There is a question i have about the widespread use of Private Security Forces for personal and business protection, mostly in foreign countries. If it is legal for private security personnel in Iraq to carry MP-5s and M-4s, etc. while protecting their clients would it also be legal for those same companies to be hired by business executives here in the states and still be so heavily armed? This may seem like a silly question but since reading about those killed in Iraq i was curious about the the exact laws dealing with personal protection and if the laws are the same within the US as without. Which leads me to another question. Is it positive or negative to be relying so heavily on private companies for personnel protection especially in volatle places such as Iraq. Would it be a better idea to have actual government protection services available for hire after a review of the individuals case, or not? As a far fetched example, could a drug dealer hire a company such as Blackwater for protection? Again, just something i find interesting and would like to hear more from members with greater knowledge than myself.
Private Security Firms
- Thread starter tygger
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
Sub_Umbra
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
tygger:
If it is legal for private security personnel in Iraq to carry MP-5s and M-4s, etc. while protecting their clients would it also be legal for those same companies to be hired by business executives here in the states and still be so heavily armed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. It's here now, you just have to hire people who have filled out the paperwork. IMO it will become MUCH more visible in the future. This is only the beginning. I think many people are still in denial at this point. I agree with those who say that this will be the defining conflict of our time -- like WWII or the Cold War. I don't see this just going away any time soon.
[ QUOTE ]
tygger:
Is it positive or negative to be relying so heavily on private companies for personnel protection especially in volatle places such as Iraq. Would it be a better idea to have actual government protection services available for hire after a review of the individuals case, or not?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's negative. Many members of the National Guard are bummed out already. Why give them more headaches? I also don't think that the Gov can automatically do ANYTHING better than private interprise. Bloated, slow moving, backside covering government is really WRONG for many of these jobs.
It doesn't make sense to me that a Nationial Guardsman from St Louis should die protecting a civilian contractor in Baghdad who's got a contract to restore the phone system, for example. Let them be protected by people who know what they are getting into and walk into the situation with their eyes wide open.
Actually, I think it's kind of cool. It will lead directly to more money, better equipment, more benefits, and more respect for our troops. I think it has begun already. They will get better treatment as an inducement to not leave the Armed Forces and throw in with the privare protection firms.
I think that's good.
tygger:
If it is legal for private security personnel in Iraq to carry MP-5s and M-4s, etc. while protecting their clients would it also be legal for those same companies to be hired by business executives here in the states and still be so heavily armed?
[/ QUOTE ]
Sure. It's here now, you just have to hire people who have filled out the paperwork. IMO it will become MUCH more visible in the future. This is only the beginning. I think many people are still in denial at this point. I agree with those who say that this will be the defining conflict of our time -- like WWII or the Cold War. I don't see this just going away any time soon.
[ QUOTE ]
tygger:
Is it positive or negative to be relying so heavily on private companies for personnel protection especially in volatle places such as Iraq. Would it be a better idea to have actual government protection services available for hire after a review of the individuals case, or not?
[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think it's negative. Many members of the National Guard are bummed out already. Why give them more headaches? I also don't think that the Gov can automatically do ANYTHING better than private interprise. Bloated, slow moving, backside covering government is really WRONG for many of these jobs.
It doesn't make sense to me that a Nationial Guardsman from St Louis should die protecting a civilian contractor in Baghdad who's got a contract to restore the phone system, for example. Let them be protected by people who know what they are getting into and walk into the situation with their eyes wide open.
Actually, I think it's kind of cool. It will lead directly to more money, better equipment, more benefits, and more respect for our troops. I think it has begun already. They will get better treatment as an inducement to not leave the Armed Forces and throw in with the privare protection firms.
I think that's good.
PMCs are a bad idea. The Government should keep that competence in-house and not outsource it.
There are all kinds of horrible problems with PMC (private military companies i.e. mercenaries) and even worse ones with non-combat tasks being assigned to non-soldiers. For example, the guy who's job it is to take out the garbage at a military base can wind up as a civilian, which is fine, until the base is attacked and you need every last man to fight and the non-combatant garbage collector has no gun, no training, and can't be told to fight.
It's a problem.
There are all kinds of horrible problems with PMC (private military companies i.e. mercenaries) and even worse ones with non-combat tasks being assigned to non-soldiers. For example, the guy who's job it is to take out the garbage at a military base can wind up as a civilian, which is fine, until the base is attacked and you need every last man to fight and the non-combatant garbage collector has no gun, no training, and can't be told to fight.
It's a problem.
cryptoguru
Newly Enlightened
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2003
- Messages
- 29
Think it's wise to have PMCs. They do the job cheaper in the long run and they are people who know what they are getting into instead of being ordered into.
Cryptoguru, Lt. USA ret., Major USAF ret.
Cryptoguru, Lt. USA ret., Major USAF ret.
It is kind of ironic that contractor security personnel can carry weapons while in Iraq, but as a Department of the Army civilian working there, I am not allowed to carry a personal defensive weapon. My coworkers and myself support Army equipment in a variety of locations throughout the world, including Iraq and Afghanistan. We are often helping the soldiers maintain complex electronic systems at remote locations in very dangerous places. Last year, I was with 3rd Infantry Division on the drive to Baghdad, and then went to Afghanistan for five weeks to support the soldiers there. One of the firebases I worked at in Afghanistan took nearly daily rocket fire from the Taliban and Al Qaeda and is the location of many American casualties. I don't want to carry around a M-16 or M-4, but would very much like to be able to defend myself with at least a handgun.
I didn't want to pull this topic off subject too much, but I really am bugged when I am dressed like a soldier when deployed and am unarmed, but see contractors and other government agencies running around well armed and defended. My personal opinion is anyone who is supporting the military in places like Iraq and Afghanistan be afforded the same right to self protection as the soldiers. Being an unarmed target is no benefit to the soldiers who are detailed to provide security for us.
I didn't want to pull this topic off subject too much, but I really am bugged when I am dressed like a soldier when deployed and am unarmed, but see contractors and other government agencies running around well armed and defended. My personal opinion is anyone who is supporting the military in places like Iraq and Afghanistan be afforded the same right to self protection as the soldiers. Being an unarmed target is no benefit to the soldiers who are detailed to provide security for us.
Unicorn
Flashlight Enthusiast
To get back to the first question, it depends on the state laws. Most states have a limit on the types of weapons private security can carry. In Virginia it's a pistol and shotgun, and of course the person has to be qualified with them. Let me add to that, not just Americans, but those who are from some of our friendly countries. I don't trust the background checks done by Pakistan or India, but soeone from the UK or Canada would be fine with me to have a 9 or whatever.
When you are talking about base security, it is cheaper to give the contracts to TCN (thrid party nationals), and leave the warfighting to soldiers. It would require hundreds more soldiers, who would not really get much combat training at all, to run the dining facility at one of the largest spots in Kuwait. Add in the hundreds of people it takes to clean out the porta-pottis, pick up the trash, do the normal maintainance, etc, and you'd need to have thousands more troops doing non-combat jobs.
I do think that any American contractor should be able to carry at least a handgun while in country. Not the TCN's, but those Americans who have come over to work on the Strykers, maintain our computer systems, repair the Apaches, etc.
It's not my job as a soldier to take out the trash. If I do that, it takes away from me doing my primary job. Even with Gen Shoomakers (sp?) plan to make everyone a warrior, it just isn't going to happen. Truck drivers are still going to be poor Infantryman, and Infantryman will not be as good as truck drivers.
Actually if you look, most of the security forces overseas protecting high visibility target are former special operation forces personnel. They are doing the sam job they did in the military, but for three or four times the pay. A married E7, Sergeant First Class, with all the added on pays for being in a combat zone, family seperation, hostile fire pay, the tax exclusion, housing allowance, might make the equivalent of $60,000+ in a year, his civillian counterpart could be making $200,000 that same year.
When you are talking about base security, it is cheaper to give the contracts to TCN (thrid party nationals), and leave the warfighting to soldiers. It would require hundreds more soldiers, who would not really get much combat training at all, to run the dining facility at one of the largest spots in Kuwait. Add in the hundreds of people it takes to clean out the porta-pottis, pick up the trash, do the normal maintainance, etc, and you'd need to have thousands more troops doing non-combat jobs.
I do think that any American contractor should be able to carry at least a handgun while in country. Not the TCN's, but those Americans who have come over to work on the Strykers, maintain our computer systems, repair the Apaches, etc.
It's not my job as a soldier to take out the trash. If I do that, it takes away from me doing my primary job. Even with Gen Shoomakers (sp?) plan to make everyone a warrior, it just isn't going to happen. Truck drivers are still going to be poor Infantryman, and Infantryman will not be as good as truck drivers.
Actually if you look, most of the security forces overseas protecting high visibility target are former special operation forces personnel. They are doing the sam job they did in the military, but for three or four times the pay. A married E7, Sergeant First Class, with all the added on pays for being in a combat zone, family seperation, hostile fire pay, the tax exclusion, housing allowance, might make the equivalent of $60,000+ in a year, his civillian counterpart could be making $200,000 that same year.
