
American Mercenaries Were Hired to Assassinate Politicians in the Middle East - georgecmu
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/aramroston/mercenaries-assassination-us-yemen-uae-spear-golan-dahlan?fbclid=IwAR08TqB-uGvRrRsnylMTMTiHmvuPEdQ0hj0xFSBSH3tT4SN9S3VBNqf4nbA
======
arminiusreturns
This is one of the reasons I refused to become a merc after the Corps. I knew
guys that were getting payed 160k tax free for this type of stuff, but there
was always something deep inside that told me it would not be worth it and
that it conflicted with my dedication to the principles of the constitution.
I'm glad I stayed away. Eventually the merc business was saturated and the pay
dropped dramatically anyway.

~~~
ttul
Hmm. SDE at Facebook for $250K, or life-risking merc in Yemen for $160K albeit
tax free. Tough call.

~~~
arminiusreturns
Many of the guys getting that 160 would never be the type to be able to make
250 in SV. Being good at killing doesn't exactly translate well to the
civilian world job market... though it is a specialized skillet that not just
anybody can do. I'm lucky I had computers as a backup. Many combat vets aren't
so lucky and it can make the transition to civilian life very hard.

~~~
samstave
Many of the top security staff at FB are ex SS and vets. They hire a lot of
military.

~~~
jacobush
Ex Schutzstaffel?

~~~
godelmachine
Secret Service, presumably

~~~
samstave
Clearly. However, given the amount of time since WWII and the fact that the
secret service is the only "SS" to be hiring out of in this time period, it's
a waste of time being a stickler and pseudo-offended thinking one might be
calling people literal Nazis...

Regardless of how unscrupulous FB may or may not be.

~~~
jetti
That is a very US-centric view though. The poster that mentioned it has an eu
domain and given that this is a global site it isn't out of the realm of
possibilities that they honestly did not know of the Secret Service.

~~~
baud147258
I agree. I'm from Europe, I've heard about the Secret Service, but I didn't
think about them when seeing SS.

~~~
samstave
Im american, talking about american politics and american companies on an
american website based in my home area of silicon valley... i dont think i
should be required to think "i wonder how non americans will take this
comment" especially given that my expectation of those on HN as being a bit
more sophisticated than pedestrian, so im not going to prefilter in that
regard.

------
mjevans
"Spear Operations Group, according to three sources, arranged for the UAE to
give military rank to the Americans involved in the mission, which might
provide them legal cover."

"Aside from moral objections, for-profit targeted assassinations add new
dilemmas to modern warfare. Private mercenaries operate outside the US
military’s chain of command, so if they make mistakes or commit war crimes,
there is no clear system for holding them accountable. If the mercenaries had
killed a civilian in the street, who would have even investigated?"

In this case the questions have easy answers. Some country recognized the
individuals as having a rank in their military, and they were on a mission
sanctioned by that country. Thus it is the same as if any other soldier from
that country had committed such actions (accident, target, otherwise).

However that does highlight other questions.

    
    
        What is a country?
        What is the distinction between warriors:
        * for a country in an official capacity?
        * Is an external entity fulfilling an official contract acting in such a capacity? (Historically, yes)
        * for a country in a resistance capacity?
        * for an entity not recognized as a country in any possible capacities?
        * fighting for their own sense of honor/justice?
    

In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct
side by the actions of those involved. In an absolute sense if all were to
suddenly act in ways perceived as good and respectful that would be good
overall. In another the minimum required force to remove the unjust from the
power to inflict that upon others would also be justice. Yet it is also
important to ask why they have this power and are tolerated; solving those
issues is surely the longer term justice.

~~~
jstanley
> In the easy cases it might be possible to judge the relative morally correct
> side by the actions of those involved.

In fact this is extremely easy. Any person who murdered another person has
done an immoral action, no matter how many layers of bureaucracy it's been
dressed up in.

~~~
borski
Are you advocating for the military to not exist?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
If the military didn't exist there would be no need for the military to exist,
except possibly as a specialised civil emergency service.

This would free up more than $1.5tn annually.

If we got rid of nation states at the same time, we might actually start to
get something interesting done as a species.

~~~
smallnamespace
And if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

'No military anywhere' seems to be a trivially unstable equilibrium. If nobody
has any military and some group of people decide to create one and use force
to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them?

Even if 99.99% of the world would prefer to not have any military and keep it
that way, all it takes is a tiny minority of defectors from the norm.

> If we got rid of nation states at the same time

Right, so how do you resolve disagreements when people want different things?
Should we have a world democracy, where China and India get about half the
total vote? Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people
who may have _sharply_ divergent values from you, including on this very
topic?

~~~
jstanley
> If nobody has any military and some group of people decide to create one and
> use force to dominate their neighbors, how exactly does anyone stop them?

Just because some people might do it doesn't mean you need to do it as well.
If killing people is wrong, it's still wrong even when you're the one doing
it.

> Would you be comfortable ceding some political control to people who may
> have sharply divergent values from you, including on this very topic?

This is literally how democracy already works.

~~~
borski
> This is literally how democracy already works.

Wrong. We are able to elect our leaders through our democratic process
specifically because we are able to protect ourselves from autocratic regimes
coming in and taking over. "Get rid of the military" is an idealistic view
that does not take into account the reality that countries will always have
different views, ideas, and opinions, and will fight for what they believe in.
Before the military, there were militias.

~~~
jstanley
> > This is literally how democracy already works.

> Wrong.

What I meant by that is that _most_ people have sharply divergent values from
me. I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree
with.

~~~
afarrell
> I'm used to ceding political control to people I fundamentally disagree
> with.

Have any instances of "ceding political control" involved violations of your
bodily autonomy or food security? If not, then the "sharply divergent values"
are relatively minor compared to historical conflicts among peoples.

------
legostormtroopr
Given all the talk of tech companies (like Buzzfeed) taking Saudi money, and
the actual public assassination of a reporter by the Saudis in the last week,
I find it really coincidental and convenient that an article is released right
now talking about US assassinations in the Mid East.

~~~
bilbo0s
The Saudis probably. A not so subtle demonstration of their ability to air our
dirty laundry if we get too upset about them offing that journalist.

~~~
lvs
You know, it's possible for there to be two simultaneous wrongs. We can be
outraged by both of them at the same time.

~~~
bilbo0s
> _We can be outraged by both of them at the same time..._

They don't care if we, the people of the US, are outraged.

Their goal is to get the _government_ of the US to back off.

And they are probably trying to do that by firing this shot across the bow of
the government of the US. They likely have proof that ties the government of
the US to many such actions across the MidEast region.

~~~
AsyncAwait
This story involves the UAE, who are Saudi allies, so don't think so.

~~~
paganel
I'd say they're reluctant allies. The article also mentions that the guy they
were supposed to be assassinating found refuge in Saudi Arabia after the
botched attempt, so clearly he was not the type of guy the Saudis wanted dead.

> The reason, a spokesperson for Al-Islah said in a phone interview, is that
> Mayo is alive — he had left the building 10 minutes before the attack and as
> of July was living in Saudi Arabia.

------
nwatson
>>> If the [American] mercenaries had killed a civilian in the street, who
would have even investigated?

Like what?... is the U.S. government the ultimate arbiter of actions of
Americans overseas? Like is there no "local" rule of law? Clearly the
jurisdiction is the country where assassinations and collateral damage occur.
The country may have inadequate resources to investigate and prosecute, or may
not have the "moral standing" to do so adequately, but quit the American
myopia already. What a stupid question.

~~~
varenc
Actually, the USA claims “extraterritorial jurisdiction” on some laws
concerning citizens.

It's a crime for a US citizen to commit murder out of the country. The
situations this comes up seem rare, but it happens. The mercenaries in this
article got UAE military ranks explicitly to avoid this.

Another instance that sadly comes up more often is sexual offenses involving
children. If you engage in child prostitution in a foreign country even where
it's “legal”/illegal-but-not-enforced you can be prosecuted and jailed on your
return to the US.

Collecting evidence for these extraterritorial offenses must be harder though.
Would be interesting if these offenses can even be used for extradition.

Some links:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/us/us-is-now-pursuing-
ame...](https://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/08/us/us-is-now-pursuing-americans-
who-commit-sex-crimes-overseas.html)

[https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-
fede...](https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-
extraterritorial-sexual-exploitation-children)

18 U.S.C. §956 - “Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or
damage property in a foreign country” -
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956)

~~~
mywittyname
Also bribery.

------
AcerbicZero
Having spent several years deployed to the Middle East stories like this
always seem to be somewhat difficult to navigate. I seriously considered going
back overseas as a contractor (IT) after my deployments, but in the end it
just wasn't a good fit for me.

In this case, it looks like the problem here is that the UAE wants to pay
someone to kill "terrorists" for them, and the US is either ignoring, or
somewhat supporting, the conflict in Yemen. There isn't an easy solution to
that problem, but a good start IMO would be to get the US out of the ME
political games, because no one is innocent in those.

~~~
afroboy
Who define terrorists? you? if you ever seen what happen in Yemen is
definitely UAE and Saudi are the terrorists.

------
CobrastanJorji
I have no idea what the laws are around this. If the US military offers me, a
civilian, $10,000 to murder some guy in Syria, and I do it, and it comes to
light, should I expect to get sued? Prosecuted? Am I protected by any
treaties?

~~~
varenc
Assuming you’re not actually in the military...if there was sufficient
evidence I believe you could get prosecuted on your return to the US. The
mercenaries in the article got UAE military ranks to avoid this.

18 U.S.C. §956 - “Conspiracy to kill, kidnap, maim, or injure persons or
damage property in a foreign country” -
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/956)

Conversely, if you’re a foreign citizen but you murder a US citizen while
abroad, that’s a crime in the US and you’d be jailed if they could ever get
you here.

18 U.S.C. §1119 - “Foreign murder of United States nationals” -
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1119](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1119)

~~~
megous
He can also expect prosecution in the target country.

------
ajmurmann
Why do we tolerate mercenaries at all? Obvious moral issues aside they also
shrink our much cheaper pool of soldiers. Shouldn't any government strongly
deter its citizens from doing mercenary work? As a civilian I don't want to
encounter people like this on my daily life. If want them locked up like any
other murderer.

~~~
soared
How are mercenaries different than regular soldiers? One is directly employed
by the government, one is contracted by the government. Other commenters here
have shown the contractors are nearly entirely defensive anyways.

~~~
ajmurmann
Economically: we pay soldiers comparatively little. Not sure if that's good or
bad but it's certainly different for mercenaries.

Morally: it's different to kill because you volunteered to defend your country
than because you need some money.

------
skeptic_69
only tangentially related but I have always thought that Executive Outcomes is
such an ominous and great name..

------
40acres
Snake wasn't lying when he said "War has changed". Mercenaries are as old as
war itself but this type of operation seems like its on a completely different
level.

Post WW2 it seems like most conflicts are being fought via guerrilla warfare.
When you have a theatre of war that essentially a couple of rural provinces
having some skilled American soldiers with a decade of experience of war seems
highly valuable.

------
sonnyblarney
Wow, what a cluster-F of an operation, I often think these guys are overrated.
Also, Green Berets don't have much in the way of experience or training on
these specific kinds of things, in fact very, very few American forces will. I
hope these guys are sanctioned back in the US.

~~~
skeptic_69
Seals do a lot of direct action. Someone more qualified should explain how
much direct action they do.

I think a lot.

~~~
sonnyblarney
Not only are there very, very few Seals, an even smaller fraction of them have
ever actually done anything like this. Also Green Berets are way more towards
'Army' than anything like this.

The US forces do not run around knocking off people like this very often.

Now I don't have hyper specific insight, but I'll bet $1000 that not even
Seals do 'explosive based drive-by assassinations' either. Because it's just
not in the playbook.

Regular forces, Green Berets, Rangers etc. have nothing to do with this kind
of stuff.

I have military experience, though not American, and I don't keep up with it.

~~~
qaq
Isn't this what SAD/SOG would be doing?

~~~
sonnyblarney
I really don't think Western powers are in the assassination business at all,
at least not anymore. Unless they are 'wanted' type bad guys, like hardcore
terrorists. There are so many ways for it to fallout. That explosion for
example, what a bunch of idiots, they almost killed themselves ... and can you
imagine if there were children? Most US journalists and pretty much _all_
foreign journalists would want that scoop of a story, and they're smart. I
mean - this video got out ...

------
ilamont
_The team began to develop what Gilmore called “esprit de corps.” They flew a
makeshift flag featuring a skull and crossed swords — a kind of Jolly Roger on
a black background — and painted that emblem onto their military vehicles and
their living quarters._

Sounds like something a bunch of teenagers would do after reading _Soldier of
Fortune_ magazine, but these are grown, highly trained professional soldiers
without any real oversight, or, it seems, moral compass.

If you have 30 minutes, read "The Crimes of SEAL Team 6" (1). It goes very
much against the "good guys" media narrative that emerged after the OBL raid
and Captain Phillips rescue. Many members have joined such elite units for
noble reasons and served with honor, but there is also an undercurrent of
savage brutality in some units that was not only tolerated, but even
encouraged:

 _Some of those photographs, especially those taken of casualties from 2005
through 2008, show deceased enemy combatants with their skulls split open by a
rifle or pistol round at the upper forehead, exposing their brain matter. The
foreign fighters who suffered these V-shaped wounds were either killed in
battle and later shot at close range or finished off with a security round
while dying. Among members of SEAL Team 6, this practice of desecrating enemy
casualties was called “canoeing.”

The canoeing photos are dramatic documentary evidence of the extreme and
unnecessary violence that began to occur during multiple high-risk,
exhausting, and traumatizing tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan. “There is
and was no military reason whatsoever to split someone’s skull open with a
single round,” said a former SEAL Team 6 leader. “It’s sport.”

The former SEAL Team 6 leader said that he first noticed canoeing in 2004, and
that it does occur accidentally on the battlefield, but rarely. He said
canoeing became “big” in 2007. “I’d look through the post-op photos and see
multiple canoes on one objective, several times a deployment,” the retired
SEAL said. When SEAL Team 6 operators were occasionally confronted about the
desecration, the SEAL leader said, they’d often joke that they were just
“great shots.”

... During the first deployments in both Iraq and Afghanistan, it was common
practice to take fingers, scalp, or skin from slain enemy combatants for
identification purposes. One former SEAL Team 6 leader told me that he feared
the practice would lead to members of the unit using the DNA samples as an
excuse to mutilate and desecrate the dead. By 2007, when Howard and Red
Squadron showed up with their hatchets in Iraq, internal reports of operators
using the weapons to hack dead and dying militants were provided to both the
commanding officer of SEAL Team 6 at that time, Capt. Scott Moore, and his
deputy, Capt. Tim Szymanski.

Howard, who declined to answer questions from The Intercept, rallied his SEALs
and others before missions and deployments by telling them to “bloody the
hatchet.” One SEAL I spoke with said that Howard’s words were meant to be
inspirational, like those of a coach, and were not an order to use the
hatchets to commit war crimes. Others were much more critical. Howard was
often heard asking his operators whether they’d gotten “blood on your hatchet”
when they returned from a deployment. Howard’s distribution of the hatchets
worried several senior SEAL Team 6 members and some CIA paramilitary officers
who worked with his squadron._

[https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-
team-...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/10/the-crimes-of-seal-team-6/)

~~~
pasabagi
To be honest, I find this kind of article deeply hypocritical. People die in
wars, brutally, horribly, and special forces are normally comprised of
psychopaths. The fact remains that they cause less civilian casualties than
any other kind of politics by other means. If you are going to fight wars, it
would be far better to train more people to be the kind of psychopaths that
like to disfigure corpses and carry around strings of ears, than to do
'impersonal' drone strikes, or worse still, sanctions - which sound very soft,
but ultimately kill far more, and with a far more brutal selectivity, than war
itself.

~~~
malvosenior
I found the article very interesting (and depressing) but agree with the
direction of your sentiment. The article even starts with the Seals being
upset about an airstike being called on the wedding party convoy as they
thought it was going to cause a larger loss of life than a targeted operation
(it did).

I'm sure some psychopaths manage to get into the special forces but I think
the majority of these people are just trying to cope with the job they're
doing. I read this as a lot of myth making on the part of the Seals to justify
what could very easily be seen as straight up murder. By disassociating with
reality and instead living a borrowed Native American persona, they're in a
way protecting their mental health from the horrible acts they're committing
and witnessing.

In the end though I think you're right. Hearing about the details of this
stuff on a human level is horrifying but it's more humane to do targeted
actions like this then wipe out whole city blocks with bombs or cut off food
supplies.

------
qiqing
Excerpt from the end of the article:

> For his part, Gilmore said he “would have preferred that this stay off the
> radar.” But he decided to speak to BuzzFeed News because “once this comes
> out there’s no way that I’m going to stay out of it, so I’d prefer to own
> it. And I’m not going to try to hide from what I did.”

> “It’s still,” he said, “some variety of the future of warfare.”

> Gilmore is out of the mercenary business. He has since found himself in
> another gray-zone line of work, albeit one that’s far less dangerous. He
> said he’s with a California company that plans to make cannabis oil for
> vaporizers.

------
pmorici
It sounds like the main source of this story is the owner of the private
mercenary company. It seems like he thinks publicizing his teams actions will
some how drum up business.

------
fapjacks
No. This is bullshit. I am telling you, from personal experience, that there
are claims in this article that are completely bullshit, and stand out as
being completely bullshit. Whoever this "journalist" is writing about has sold
Buzzfeed quite a cool story, bro. I'm not doubting that assassinations are
carried out by mercenaries, which is not even a little bit unusual
historically. I only skimmed the last third of the article because it's such
outlandishly bad and wholly unbelievable storytelling. And as someone that
spent more than a couple of years looking at the universe through black hot
thermal, something about that footage is not quite right. I could spend hours
unraveling the tall tale Buzzfeed has spun here for you all today. Just a few
of the claims that are outright false or smack heavily of exaggerated
bullshit:

"... the US doesn’t ban mercenaries. And with some exceptions, it is perfectly
legal to serve in foreign militaries, whether one is motivated by idealism or
money. With no legal consequences ..." False. Totally false. You jeopardize
your American citizenship by serving in a foreign military ranked as an NCO or
above. It is the _exception_ to do this without huge problems and _not_ the
norm. For example serving in the IDF as part of your Return. I know because I
personally had an offer to join an allied European military in order to take a
teaching position at their infantry school. And the US government is putting
people in jail that went to fight in Syria and Iraq with e.g. PKK.

"If the [reserve special forces] soldiers are not on active duty, he added,
they are not obligated to report what they’re doing." 100% false. You need a
waiver signed by your chain of command (up through battalion commander) to do
anything remotely like this, which would absolutely need to be approved,
taking security contractor work like this, overseas. You _absolutely_ are
obligated not just to report to your chain of command but to get a waiver. I
know because I personally have friends that did contracting work while in the
guard, and I know the hoops they had to jump through.

"During a live-fire training mission he led, back in his Navy days, he says he
accidentally shot another SEAL." You couldn't "choose to leave the Navy" after
that. This would be a _huge_ fucking problem. Probably a discharge. Possibly
jail time.

"the number of special operations forces has more than doubled since 9/11,
from 33,000 to 70,000. That’s a vast pool of crack soldiers selected, trained,
and combat-tested by the most elite units of the US military" Seventy thousand
_maybe_ if you include all of the REMF POGs doing paperwork, but nobody could
reasonably call these people "crack soldiers" and compare them to an 18B.

It looks like Buzzfeed as been Buzzfed. Somebody sold them a story that is
almost certainly equal parts unbelievable exaggeration and complete and total
bullshit. And even if the footage is real -- and I do not believe it is 100%
genuine -- they're deliberately zooming in on the area where the "mercenary"
is firing his weapon in order to obscure what appear to be rounds landing at
his feet. It looks like he's provoked into firing. Do not believe anything
these people are telling you. It is almost certainly invented for clicks or
some other reason.

~~~
jpatokal
It's actually quite difficult to lose your US citizenship these days. Per U.S.
Code § 1481, it's not sufficient to merely serve in a foreign military, you
need to do it " _with the intention of relinquishing United States
nationality_ ".

What's more, per (b) there's an explicit presumption of what amounts to
innocent until proven guilty: the onus is on whoever is claiming you've lost
your citizenship to prove that you voluntarily intended to lose it, which is
really quite hard to do unless you renounced in front of a US consular
officer.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1481)

~~~
fapjacks
Actually, swearing fealty to another nation's military by swearing in, in
fact, counts as intending to relinquish your US nationality. I have had this
discussion with people working in multiple different American consulates,
because as I mentioned, I was offered a position teaching at a European
infantry school which would have required me to join their military.

~~~
jpatokal
Nope.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_State...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relinquishment_of_United_States_nationality#Serving_in_a_foreign_military)

Or if you want an authoritative source:

[https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1270.html](https://fam.state.gov/FAM/07FAM/07FAM1270.html)

~~~
fapjacks
You're not a citizenship lawyer, I'm assuming, and you're just grabbing these
links from (bad) cursory google searching, because this must be some kind of
joke? Are you actually reading the links you are posting? I think you haven't
actually read them. Both of these links support my assertions. Also, you
obviously have _zero_ experience with immigration and citizenship law, and how
it works at the consular level. From your very own links:

"... provides for relinquishment through 'entering, or serving in, the armed
forces of a foreign state' if either the person serves 'as a commissioned or
non-commissioned officer' ... "

I suppose then you have no real-world experience with any of this (or anything
like this) and so cannot otherwise provide anything to support your position.
So let me help define some terms for you. A "commissioned or non-commissioned
officer" \-- what I called "an NCO or above" \-- is essentially anyone higher
ranking than a common soldier. If you serve in this position, the consular
officer you report this to gets to make the call on whether or not this
constitutes relinquishing citizenship _and every consulate I talked to said it
would mean relinquishing citizenship_. This is the power of the consulate:
They make decisions with _recommendations_ from the government. Since you
don't have any experience with this first-hand, and you don't understand the
implication, that means you won't be afforded the opportunity to challenge or
appeal the decision, since you won't have ready access to the American court
system.

~~~
jpatokal
Not a lawyer (are you?), but I do maintain a keen interest in nationality law.
Italics mine:

"...the Department of State adopted the administrative presumption found in 22
CFR 50.40 that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national _intends to retain U.S.
nationality when he or she commits certain expatriating acts_. That
administrative presumption is in the process of being revised in 22 CFR Part
50, and _includes when a U.S. citizen serves as a commissioned or
noncommissioned officer of a foreign state_ , not engaged in hostilities
against the United States (INA 349(a)(3), 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3))."

In other words, even if you serve as a officer or NCO of a foreign country,
the Department of State will _not_ consider this an expatriating act causing
loss of citizenship, unless that country is at war with the US.

See also 7 FAM 1222 for more details of the "administrative presumption" in
question:

"...in 1990 the Department adopted the administrative presumption found in 22
CFR 50.40 that a U.S. citizen/noncitizen national intends to retain U.S.
nationality when he or she commits certain expatriating acts. That
administrative presumption is in the process of being revised in 22 CFR Part
50, and includes when a U.S. citizen:

(3) Serves in the armed services of a foreign state as a commissioned or
noncommissioned officer of a foreign state, not engaged in hostilities against
the United States (INA 349(a)(3))"

[https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1220.html#M1222](https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1220.html#M1222)

------
baud147258
I found funny to see that link right in the middle of the article:

[https://bzfd.it/mercenaries](https://bzfd.it/mercenaries)

------
394549
American private military companies like this one and Blackwater need to be
abolished.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
We've had mercenaries since the Pharaohs of Egypt. Its as likely to work as
abolishing prostitution, politics, or drinking.

~~~
394549
Mercenaries may always exist, but American ones don't have to. Participation
in them should be made illegal, and all these private military companies
should forbidden to operate until they find another line of business or
liquidate themselves. If some former soldier or former general wants to become
a mercenary, let him renounce his citizenship and go find a new home.

The only military forces in the US should be explicit parts of official US
military.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its a curious job - murder for hire? I don't think it actually is legal in the
US.

~~~
dragonwriter
Given that the US is not, in fact, at war with Yemen, it doesn't seem to be
legal _outside_ the US for US citizens or people within US jurisdiction when
doing any planning, etc., related to it; see, U.S. Code tit. 18, ch. 45,
particularly §§ 956, 958, and 960.

[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-45)

------
pytyper2
Of course, why would we outsource something that sensitive?

------
mnm1
Seems to me like the only terrorists in this story are the American
mercenaries and UAE government that hired them.

------
smsm42
I'm not sure what is particularly surprising in this article. Surely if
somebody is working as a warrior for hire, than people would hire them to do
warrior stuff. Is the point here that the particular mercs are ex-US Army
soldiers? In this case, I wonder if one has acquired a particular set of
skills (yeah, I know, the movie reference) in the Army, and wants to monetize
them in civilian market, what would be the better option? I mean,
assassinations of course is not a good way of earning money, and certainly
immoral in most cases, but as you can, regrettably, expect a certain number of
trained software security professionals to become criminals, so you can expect
from warfare specialists? Is there any way around it?

~~~
sorokod
That is some laid back attitude to murder. Are you also cool with the
"warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US " civilian market" ?

~~~
smsm42
> That is some laid back attitude to murder. No, I specifically pointed out it
> being immoral, and criminal. Though being engaged in war or warlike
> scenarios, one can expect that certain situations would require
> confrontation that ultimately can get people killed. This is what happens in
> war. This is why armies exist. And if it's legitimate for US Army, why isn't
> it legitimate for UAE Army? And if certain person can kill other people
> under the star-spangled banner, why the same person can't do it under other
> flags? Of course there are unjust wars, but I don't see how anything changes
> whether it's under US flag or UAE flag.

> Are you also cool with the "warriors" "monetizing" their skills in the US
> "civilian market" ?

Depends on how they monetize them. If it's a justified self-defense (e.g.
somebody tries to assassinate a prominent political figure, her security
detail reacts and kills the assassin) - sure, if it's aggression (somebody
hires ex-military to assassinate a prominent political figure) - not so much.

------
vectorEQ
how is this news?

------
Apocryphon
I know that the novelty of Buzzfeed delivering hard-hitting journalism has
been known for the last three or so years already, but this is one hell of a
heavy subject for them to be reporting on.

~~~
BaldricksGhost
This is not the Buzzfeed of old. This story is something you'd expect from the
NY Times or the Washington Post.

~~~
cocacola1
I believe the difference is this is BuzzFeed News, not BuzzFeed. BuzzFeed
News, from what I understand, is fairly solid. BuzzFeed itself keeps the
lights on, because hard hitting news doesn't.

------
swagtricker
What the hell?! Isn't this what we pay the CIA for? I mean seriously, what are
my black-ops tax dollars funding these days?

~~~
cwkoss
> what are my black-ops tax dollars funding these days?

Domestic propaganda

~~~
jsoc815
Well done, cwkoss. Well done. That is all.

------
rjain15
I wonder what would have Senator John McCain thought about this program? Miss
him.

~~~
adamnemecek
does his track record indicate he was particularly anti this?

~~~
forgotmysn
it does, yes. he was very against the privatization of the military and
intelligence services

~~~
dragonwriter
He was against the privatization of certain US military and intelligence
functions, but I'm not aware of him being against foreign states hiring US
military or intelligence contractors for similar functions.

~~~
Balgair
Privatization of military functions was a _key_ reason for the downfall of the
Roman Republic. Troops became loyal to generals, not to the Republic herself,
as the general became the paymaster/generator of funds. The echos are getting
louder.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _The echos are getting louder_

These mercenaries are closer to Crassus hiring legions to fight a foreign war
moreso than Caesar or Sulla marching on Rome. American firepower is
predominantly state owned and loyal to its civilian leadership. These
mercenaries are a liability because they make America look bad, _not_ because
they pose even an intermediate threat to American military power.

~~~
Balgair
True!

A good look into this further is Mike Duncan's _The Storm before the Storm_
that leads into the Sulla era: [https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-
Roman-Republic...](https://www.amazon.com/Storm-Before-Beginning-Roman-
Republic/dp/1610397215)

Duncan's _The History of Rome_ podcast is very good overall and very much
worth a listen.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Thank you! I have always had a strange fascination with Sulla–as a man, a
politician and a general. Appreciate the book and podcast references.

------
oh_sigh
I'm guessing this is in the news because of the Khashoggi murder. An important
point here is that this was orchestrated by the UAE government, and the
Americans involved were private individuals who were not operating with any
kind of sanction or approval from the US government.

~~~
pjc50
> not operating with any kind of sanction or approval from the US government.

Not officially, no, but if US intelligence isn't keeping track of them they're
not doing their job properly, and I doubt they would be allowed to attack US-
allied targets.

------
paganel
Can't say how good or bad those mercenaries were but I can definitely say that
the info coming from the UAE intelligence services was dog-s.it. For instance,
they were not even able to correctly spell the name of the Toyota Hilux, they
mis-spelled it as "Haloux" (?!?). ([https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-
static/static/2018-10/15/1...](https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-
static/static/2018-10/15/15/asset/buzzfeed-prod-web-01/sub-
buzz-10774-1539633470-14.jpg?downsize=800:*&output-format=auto&output-
quality=auto))

I'm pretty sure that an intelligence-gathering organization that cannot
spell/remember the name of one of the most used Toyota models in the Middle
East is not good at providing correct geo-coordinates or the target's meeting
times.

~~~
empath75
It’s a transliteration from Arabic.

~~~
paganel
Apparently they also transliterated the meeting hour of their target’s wrong.

