Saturday, 30 August 2014


The campaign for Scotland to become an Independent country git another a boost, halving the No campaign’s lead, after the first major opinion poll result since the second televised debate.
A Survation poll commissioned by the Daily Mail revealed the gap between the Better Together group’s 13-point lead in a previous poll earlier this month, dropped to just six, with the ballot in just three weeks.
Of the 1,001 Scottish residents over 16 who were surveyed, 47.6% said they were planning to vote No on September 18 - down from 50.3% three weeks ago, while support for independence rose from 37.2% to 41.6%.
The number of Scots still undecided fell from 12.5% to 10.8%. When those who are undecided are excluded from the research, support for No is at 53%, with Yes on 47%.The results suggest that Scots' doubts about their future currency are abating.  
Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond went head-to-head with No campaign leader Alistair Darling on the BBC on Monday and a snap poll suggested Mr Salmond took victory.
This appeared to be backed up by the latest survey, with a quarter (24.6%) saying they were more likely to vote Yes following the debate.
Commenting on the results of the latest poll, Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins said: “With only 20 campaigning days before the referendum, more and more people are waking up to the great opportunities of Yes to make Scotland’s vast wealth, talent and resources work better for all in a more prosperous and fairer country.
“This is an extremely encouraging poll - the Yes figure including ‘don’t knows’ is the highest ever recorded by Survation. Excluding ‘don’t knows’, Yes support is at 47% - up four points on the last month’s Survation poll - and by contrast support for No has slipped 4%. Yes has achieved a four-point swing in less than three weeks, and needs only a further three-point swing to win.
“The poll underlines that the result is on a knife edge and that support for Yes continues to build, while the relentless negativity of the No campaign means it continues to lose ground.
“The result is also a clear indication that the cogent and compelling case put forward by the First Minister in Monday’s TV debate has significantly boosted Yes support. The poll shows that 25% of people are more likely to vote Yes after watching the debate, compared to just 13% more likely to vote No.
“This is the fourth poll in a row that has shown increasing support for Yes, and by winning the campaign we believe we will achieve the very small swing now required to win the referendum.”

Scotland Not an Independent Country

There are eight accepted criteria used to determine whether an entity is an independent country (also known as a State with a capital "s") or not.
A country need only fail on one of the eight criteria to not meet the definition of independent country status. Scotland does not meet all eight criteria; it fails on six of the eight criteria...
  1. Has space or territory that has internationally recognized boundaries (boundary disputes are OK).
    Yes, Scotland does have internationally recognized boundaries. Scotland is 78,133 square kilometers in area.
  2. Has people who live there on an ongoing basis.
    Yes, according to the 2001 census, Scotland's population is 5,062,011.
  3. Has economic activity and an organized economy. A country regulates foreign and domestic trade and issues money.
    Somewhat. Scotland certainly has economic activity and an organized economy; Scotland even has its own GDP (over 62 billion pounds as of 1998). However, Scotland does not regulate foreign or domestic trade, the Scottish Parliament is not authorized to do so.
    Under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998, the Scottish Parliament is able to pass laws on a range of issues known as "devolved issues." The United Kingdom Parliament is able to act on "reserved issues." Reserved issues include a variety of economic issues: fiscal, economic and monetary system; energy; common markets; and trade and industry.
    The Bank of Scotland does issue money but it prints the British pound on behalf of the central government.
  4. Has the power of social engineering, such as education.
    Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament is able to control education, training, and social work (but not social security). However, this power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
  5. Has a transportation system for moving goods and people.
    Somewhat. Scotland itself has a transportation system but the system is not fully under Scottish control. The Scottish Parliament controls some aspects of transportation, including the Scottish road network, bus policy and ports and harbors while the UK Parliament controls railways, transport safety and regulation. Again, Scotland's power was granted by the UK Parliament.
  6. Has a government that provides public services and police power.
    Somewhat. The Scottish Parliament has the ability to control law and home affairs (including most aspects of criminal and civil law, the prosecution system and the courts) as well as the police and fire services. The UK Parliament controls defense and national security across the United Kingdom. Again, Scotland's power was granted to Scotland by the UK Parliament.
  7. Has sovereignty. No other State should have power over the country's territory.
    No. The United Kingdom Parliament definitely has power over Scotland's territory.
  8. Has external recognition. A country has been "voted into the club" by other countries.
    No. Scotland does not have external recognition nor does Scotland have its own embassies in other independent countries.
Thus, as you can plainly see, Scotland (nor Wales, nor Northern Ireland, nor England itself) is not an independent country nor is it a State. However, Scotland is most certainly a nation of people living in an internal division of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

September 18, 2014 could become one of the most historic days in Scottish history.  After more than three hundred years of union with the United Kingdom, residents of Scotland will be voting whether or not to create an independent Scotland.  
Proponents of independence suggest that an independent Scotland will be more responsive to its citizens than the British parliament and that it will mean financial prosperity and a better future for Scots. Opponents of the measure suggest that Scotland will be much worse off alone and that a united United Kingdom is far more advantageous.  Ultimately, voters will decide on September 18 but if independence is chosen, the expected date of independence for the new independent Scotland would be eighteen months later, on March 24, 2016.

The Vote

Any British, European Union, or Commonwealth citizen aged 16 and older residing within Scotland, along with members of the military who are registered to vote in Scotland, will be able to vote on the September 18 referendum.  The vote will be a simple yes or no vote to the question, "Should Scotland be an independent country?"  If the majority of votes are yes, then the eighteen month transition will begin to allow Scotland to become an independent country in March 2016.  This transition should be quite smooth but it will be the creation of the largest new independent country in Europe since Kosovo in 2008 and Serbia in 2006.

The Transition

The eighteen month-long transition from Scotland being part of the United Kingdom to full independence will be a rush of activity.  Laws will need to be enacted by parliaments in Westminster (London) and Holyrood (Edinburgh).  The current Scottish parliament will work to as a transitional government to an independent country during the transitional period and following the parliamentary elections of May 5, 2016 a new Scottish government will be formed.
All British government assets and property will need to be transferred to the new Scottish government, especially the military.  Initial plans indicate that Scottish members of the UK's military would be able to choose which country to serve as Scotland builds a new army, navy, and air force. The United Kingdom's only nuclear weapons facility, the Trident Nuclear Programme, is based at the Clyde Naval Base on Scotland's west coast.  Scotland is vowing to be nuclear-free upon independence so the UK might have to determine a new site for such a facility.  
There are three possible options for a Scottish currency - the euro, a new currency, or to retain the British pound.  There is no guarantee that the remaining United Kingdom would agree to share a currency union with Scotland.
There is much speculation about North Sea oil fields. Ninety percent of the oil fields lie within potential Scottish territorial waters and many of the pro-independence advocates suggest that possession of the oil fields will present an economic boom to the new country.  Others suggest that the resource might not be as bountiful as some would indicate.  
The new Scotland will utilize the current blue and white Saint Andrew's Cross or the Saltire as the national flag.  There is speculation as to whether the remaining United Kingdom would change the Union Jack to a new flag. A national anthem and other national identifiers would need to be determined. Scotland even plans on creating a SBS - the Scottish Broadcasting Service - the Scottish version of the BBC, which would inherit some Scotland-based BBC resources.  
Scotland will become a constitutional monarchy with Her Majesty The Queen (or her successors) as head of state.

International Relations

Throughout the transitional period there will be efforts to integrate Scotland into the international community.  Membership in the United Nations should be fairly simple and straightforward and would likely occur on the day of or day after independence.  Scotland expects to be able to join NATO as a nuclear-free member state.
However, membership in the European Union is not so certain or swift.  Spain is likely to delay Scottish membership in the EU so as to not encourage its ownseparatist groups from leaving Spain with a guarantee of EU membership.  Spain's foreign minister has been quoted as saying that Scotland would have to get at the end of the line behind other countries like Albania, Iceland, and Turkey seeking membership.  It could take years for Scotland to become a member of the EU, which presents the strange situation of whether Scots who currently have EU citizenship would lose that citizenship following independence.

A No Vote on Independence

If the citizens of Scotland vote against independence, not much is expected to change.  The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will continue to function and Scotland will continue to be granted additional sovereignty as part of the devolution that began in 1998.  However, there will likely not be another vote on independence for many many years.  

Friday, 29 August 2014


Speaking with many people from across the political divide in Ireland currently , the general consensus privately, is that Irish Peace Process, is currently dying a slow death. One of its principal architects Gerry Adams in a statement recently stated, “The political process is in trouble. I believe that the political process faces its greatest challenge since the Good Friday Agreement negotiations in 1998. The anti-Good Friday Agreement axis within unionism; the pro-unionist stance of the British secretary of state Theresa Villiers; the refusal of Downing Street to honour its own obligations, are combining to create the most serious threat to the political institutions in the North in recent years.

“The result of all this is directly undermining power-sharing and partnership government. The unionist leaderships have been encouraged in their posture by a British government that has not been fully engaged with the political process for four years.” He added, that traditional pro-British Unionist were unwilling to participate positively in any of the Agreement's institutions, stating that “Instead it has adopted a tactical approach aimed at serving the political agenda of a fundamentalist rump in their party rather than the needs of the whole community,”

Again yesterday, Adams made a veiled attack, on the current Fine Gael regime in Government in the South of Ireland, which has traditionally protected the Unionists in the North, stating, "An anti-agreement axis has now emerged. There needs to be a pro-agreement axis and the two Governments need to be very, very focused on delivering on the agreement.” 

The Irish Government has been too passive in my view and the Taoiseach(Irish Prime minister) could well emulate the example of Albert Reynolds (Another Peace Process architect who died last week)  to get involved and press ahead but particularly to keep the British Government to its obligations.”

The traditional Unionist Leader in the north Peter Robinson statement in reply, "Once more we see the self-serving attempt by Sinn Fein to distract public attention from real problems by blaming everyone, except itself, for what it asserts is a crisis that impacts on the political institutions."

Last week Hilary Clinton 's aide “Today, too many in Ireland take two decades of a ceasefire for granted. They still focus on their own sense of victimhood of the past and fail to forge a new united community that can not only solidify the peace, but even build shared prosperity. A look back at the hard-fought ceasefire may encourage some broader thinking about the responsibility of leadership to build a better shared future for the people of Ireland.”

The British Conservative Government and their Vice Royal in Ireland, since coming to power, other than enforcing a heavy censorship of international media coverage of the ongoing low intensity war In Occupied Ireland, have irresponsibly taken a hands off approach with the Peace Process and essentially have failed to understand the critical small print of the dying Good Friday agreement.

In a recent statement the leader of Republican Sinn Fein, the traditional  Irish Republican voice, leader Des Dalton stated, "We are being asked to abandon the high ideals, that inspired that revolutionary generation of a century ago and instead embrace the mythology of empire. It is evident that in the decade of centenaries, the political establishments of Leinster House, Stormont and Westminster, are determined to draw a line under Irish history. By demonising and isolating Irish Republicanism and refusing it access to public debate, they hope, that it will simply fade from the public consciousness, robbed of historical or political legitimacy. Quoting from a Ronan Fanning article in the Irish Times, he added,  “…the propagation of a bland, bloodless, bowdlerised and inaccurate hybrid of history, which if carried to extremes, is more likely to provoke political outrage than to command intellectual respect, let alone consensus.”

The Freemasonry of the Orange Order are now front and centre in Unionist, Fine Gael and British politics. Its Chaplain, Rev Mervyn Gibson, the most influential person in all-party talks on flags, parading and the past, is even more influential after the DUP and UUP scuttled the talks by the recent US Government to try move the dying process on, with its envoys Richard Haas and Meghan Sullivan sent packing by the Orange Order, exercising its trump card, the Orange veto.This is one of many critical factors, that was not dealt with by The Peace process. Another was the issue of large numbers of political prisoners still languishing in British Gaols, in both parts of Ireland. This threatens to explode again at any moment, in the same way that, the Hunger Strike of Bobby Sands and the 11 other Irish Republicans, who starved to death on Hunger Strike, changing the face of Irish politics and giving the platform to Adams voice, to be serious player he now is in Irish politics.

Now however, as the Orange Order have demonstrated themselves to be the real voice of traditional Unionism, while  Adams clearly does not speak for traditional Irish Republicans. What Nancy Soderberg and the British Conservative Party in London have failed to grasp, is that the Good Friday Agreement will not stick, without a proper foundation, in the context of both the Orange and Green traditions of Ireland. These traditions are deep in the psyche of the majority of Irish people's consciousness. One of the principal lessons of the last 800 years of irish History which Ms Soderberg in the context of Ireland and many American citizens in the context of their own short history, fail to understand is "Old Europe."

In light of all of this, one does not have to be particularly bright to observe, that the Peace Process is past its sell by date on the ground in Ireland. It clearly needs to evolve into something more comprehensive and inclusive with respect to the matter of Orange/Green traditions and their real voices. Clearly again for a more permanent solution, the "Peace Process needs to evolve from a superficially contrived short term solution into a bedded down Comprehensive Settlement Process

Settlement Process

The English Oxford dictionary  defines "settlement"as "An official agreement intended to resolve a dispute or conflict." Obviously in any permanent settlement, compromise is critical and nobody is going to achieve their ideals.This needs to be first accepted by everyone at the negotiating table, however painful.The alternative is a war for total victory, the consequence of which, no sane mind can countenance. Most fair minded traditional Irish republicans will acknowledge, that the Orange tradition has made considerable sacrifices, with respect to their identity, particularly in the context of both World Wars and the recent ongoing war in Ireland, with tens of thousands losing their lives in all of this.This is a considerable factor in their tradition and identity. Any agreement that ignores this reality is doomed.

Likewise within the "green tradition" millions of Irish have died, as a result of British colonialism. This reality cannot simply be airbrushed out of Irish history by revisionism because it is deeply embedded, consciously or unconsciously, within the Irish psyche, on the same scale as the Jewish Holocaust is with Israelites. It also must be addressed within any credible settlement.There are  many other pressing, critical social issues within Ireland, such as a Bill of Civil Rights, People before Profit, transparent genuine Immediate Democracy, with modern technology, such as the internet democracy, with checks and balances, that ensure ordinary people have real voting power against unregulated Corporate monopolies hijacking the constitutional process with political bribery and the current endemic corruption of the present sytem, in all parts of Ireland

To any objective political view, of the small island of Ireland, with its current political realities, it is crystal clear, that a Federal solution similar to many other European countries, is really the only feasible solution to the current reality with an arrangement where Unionists in Ulster keep their identity and traditions, within a British Commonwealth arrangement, customized specifically to facilitate their specific traditions and arrangements and possibly protect them along with their British brethren form the creeping, fascist monopoly of Europe. This of course will be anathema to many traditional Irish republicans, but it will take compromise, fair mindedness and sacrifice, in any credible settlement, that is based on reality, as opposed to the horrific alternative.

Of course many will argue, that the changing demographics on the ground will change this, but in a Spirit of true reconciliation all minorities, including immigrant aspirations, must be respected in any genuine modern democracy. Traditional Irish Republicans like Ruarai O'Bradaigh, recognized this and presented drafts for a comprehensive agreement that factored in much of this compromise, in a Spirit of Genorosity, which has traditionally been a much acclaimed Irish characteristic, at least until recently. It is time for everyone to get real, put their ego's and personalities to one side and make this comprehensive, inclusive, settlement a reality, based on civilized principles of human progress.

The author formally does not belong to any political organization and offers this proposal in a spirit of unity not division. Because of fascist censorship in Ireland presently, I also ask  those readers who agree with the outlines of this proposal, to share it wherever you can. If you belong to a political party, trade union or political forum or platform, please take up this proposal and make it as inclusive as possible. If you are overseas or non Irish, we still need your help for a comprehensive, inclusive settlement.

by Brian Clarke

Thursday, 28 August 2014


Using false-flag terror, 

they are,

reshaping our world, our country,

into a global gulag. A nation-less,

lawless contrivance, run by their

corporations, using privatized 

armies and police, drug running, 

privatize fiat banking, space-based 

weaponry, missile shield, drones, 

HAARP, wars of pillage, control of 

our food, its distribution and 

corporate media brainwashing, to 

force us all into slavery.

10 Frightening Facts About Private Military Companies

Private military companies are essentially armies that are controlled by no one but their shareholders and whoever pays them the most. They’re not about to go anywhere, either—on the contrary, as capitalism marches on, there are more and more of these private armies running around the globe.
Let’s take a look at what they do.

10Discount Soldiers


The thing about private military companies is that (like any other company) they can come from literally anywhere. Defion Internacional, for instance, hails from Peru, South America. This may not seem like the most obvious place for a frightening private army—that is, until you realize that Peru suffered a 20-year internal conflict that ended as recently as 2000 and is still trying to pick up the pieces.
The country is full of men who grew up in a state of constant conflict, and are now struggling to support their families in a poor economy. As such, Defion Internacional has been able to hire their personnel with as little as US$1000 per month. Of course, these men think it is a fairly good salary for them, as typical monthly wages in Peru (if they manage to get work) is only around $200 a month.
Defion Internacional specializes in dangerous security assignments in the Middle East, but also has other lines of business such as food and medical services, English teaching, and (most frighteningly) insurance. The company has been given missions in Iraq by the US Department of State, meaning that these underpaid Peruvians have actually worked with the US Military. They have also worked for a larger US private military company called Triple Canopy Inc., although these days the latter prefers to do their own hiring in Peru. Hey, speaking of Triple Canopy . . .

9A Private Army Guards US Officials Abroad

Triple Canopy, like Defion Internacional, is known to employ discount South American soldiers. However, that’s just a small fraction of their business. Founded by ex-members of the US Army Special Forces, Triple Canopy is a mercenary force that works mainly for the US government in Iraq. Their employees include former Navy SEALs, Rangers, Special Operations personnel and police officers.
Although it specializes in security and escort operations, Triple Canopy has been responsible for some of the toughest missions a mercenary company can undertake. After Saddam Hussein’s fall, the company found employment in Iraq, guarding and escorting US officials and performing other high-risk duties. As a company that works closely with the military, some have dubbed them the “other army” of the United States.

8Rise Of The German Mercenaries

For years, Germans (who for obvious reasons have tried to lead a conflict-free life since World War II) scoffed at the American private militaries that were causing trouble all over the world’s conflict zones. In 2007, they received some troubling news of their own: A former German officer called Thomas Kalteg√§rtner had founded a mercenary company of his own.
Kalteg√§rtner’s company, Asgaard German, then went on to cause further gray hairs to German politicians by signing a deal to provide security services for Galadid Abdinur Ahmad Darman, the President of Somalia. Apparently, their mission is no less than restoring security in the war-ravaged area.
This may not sound like such a bad thing, except for one thing: Darman happens to be a self-appointed president—one of many Somali warlords who’ve claimed that title and refuse to recognize the authority of the official, United Nations-appointed transition government of the country. One can only imagine what “security services” for such a person might entail, and how he is planning to “restore peace in the area.”
And now he has a bunch of highly trained German soldiers to help him.

7Image Issues

These days, private military companies are very keen on maintaining a positive, professional reputation. After all, the Information Age has made sure that every single gaffe companies make eventually finds its way to the eyes of the world. A prime example of this new, shiny veneer is Sandline International, the now-defunct British company closely associated with Aegis Defence, whose mercenaries saw action in war-torn Sierra Leone and Papua New Guinea, among other places.
Sandline had an advisor and public spokesman called Michael Grunberg, who smilingly fed the media the same kind of corporate buzzword talk that a tech company CEO might sprout: According to Grunberg, his company and its horde of privately paid soldiers are “established entities, have established sets of principles and employ professional people.” Sandline also handled bad publicity just as awkwardly as any other company: For instance, when a book that criticized the company came out (Mercenaries: An African Security Dilemmathey responded by publishing a massive list of flaws in the writing, nitpicking the book’s details to death without really responding to any of the more serious accusations.


Academi is probably the most harmless-sounding name on this list, but don’t be fooled: The company is actually none other than the infamous Blackwater. The company’s history of atrocities runs so far and deep that there are entire websites solely dedicated to listing their various shady activities: For a while, they were even involved in a CIA death squad.”
The name “Academi,” which has been in use since 2011, marks the second time the company has attempted to whitewash its name in five years. It’s first name change was to “XE Services,” which lasted only two years, until yet another “corporate restructuring” took place. So far, this strategy seems to work for them, as their new name is yet to be too tarnished. Then again, judging by the fact that they have already been forced to admit to at least 17federal criminal charges and pay millions of dollars in fines, it seems like it’s just a matter of time before they have to come up with an even less threatening name. Though with their reputation at this point, there probably is no name that could soften their public image.

5Executive Outcomes

In the other end of the sliding scale of terrifying private militaries, we haveExecutive Outcomes, known to their friends as EO (if they have any). This South African company has been sighted in most African war zones, where it is said to hold high influence. Executive Outcomes mercenaries have been seen in Sierra Leone, Angola, Uganda, Botswana, Zambia, Ethiopia, Namibia, Lesotho and, of course, South Africa. Although they officially state their only mission is bringing peace, they have been suspected of several shady activities ranging from Sierra Leone-based oil company shenanigans todiamond dealings with the jewel giant De Beers.
The company is notorious for targeting the client country’s mineral-rich regions, often regaining and securing control of gold, oil and diamond regions before paying attention to other matters. Some whisper they don’t always get around to returning these possessions to the country. Executive Outcomes is said to own gold mines in Uganda, oil drilling facilities in Ethiopia and a variety of other peacetime business ventures in the other countries it has fought for.

4The Case Of Jamie Leigh Jones

In 2007, Jamie Leigh Jones, an employee of private military contractor Halliburton/KBR, claimed she was gang-raped by several of her co-workers. This traumatic experience was just the beginning of her struggles with the private military company. Her employer then decided to cover up the incident by locking her in a shipping container with no food or water for 24 hours. This was followed with a warning: They’d immediately fire her if she left Iraq to seek medical treatment.
Unsurprisingly, Jones sued. However, the court proceedings proved problematic. KBR’s employee contract stipulated that Jones’s claims be heard without jury, judge, public record, or transcripts, which made it extremely difficult to prove whether or not anything had happened. Finally, after 15 months of much-publicized fighting, Jones was allowed to take KBR to court. When the case finally came to trial in 2011, KBR wheeled out evidence that had been completely ignored by the media. Jones had a history of manipulation and lying and had wildly changed her story multiple times. One of these changes included the claim that her pectoral muscle had been torn and her chest had been injured to the point of disfigurement, but she “could not produce a single witness from Iraq” who could confirm that she’d even claimed to have a chest injury. In fact, her flight out of Iraq required her to put on a very heavy bulletproof jacket, which doctors pointed out would have been literally impossible with the specific injuries she claimed to have. She eventually lost the case, despite maintaining to the end that her story was true.
Although we may never find out for sure what exactly happened to Jones and how it was initially dealt with by the company, it did bring to light KBR’s unethical employment contract, which banned employees from pressing sexual assault charges in court. Since the incident, the US governmentpassed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill, which prevented the government from dealing with companies who have that clause in their employment contracts, and so KBR was forced to change it.

3Trophy Videos

In 2005, a “trophy video” featuring presumably Scottish or Irish menrandomly shooting Iraqi civilians was uploaded on a site that was unofficially affiliated with Aegis Defence Services—a private military company that incidentally employs both Scots and Irishmen. The incident caused considerable outcry in news media all over the world, and sparked dialogue about the state of Iraqi defense. At that point, over 25,000 private security contractors were stationed in the country. They were widely hated and had a reputation for abusing and even killing civilians at the slightest provocation. None of them had ever been brought to law, because the local law enforcement had been specifically forbidden to prosecute them.
Despite video footage, this case was not an exception. Upon carefully reviewing the available material, US Army’s Criminal Investigation Division eventually concluded that they are not going to press charges. Meanwhile, Aegis Defence is keeping its own internal investigations carefully under wraps. None of the incident’s investigative files have been released to the public.

2The Founder, David Stirling

Although mercenary armies have been around more or less since war was invented, the creation of the modern private military company is usually attributed to Colonel David Stirling. Stirling was a Scottish Laird and a skillful military man to the very core: Even before he started dabbling in the mercenary business, he had created a little something called the SAS, which you may know as one of the most elite special force units in the world.
After Stirling left the army following World War II, he moved to Africa and founded Capricorn Africa, a society for promoting racial harmony. However, destiny had chosen another path for him. Before long, he was running Watchguard International Ltd., a commercial company that helped train security units for several Arab and African countries. Watchguard, established in the 1960s, is usually attributed as the first modern private military company.

1Sex Trafficking

DynCorp is one of the most powerful private military companies in the world, with most of its several-billion dollar revenue coming directly from the US government. Sadly, allegations have been made that the company’s code of conduct leaves something to be desired—to say the least.
In the late 1990s, two whistleblowers (independently from each other) came forward and alleged that DynCorp employees stationed in Bosnia were routinely abusing civilians. According to their accusations, DynCorp people engaged in sex with minors, and had even sold civilians to each other as slaves.
The company immediately reacted to the terrifying news . . . by firing both of the whistleblowers. One of them in particular, Kathryn Bolkovac, had already been facing severe difficulties before the firing: Despite the fact that she had uncovered a network of brothels and bars at which kidnapped women were forced to entertain peacekeepers, her attempts to report the issue through the chain of command were constantly sabotaged and people even threatened her life.
However, Kathryn persevered. She, along with the other whistleblower, took DynCorp to court. The company lost both cases, and the antics of its employees were revealed to the world so hard that Hollywood even made amajor motion picture out of Bolkovac’s story.

+Sharp End International

Despite living in a continent that is mainly made of deadly spiders (or maybe because of it), Australians have an uncanny ability to bring their own peculiar sense of humor in almost any situation. Private military business is no different: With its joking name that is in sharp contrast with its no-nonsense webpage, it’s no surprise that Sharp End International hails from Australia. Another clue is that they actually have a Facebook fan page.
Sharp End is a relatively tiny company, as private military hordes go. This is because it’s a highly specialized organization: A private military force thattrains other military forces. Its special operatives are experts at providing training for government and corporate troops, which means that they actually show other private militaries how things are done. This makes them a potentially highly dangerous entity—luckily, they seem to have a fairly strict code of conduct and won’t train just anyone.

Blackwater four 'made corpses of innocents'

Prosecution tells US jury security contractors shot dead 14 Iraqi civilians in 2007 for no reason, as trial nears end.

Last updated: 28 Aug 2014 02:31
Email Article
Print Article
Share article
Send Feedback
The aftermath of the 2007 shooting in Baghdad [AP]

Four Blackwater guards accused of killing 14 Iraqi civilians turned "innocent people ... into bullet-riddled corpses" for no reason, the prosecution has told their US trial as it neared its conclusion.
A federal court in Washington heard on Wednesday the events of September 16, 2007 in Nisour Square, Baghdad, when the four men opened fire while guarding a US diplomatic convoy.
The gunfire killed 14 Iraqis and injured another 18.
At the close of the two-and-a-half-month trial, prosecutor Anthony Asuncion asked simply what had motivated Paul Slough, Evan Liberty, Dustin Heard and Nicholas Slatten, to fire on the civilians.
"Why fire on so many innocent people? Why? Why shoot all of these people who are running away, who are trying to get away from these men? Why shoot women and children who are unarmed?" he asked.
"There's no reason. What they did was criminal.
"People who could laugh, who could love, were turned into bloodied, bullet-riddled corpses, people who were not legitimate targets ... who were no real threat to them."
After showing images of the faces of those killed and wounded, the prosecutor asked the jury to find the four guilty.
Slatten, 32, is charged with the first-degree murder of a civilian and faces life in prison if convicted. Slough, Liberty and Heard are accused of voluntary manslaughter of the 13 other victims. All deny the charges.
'Terrible threats'
Earlier in the trial, defence lawyer Bill Heberlig stressed that security was facing terrible threats after the September 11 strikes on the US.
"This was Baghdad, Iraq," Heberlig said, insisting Slatten "fired under control at a limited number of legitimate threats. He acted in self-defense, he committed no crime that day."
Blackwater, whose licence to work in Iraq was revoked by Baghdad, was renamed Xe Services in 2009 and then Academi in 2011.
The jury was expected to begin deliberations on Thursday.