Just because the other guy does not follow the Laws of War does not mean we stoop down to their level.  I hope he gets his day in court and an appropriate punishment


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> I am not sympathetic to the SOB either.  But the contractor is an SOB too in the sense that we have the moral high ground and such actions act to erode it.  Just because the other guy does not follow the Laws of War does not mean we stoop down to their level.  I hope he gets his day in court and an appropriate punishment



Very good points here especially. I too am extremely against the use of such mercenary organizations. The so-called "Private Military Contractors" used by the US in for example Iraq are nothing more than unaccountable cowboys. Military force needs to be only wielded by governments with transparency and legitimacy, not organizations fostered by profit margins and stock holders.

-C/D


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Nov 2008)

Do you ever post a response about something you have actual knowledge of, or do you just tap away on the keyboard, astounding us with whatever random thoughts that happen to flicker through your mind at any given moment?


----------



## HItorMiss (24 Nov 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> I am not sympathetic to the SOB either.  But the contractor is an SOB too in the sense that *we have the moral high ground* and such actions act to erode it.  .  I hope he gets his day in court and an appropriate punishment *Just because the other guy does not follow the Laws of War does not mean we stoop down to their level*




Moral high ground in who's eyes? yours? mine? theirs?

And for the record wars are won by the side willing to do what the other is not...Cruel and inhumane you betcha but that is why war is such an abhorrent thing. If you are putting Canada on a pedestal crack your history books..Fire Bombings of Dresden come to mind...


As for the topic at large Contractor or not it was murder, justifiable maybe? who am I to sit in judgement. What I do know is that we are human and ruled by emotion no person can be truly a master of our base emotions and where they lead ( Anger = Violence ) and there are thousands of cases both from our side and the opposing forces side (any opposing force) of this happening and by SOLDIERS no less...


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2008)

I must say as a previous "unaccountable cowboy" I have seen much worse discresion used by armed forces personnel.  Keep in mind the vast majority of armed contractors are former mil personnel, who usually have a lot more experience and skill than the average soldier on patrol.


Bullet Magnet has some pretty good points.


  I fear we have lost the ability to wage an effective war these days.


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The so-called "Private Military Contractors" used by the US in for example Iraq are nothing more than unaccountable cowboys. Military force needs to be only wielded by governments with transparency and legitimacy, not organizations fostered by profit margins and stock holders.



Running at the mouth again I see - and one of the "unaccountable cowboys" here stated you're off base (again...big surprise).

Keep it up; you're so far out of your lane that you're in oncoming traffic.


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2008)

Dont get me wrong contractors have screwed up by the numbers too.

 BW's shooting last year of 17 unarmed Iraqi's was an utter atrocity
  * I have spoke to three people involved (BW) all who claim the Iraqi's where unarmed and did not fire on the BW TMST (QRF team)

However any situation can sprila out of control when one shooter make a bad call (or worse) as one can look at the USMC's elite Det1 guys that got booted out of country following overreaction to a VBIED.


----------



## TCBF (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Very good points here especially. I too am extremely against the use of such mercenary organizations. The so-called "Private Military Contractors" used by the US in for example Iraq are nothing more than unaccountable cowboys. Military force needs to be only wielded by governments with transparency and legitimacy, not organizations fostered by profit margins and stock holders.
> 
> -C/D



- You can always screen and test PMC's, as the professionals in their midst demand a high standard among their peers.  For the most part, they get it.  The politically motivated, however, are far more dangerous than the financially motivated.  They tend to see the planet in terms of black and white and claim that hatred is a force multiplier.  The Canadian and American 'internationalists' who joined the Communist crusade during the Spanish Civil War are an example.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Moral high ground in who's eyes? yours? mine? theirs?
> 
> And for the record wars are won by the side willing to do what the other is not...Cruel and inhumane you betcha but that is why war is such an abhorrent thing. If you are putting Canada on a pedestal crack your history books..Fire Bombings of Dresden come to mind...



Utterly disgusting if you believe that there is any justification for cruel and inhumane acts. Not only is it everything that our country stands for, its everything that is against the Laws of War. The ends do not justify the means in this case whatsoever. I don't know why you are citing a horrible event such as the fire bombings of Dresden as a *good* thing. 

Cruel and inhumane acts do nothing but harm in a war such as the ones we are fighting in. COIN operations only become hampered by such disgusting acts, and it has been proven in the past. If you are a member of the Canadian Forces I suggest you look carefully at some of the principles, ethos and laws that you are subject to. Otherwise I question your motives for being in the CF.



> Insert Quote
> I must say as a previous "unaccountable cowboy" I have seen much worse discresion used by armed forces personnel.  Keep in mind the vast majority of armed contractors are former mil personnel, who usually have a lot more experience and skill than the average soldier on patro



True, in regards to experience and skills. As well, there has certainly been much much worse discretion by armed forces personnel in other events. However, in the end, such events of discretion can be handled in a proper context with such platforms as our Code of Service Discipline. Private Military Contractors on the other hand have some very wary motives, and anything that has a motive for pure financial (or sadomasochistic) gain is something to be cautious of. I understand that they provide a service that we are in need of, however if the war and the ability to wage such a war is only possible with the use, and direct use (i.e. within combat roles/ "security" roles) then maybe that is a war we should be rethinking on how we are conducting it. 

Yes I have no experience as a PMC, does that mean I am not allowed to comment on it? There has been plenty of events around the world to justify my comments, so by throwing away my comments as those of someone of no background is utterly ridiculous and academically preposterous. The massacres and atrocities committed by PMCs in the past, as well as their continuing problems in many nations, as well as the base question of employment (Should we be privatizing, of all things, the military?), is base enough for my opinions. For those who wish for everyone to be an accredited professionnal in every single opinion they voice, I say then you probably cannot speak a lot about things in your day to day life. How many here don't have a political science background and still speak about politics? How many hear are not qualified film-makers yet still criticize and review movies they have seen? Finally, how many here aren't PMCs but can still comment on their history and detriments without having been involved in that field? I am certainly one of those people, as are many.

-C/D


----------



## Infanteer (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Yes I have no experience as a PMC, does that mean I am not allowed to comment on it? There has been plenty of events around the world to justify my comments, so by throwing away my comments as those of someone of no background is utterly ridiculous and academically preposterous.



No, but have you ever worked in an environment with PMCs?  Do you know any people who've worked as a PMC?  So aside from some newpaper clippings and the latest book from the library do you really feel you can sit here and tell people that anyone working for a PMC is an unaccountable cowboy?   Pretty nice blanket statement there - just like the other ones you've made that have got you introduced to the warning system.

It's not what you're saying, it's how you choose to say it.  You're like that annoying guy knocking at the door at 0830 to give me some religious literature.  Try a different approach, one that doesn't involve you telling the rest of us how the world really works.  You'd be surprised to find that many people here have lived through stuff you like to make casual observations about and that you may learn something.


----------



## Loachman (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> How many hear are not qualified film-makers yet still criticize and review movies they have seen?



At least when we criticize a movie we've seen it first.

You beak off without doing the equivalent.

Try a less confrontational approach. You'll be the one who benefits the most.

Or carry on as you are. It doesn't really matter to us. We can just ignore you and watch as you move up the warning system.

Your call.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Utterly disgusting if you believe that there is any justification for cruel and inhumane acts. Not only is it everything that our country stands for, its everything that is against the Laws of War. The ends do not justify the means in this case whatsoever. I don't know why you are citing a horrible event such as the fire bombings of Dresden as a *good* thing.
> 
> Cruel and inhumane acts do nothing but harm in a war such as the ones we are fighting in. COIN operations only become hampered by such disgusting acts, and it has been proven in the past. If you are a member of the Canadian Forces I suggest you look carefully at some of the principles, ethos and laws that you are subject to. Otherwise I question your motives for being in the CF.
> 
> ...




OK Kid.......And that is what you are; a Kid.  It is time for you to go on "Listening Silence".  Too often you have spouted off on matters that you know absolutely nothing about and have no experience in.  You are the type of twit who doesn't accept the fact that people who walk the surface of the earth and look up daily to blue skies tell you that the sky is blue; all because you and your comrades skulking in a dark hole somewhere deep beneath the surface have debated the fact that it is "green".  Once again you are wrong in your assumptions, and you should know by now after reading so much here on Milnet.ca what "assume" means.

You are nothing but a smartass ill-informed kid who thinks he knows more than he does.  You will someday find out how wrong you are.  Now go on "Listening Silence" (being polite here) and save some face.


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2008)

You know back in 2003-2004 the Unaccountable cowboy moniker would have had some weight.

 The U.S. Military had no idea on how to get a grip on the unnumerable compnaies and thousands odf contracts flooding into Iraq (and to a point Afghanistan).  However in this intial flood, very few worked for the U.S. Deparment of Defense.  Many came across the border in TPOH, companies and people.  Thousands of people who where not entitled to CAC cards (DoD badge ID) received one, and became DoD contractors on the face of it, despite having no ties to DoD other than an ID badge.

 There still needs to be more checks and balances on the contracting system.  Very few people understand it, and very few have the experience and intelligence in a such a combination to make a viable system.  I won't get into some issues to deep as I intend to finish a book off next year and dont want to spoil my potential buying public with the answers now


----------



## Drag (24 Nov 2008)

I was debating, whether or not to get back to this topic after it was highjacked by the resident troll....   I do not consider PMCs trigger happy cowboys, most are highly trained professionals doing a valuable service in the roles that they are employed in.   My opinion is still is that warfighting should not be outsourced to PMCs and should be done by military forces.  In a way governments skirt the responsibility to fund their armed forces properly by hiring PMCs.  There as still roles I find PMCs uniquely suited for, as I posted previously.

That being said, the particular individual in the article was wrong and deserves to be punished.  As for the firebombing of Dresden, large scale bombing was an acceptable military tactic at the time used by all sides.  While today people may disagree withit, it was accepted at the time, and with the limitations of technology, saturation bombing IMO was a legitimate tactic.  A more accurate comparison is the treatment of POWs and enemy civilians by the Western Allies and the Axis.  We did not shoot civilians in reprisal, the enemy did.  We did not work our prisoners to death in slave labour camps, the enemy did.  We did not shoot prisoners for escaping from POW camps.  We never ordered our troops to execute an entire class of POWs on sight (ref Commissar Order).  The whole Holocaust thing.  So hence we did maintain the moral high ground on our enemies


----------



## KevinB (24 Nov 2008)

Warfighting is not done by PSC.

 Certain companies do have a different contract - and are used in SAP/SCI work for selective targeting.  However 99.9% of the PMC's are used in some sort of security role - be it static guard forces, convoy escort teams, or personal security detail.  Those jobs are defensive non-combatants.

If warfighting is done - then that jumps off the PSC and into the realm of Executive Outcomes, Sandline etc. fully and completely the mercenary corporation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (24 Nov 2008)

D3 said:
			
		

> I was debating, whether or not to get back to this topic after it was highjacked by the resident troll....   I do not consider PMCs trigger happy cowboys, most are highly trained professionals doing a valuable service in the roles that they are employed in.   My opinion is still is that warfighting should not be outsourced to PMCs and should be done by military forces.  In a way governments skirt the responsibility to fund their armed forces properly by hiring PMCs.  There as still roles I find PMCs uniquely suited for, as I posted previously.
> 
> That being said, the particular individual in the article was wrong and deserves to be punished.  As for the firebombing of Dresden, large scale bombing was an acceptable military tactic at the time used by all sides.  While today people may disagree withit, it was accepted at the time, and with the limitations of technology, saturation bombing IMO was a legitimate tactic.  A more accurate comparison is the treatment of POWs and enemy civilians by the Western Allies and the Axis.  We did not shoot civilians in reprisal, the enemy did.  We did not work our prisoners to death in slave labour camps, the enemy did.  We did not shoot prisoners for escaping from POW camps.  We never ordered our troops to execute an entire class of POWs on sight (ref Commissar Order).  The whole Holocaust thing.  So hence we did maintain the moral high ground on our enemies



..and that C-D is how one can disagree with the "site status quo" and still make an interesting worthwhile contribution to the topic so actual debate can occur.

I don't suppose you are takin' notes?


----------



## HItorMiss (24 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> Utterly disgusting if you believe that there is any justification for cruel and inhumane acts. Not only is it everything that our country stands for, its everything that is against the Laws of War. The ends do not justify the means in this case whatsoever. I don't know why you are citing a horrible event such as the fire bombings of Dresden as a *good* thing.
> 
> Cruel and inhumane acts do nothing but harm in a war such as the ones we are fighting in. COIN operations only become hampered by such disgusting acts, and it has been proven in the past. If you are a member of the Canadian Forces I suggest you look carefully at some of the principles, ethos and laws that you are subject to. Otherwise I question your motives for being in the CF.




I promise not to feed the Trolls..I promise not to feed the Trolls.... Ah Screw it!


All things are justifiable, it simply matters if you are willing to go far enough. Example I can fight a war that takes 20 years and cost 200 Million lives or I could fight a war that last 1 year but cost one a nation an entire city of 3 Million...Abhorrent Absolutely but can you justify that action?....Think before you speak.

Who the heck are you to site CION Ops to me.... You have no idea who or where or what I do...

Next you part time rent a toy soldier (Apologise to legitimate Res F pers but he is what I am describing!) My motivations for being in CF are crystal clear, I defend my country in places others are not and I hold dear to the ideals of my country. I can quote to you the laws of armed conflict if you like, simply because I acknowledge that in terms of warfare wars ARE won by the side willing or able to do the acts that the opponent is not does not mean I cannot acknowledge the abhorrent nature of that action. For the record I never cites the Dresden bombings as a good thing what I cited was an action taken by our Military created by our command to use terror or as they called it back then the Total War concept to demoralize the civilian populace...Dresden was not a legitimate military target it was however a legitimate WAR target in terms of the Total War operation.


What the contractor did was wrong and illegal and thus he will be punished but let the country or nation without sin in the area of killing POW's throw the first stone...Guess what there isn't one! Canadians soldiers did it, American soldiers did it, British, German etc etc etc the list goes on almost none of those acts (Save some very clear orders by Nazi High Command) were condoned by their respective governments or commands but they happen. 

As I said before Base emotions are sometimes an over riding factor hence the sections of laws covered by Crimes of Passions!  Sometimes as wrong as it is Anger will equal Violence, what we can hope is that his comrades will stop him from making a large mistake.


----------



## GAP (24 Nov 2008)

You really shouldn't feed the trolls.....  ;D


----------



## Sig_Des (24 Nov 2008)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> Who the heck are you to site CION Ops to me.... You have no idea who or where or what I do...
> 
> Next you part time rent a toy soldier (Apologise to legitimate Res F pers but he is what I am describing!) My motivations for being in CF are crystal clear, I defend my country in places others are not and I hold dear to the ideals of my country. I can quote to you the laws of armed conflict if you like, simply because I acknowledge that in terms of warfare wars ARE won by the side willing or able to do the acts that the opponent is not does not mean I cannot acknowledge the abhorrent nature of that action. For the record I never cites the Dresden bombings as a good thing what I cited was an action taken by our Military created by our command to use terror or as they called it back then the Total War concept to demoralize the civilian populace...Dresden was not a legitimate military target it was however a legitimate WAR target in terms of the Total War operation.



And a fair warming to Cognitive-Dissonance, before you even _consider_ getting your back up and answering in kind to this post, you were asking for it.

You are without floatation device, and barely wading in a pool where BM is a lifeguard.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

> Next you part time rent a toy soldier (Apologise to legitimate Res F pers but he is what I am describing!) My motivations for being in CF are crystal clear, I defend my country in places others are not and I hold dear to the ideals of my country. I can quote to you the laws of armed conflict if you like, simply because I acknowledge that in terms of warfare wars ARE won by the side willing or able to do the acts that the opponent is not does not mean I cannot acknowledge the abhorrent nature of that action. For the record I never cites the Dresden bombings as a good thing what I cited was an action taken by our Military created by our command to use terror or as they called it back then the Total War concept to demoralize the civilian populace...Dresden was not a legitimate military target it was however a legitimate WAR target in terms of the Total War operation.



In that case I misinterpreted what you were getting at. I thought you were sayin that terms of warfare are won by the side willing to do abhorrent acts, _and_ that Canada should ultimately resort to those tactics. Your post seemed to imply that in order for us to win the war we have to resort to those tactics. Am I correct now in understanding your post that you are merely stating that, the side most willing to do abhorrent acts will win the war, however despite that Canada shouldn't necessarily be involved in such acts? My apologies then if I went on a little harsh, because you should understand that to support abhorrent acts as a tactic is quite disgusting in my opinion.

If I understand your point correctly, then I slightly disagree. I would say historically speaking, not all nations that resorted to abhorrent acts necessarily won a war, nor were they necessarily inclined to have better results doing that. In fact I'd say that the opposite happened in many wars, Vietnam and Afghanistan (for the USSR) for example. Anyways either way, you make a fair point.

Moving on to the topic at hand.  I agree with D3s assertations above in that PMCs are, in the end something that should be avoided. The responsibility of warfare should continue to be on the government, and with organizations accountable to only the public. My reasonings for this are that, since warfare is ultimately an act done (in our case at least) by our government, then any forces utilized need to be able to be accountable and transparent to the public at hand (afterall, they are tools of the government, and thus tools of the public in a large sense). While I admit my initial comments of PMCs as "trigger happy cowboys" was a little harsh and brash, I still believe there has been plenty of prior events that question the motivations and professionalism of _some_ PMCs. While we certainly shouldn't "throw the baby out with the bathwater" necessarily, these events show a possibly larger problem with the base foundations of PMCs as an entity, and therefore we need to shine a bigger spotlight and have more scrutiny when dealing with PMCs. I contend that with this scrutiny we will find the need to hold higher standards and transparency to PMCs. I will go out on a limb to say that maybe we should nationalize PMCs in Canada. Thus, we can have the flexibility and availibility of PMCs, however we can also add onto it being a crown corporation and having that public transparency. This can also give it national standards of training, which can ensure that their force projection is weilded properly. That however is just something that came to mind, but I'm sure others have ideas on bringing the standards and accountability up.

-C/D


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Nov 2008)

I know, I know, don't feed....



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> The responsibility of warfare should continue to be on the government, and with organizations accountable to only the public. My reasonings for this are that, since warfare is ultimately an act done (in our case at least) by our government, then any forces utilized need to be able to be accountable and transparent to the public at hand (afterall, they are tools of the government, and thus tools of the public in a large sense).



In many cases, PMCs _*ARE*_ working for the public - if they're protecting other government-funded-and-employed assets, it's the funding-and-employing government that's paying for them, right?  Should there be better oversight?  I think maybe yes, but I leave that as an opinion informed only by the worst of what I read, and without experience in the other (I'm guessing) 99.999% of the time when the system works.  Has lots been done in this respect?  You bet.  Still, if PMCs are employed by the state, they are protecting state assets at state expense - sounds like working for the state to me...



			
				Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> I will go out on a limb to say that maybe we should nationalize PMCs in Canada. Thus, we can have the flexibility and availibility of PMCs, however we can also add onto it being a crown corporation and having that public transparency. This can also give it national standards of training, which can *ensure that their force projection is weilded properly*.



Greeeeeeeeeeeeeat, a two-tiered military force for Canada - just what we need to make things more efficient  :

As for the use of said forces (highlighted in yellow), I'll leave detailed comment to those with direct experience, but I'm guessing how the force is projected is a function of the terms of the contract between the employer (the state) and the employee (the PMC/company).  As a taxpayer, I believe the state can employ PMCs, using good contract language to prevent/sanction the worst abuses, to free up soldiers for more offensive tasks.


----------



## PAT-Platoon (24 Nov 2008)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I know, I know, don't feed....
> 
> In many cases, PMCs _*ARE*_ working for the public - if they're protecting other government-funded-and-employed assets, it's the funding-and-employing government that's paying for them, right?  Should there be better oversight?  I think maybe yes, but I leave that as an opinion informed only by the worst of what I read, and without experience in the other (I'm guessing) 99.999% of the time when the system works.  Has lots been done in this respect?  You bet.  Still, if PMCs are employed by the state, they are protecting state assets at state expense - sounds like working for the state to me...



I never argued that they weren't working for the public, in fact its the opposite. I am arguing that _because_ they are working for the public, therefore they should have better accountability, _directly_, to the public. Contract stipulations are an interesting argument, I however am hesitant to agree because a legitimate public institution (for example, the Canadian Forces) has better foundations for accountability. A contract only has so much power, and a contract is by nature only proscriptionary, not prescriptionary. 

I don't think necessarily we should have a crown corporation of PMCs, I am merely saying that if we wish to continue employing PMCs then perhaps that is the only way I can see that we can maintain accountability and transparency to the public. I think due to the implications of the situation that PMCs are involved in, a contract-contractor relationship isn't strong enough to maintain the proper control we should have. The results of the actions of PMCs are enormous, they have the power to take lives and to effect foreign affairs. As such, a piece of paper I think is not proper nor strong enough to ensure legitimacy in my eyes. 

-C/D


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2008)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*'Human Terrain' Murder Suspect Out on Bail (Updated)*
Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, 25 Nov 08, 8:12:00 PM
Article link

Don Ayala, the military contractor accused of a revenge killing in Afghanistan, is now back in the United States, and out on bail.

Ayala began working in Afghanistan in late September, as part of an Army Human Terrain Team, which embeds cultural advisors in combat units. Six weeks later, Ayala allegedly shot Abdul Salam in the head, after Salam set one of Ayala's co-workers on fire in an Afghan village. Ayala was immediately taken into custody, and held at a detention facility at Bagram Air Force Base. Last week, Ayala was charged with 2nd degree murder in U.S. District Court in Virginia.

In a November 21st phone call, Ayala agreed to be returned to the United States. On the 23rd, he was "first brought into the... custody of Deputy U.S. Marshals, having flown nonstop from Kuwait to Dulles International Airport," according to court documents.

This afternoon, Ayala was released on a third-party, unsecured bond of $200,000. He's now in the custody of a "Ms. Santwier," who lists New Orleans as her home address. Ayala is "not to move from third party residence without prior approval," from the court, documents show.  His travel is "restricted to the New Orleans metro area and the DC metro area for court purposes."

A hearing, scheduled for this afternoon in Alexandria, Virginia, has been postponed.


----------



## Loachman (26 Nov 2008)

Cognitive-Dissonance said:
			
		

> they should have better accountability, _directly_, to the public.



And how do you know what accountability they have?

Huh?

Do you have any real idea?

No, you don't. You're just beebling again.

All that you are accomplishing with your posts is to provide further evidence that you have absolutely no clue about anything.

We already have enough such evidence.

We really do not need anymore.

Now, if you read the post after your last, you will see that the US justice system is reacting as it should.

I hope that you find that level of accountability enough.


----------



## Loachman (26 Nov 2008)

Well, I just noticed on another thread that he's already been banned, and that my previous post is delightfully redundant.

Unfortunately, the means of celebration available to me in my current locale are rather limited.

Pity.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Nov 2008)

Funny how people can get so wrapped around the axle with PMCs, as Infidel-6 defined them, and yet have no problems with armoured car guards or bodyguards in Canada.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jan 2009)

....the scientist has died.  Condolences to the family, colleagues and friends of the fallen  

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*Third 'Human Terrain' Researcher Dead*
By Noah Shachtman, Danger Room blog, Wired.com, 8 Jan 08, 3:26:21 PM
Article link

For the third time in eight months, a social scientist with the Army's Human Terrain cultural research program has died.

In early November, while on patrol in an Afghan village, Paula Loyd was doused with a flammable liquid, and set on fire. She suffered second- and third-degree burns over 60 percent of her body. Loyd was rushed to a nearby medical center, where she was treated by a burn specialist. Shortly thereafter, Loyd was evacuated to the military's Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, and then to Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. But after a two month struggle, she was overcome by her injuries.

(....)

The small staff of the Human Terrain program is "reeling" from this latest death, one employee tells Danger Room. "Paula dearly loved Afghanistan -- it showed in the way her face lit up whenever she spoke of it. In the field, her work was stellar, and more than that, she was deeply kind, too. We'll miss her terribly."....

_More on link_


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2009)

She was a Staff Sgt in the Army Reserve.


----------



## sm1lodon (10 Jan 2009)

What has really been driven home to me lately is how real war is different than the fantasies on the Silver Screen.

You can't just swagger around, shooting people outside the specific rules of engagement and expect to get away with it.

I admit, the self-control necessary to refrain from doing so must be larger than the self-control needed for most other parts of life, but it is, indeed necessary.

My respect for those in theater grows.


----------



## brihard (11 Jan 2009)

I6, please let me know when your book comes out. I'd be very interested to read it.

- - - - - - - - -

In general I've got a lot of respect for the PMCs. We see the COMPASS guys, both locals and foreigners, through here all the time doing escort for civilian trucks. The convoys that I do in an RG-31, they do in an uparmoured Ford truck, if that. I've seen them on a few occasions coming back into KAF shot up after they got TICed simply for escorting food. When we were down as the gate some of us found ourselves becoming the first medical response some of these guys after they were hit.

Perhaps their motivations are 'mercenary'in the strictly literal sense; they're doing it for money, no doubt, but at the same time they do a damned good job that someone needs to do, and certainly they earn the cash they make.

I won't wader into oversight on PMCs because I'd be out of my lanes, but we do have to acknowledge that the greater general public will, unfortunately, draw a link between PMCs and the military if that contractor ends up on the news as a result of a bad shoot, or a run'n'gun after an IED. A good point was made earlier - I think by CogDiss, but I could be wrong - that while governments cannot in all cases properly supervise those contracted, they must remain accountable and responsible for what's done while working on their dime. I'm not suggesting the individual contractors aren't also liable and potentially criminally responsible for offenses committed in the line of duty. I think that legal immunity for contractors is BS. Our government does however need to be very careful when it wades into the murky waters of privatizing anything to do with our military expeditions. So far I think they've generally done a pretty good job. I hope that continues to be the case.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Feb 2009)

Link to DOJ news release also attached - shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the _Copyright Act._

*'Human Terrain' Contractor Guilty of Manslaughter*
Noah Shachtman, Danger Room, Wired.com, 3 Feb 09
Article link

Don Ayala, a contractor with the Army's controversial Human Terrain social science project, pleaded guilty today to manslaughter.

Ayala was facing a possible life sentence in prison, after being charged with second degree murder for an alleged revenge killing in southern Afghanistan. Under the terms of his plea agreement, announced today by the U.S. Attorney's office in Alexandria, Virginia, Ayala could still spend up to 15 years behind bars....

_More on link_


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Feb 2009)

From Wired.com's Danger Room web log.....

"Family Wants Leniency for ‘Human Terrain’ Avenger"


> Earlier this month, Don Ayala, a member of the Army's Human Terrain social science project, pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He admitted to shooting a man in Afghanistan, after that man lit on fire Ayala's teammate, Paula Loyd. Now, Loyd's family is asking a federal judge to go easy on Ayala....


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Feb 2009)

I think the contractor is a sympathetic figure. I would vote for not guilty.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 May 2009)

...according to Wired.com's Danger Room:


> Don Ayala — the U.S. Army contractor who pleaded guilty to a revenge killing in Afghanistan — won’t be going to prison. Instead, U.S. District Court Judge Claude Hilton sentenced Ayala, a member of the Army’s Human Terrain social science project, to five years probation and a $12,500 fine ....



More from the _New Orleans Times Picayune_ and the Associated Press.


----------

