Life begins to copy GZG.....

--------- Begin forwarded message ----------
From: "Wilson, Glenn M." <WilsonG@nima.mil>
To: "Boyer, Kevin" <BoyerK@nima.mil>,Janice at
Work,<JMW3567@BJCmail.carenet.org>
Cc: "'Earl Hodgen, BMHGA Prez'" <hodgen@fidnet.com>,"'Editor, The Fifth
Column'" <fifthcolumneditor@clparis.com>,"'Figs4Sale@aol.com'"
<Figs4Sale@aol.com>,"'Pat Connaughton'",<ptconn@earthlink.net>,"'Terry Heil
'Home''" <vorga@aol.com>,"'William A Doelling (BMHGA Treasurer)'"
<wadfire@juno.com>
Subject: Trends?
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:00:25 -0500
Message-ID: <2104F001CD90D51194160008C7866B75011575BE@stlx01.nima.mil>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk_politics/newsid_1817000/1817495.stm

Wednesday, 13 February, 2002, 20:55 GMT=20 Peacekeeping 'role' for
              mercenaries

British paratroops work with the UN in Sierra Leone=20 Mercenaries working for
private military companies could be used for international peacekeeping
duties, the government has suggested.=20

              A long-awaited consultation paper says "reputable"
private firms may be able to do a better, more
              cost-effective job than forces like the United Nations.=20

In the foreword, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw says "a strong and reputable
private military sector might have a role in enabling the UN to respond more
rapidly and effectively to crises".=20

Quizzed on the issue at Prime Minister's Questions, Tony Blair said: "I think
what the foreign secretary is saying, rather, is that the use of mercenaries
has to come within some proper system of regulation.=20

"Up until now that has not been the case and that is why it is important that
we make sure there are proper rules in the use of mercenaries."=20

Labour backbencher Andrew Mackinlay has called the proposals "repugnant".=20

But Conservative Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Ancram said his party
supported the use of mercenaries "so long as they are properly accredited".

Although he added: "There should be no question of mercenaries becoming a
substitute for
              properly-recruited and equipped British armed forces."=20

For the Liberal Democrats Menzies Campbell said that the case for regulating
companies providing military services was "overwhelming".=20

Although he said he had concerns that the UN could contract peacekeeping
operations to the private sector which he said raised questions about "issues
of allegiance and the chain of command".=20

              The Green Paper was prompted by the Arms-to-Africa
affair four years ago, which led to claims that the UK Government had connived
with the British private
              military company - Sandline International - in the
illegal export of arms to Sierra Leone.=20

The Foreign Office is emphasising that it is a consultation document, putting
forward options for discussion and not specific policy proposals.=20

But it says that given the way the world is changing, the business of
providing private military services is likely to grow.=20

Therefore, a licensing system may be desirable to try to distinguish between
different private military companies.=20

It says that in Africa private companies often have greater respect for human
rights than government forces do.=20

'Offensive'

              And they may to do a better, more cost-effective job
than the United Nations peacekeeping force in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL), which
costs $600m (=A3420m) a year.=20

In the foreword Mr Straw says: "Today's world is a far cry from the 1960s when
private military activity usually meant mercenaries of the rather unsavoury
              kind involved in post-colonial or neo-colonial =
conflicts."

The paper adds that the use of private military companies raises important
concerns about human rights, sovereignty and accountability.=20

The document is likely to lead to a heated political debate as some MPs want
no use of private companies at all.=20

Mr Mackinlay, a member of the Commons foreign affairs select committee, said
it was "breathtaking in the extreme" that Mr Straw would "even contemplate
giving such companies a veneer of respectability".=20

He said the foreign affairs committee, and other MPs who had been calling for
the Green Paper, had expected it to herald legislation outlawing either
recruitment of mercenaries in the UK or companies organising arms sales to
mercenary companies.=20

Better regulation=20

"At the very least, we expected much tighter controls," he added.=20

Colonel Tim Spicer, the former Sandline head who now runs Strategic Consulting
International, said private military companies would never be a substitute for
forces like the British Army.=20

"But there are certain circumstances where the quick deployment of a private
military company is going to save lives and stabilise the situation," he
said.=20
--------- End forwarded message ----------

Just saw this on the Webrpg.com T2K list.

2B^2

> From: Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com>

The other day Joshua watched a couple of films the school Japanese
Club was showing--Gundam and so forth.  In describing the armor to me,
he concluded, "but it doesn't look like *real* powered armor."

This was right after we'd looked at the DARPA project web page on
proto-PA, so I asked "what real powered armor are you thinking of?"

He gave me that "how could you be so totally out of touch" look at

[quoted original message omitted]

There's been a spate of articles on this subject (in the Financial Times) over
the last few days, and on the back of that I had a look around and found the
following article:

http://www.caat.org.uk/research/Mercenaries_Body.html

Very (on foot of our ramblings about what counts as a mercenary) interesting
is this passage:

"The Angolan government put their captives on trial for mercenarism, but no
such crime was then recognised in international law. Several attempts were
made to fill this gap: Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocols of the
Geneva Conventions...Article 47, which was never ratified by France or US,
piles up so many criteria for the identification of mercenaries that it is
legally unusable. As one authority has remarked, ‘any mercenary who cannot
exclude himself from this definition deserves to be shot – and his lawyer
with him’"

<html><div style='background-color:'><P>There's been a spate of articles
on this subject (in the Financial Times) over the last few days, and on the
back of that I had a look around and found the following
article:</P>
<P><A
href="http://www.caat.org.uk/research/Mercenaries_Body.html">http://www.
caat.org.uk/research/Mercenaries_Body.html</A></P>
<P>Very (on foot of our&nbsp;ramblings about what counts as a mercenary)
interesting is this passage:</P>
<P>"The Angolan government put their captives on trial for mercenarism, but no
such crime was then recognised in international law. Several attempts were
made to fill this gap: Article 47 of the 1977 Additional Protocols of the
Geneva Conventions...Article 47, which was never ratified by France or US,
piles up so many criteria for the identification of mercenaries that it is
legally unusable. As one authority has remarked, ‘any mercenary who cannot
exclude himself from
this definition deserves to be shot – and his lawyer with him’"</P>

On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 19:45:40 -0500 "Laserlight" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
writes:
> The other day Joshua watched a couple of films the school Japanese
Sharp kid, draft him.