SIGN IN to access Harper’s Magazine
1. Sign in to Customer Care using your account number or postal address.
2. Select Email/Password Information.
3. Enter your new information and click on Save My Changes.
Subscribers can find additional help here. Not a subscriber? Subscribe today!
The mounting disclosures surrounding Blackwater and its extralegal relationships with the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command demonstrate ably the privileged role of private security contractors in the Bush era. This $100 billion dollar industry expanded dramatically in the last decade, largely as a result of the privatization of important aspects of U.S. national security. The heavy involvement of Blackwater in highly classified operations may explain why the Bush Administration was determined to immunize them and other security contractors from legal accountability: they “knew too much,” and a prosecution might lead to disclosure of operations the Bush team preferred to keep secret.
One of the emerging agenda items for the global community is the “responsibility to protect.” It posits that a government has a duty to its citizens, to protect them from acts of violence and terrorism, for instance, or to cope with destructive acts of nature such as hurricanes or a tsunami. If a government fails in this duty to protect its citizens, then the international community may have some collective obligation to step in to mitigate the worst abuses and help the civilian population. Private security contractors have long envisioned a growth industry for themselves in international peacekeeping and humanitarian intervention, so they have an investment in the expansion of “responsibility to protect” norms. But can this be reconciled with the doctrine of immunity for contractors in military operations that is part of the legacy of the Bush years?
I addressed this question in remarks made to an international gathering of law of war experts at the University of Turin in Italy on Thursday. My remarks can be examined here.
More from Scott Horton:
Six Questions — October 18, 2014, 8:00 pm
Nathaniel Raymond on CIA interrogation techniques.
I recently spent a semester teaching writing at an elite liberal-arts college. At strategic points around the campus, in shades of yellow and green, banners displayed the following pair of texts. The first was attributed to the college’s founder, which dates it to the 1920s. The second was extracted from the latest version of the institution’s mission statement:
The paramount obligation of a college is to develop in its students the ability to think clearly and independently, and the ability to live confidently, courageously, and hopefully.
Let us take a moment to compare these texts. The first thing to observe about the older one is that it is a sentence. It expresses an idea by placing concepts in relation to one another within the kind of structure that we call a syntax. It is, moreover, highly wrought: a parallel structure underscored by repetition, five adverbs balanced two against three.
Percentage of Britons who cannot name the city that provides the setting for the musical Chicago:
An Australian entrepreneur was selling oysters raised in tanks laced with Viagra.
A naked man believed to be under the influence of LSD rammed his pickup truck into two police cars.
Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!
“Shelby is waiting for something. He himself does not know what it is. When it comes he will either go back into the world from which he came, or sink out of sight in the morass of alcoholism or despair that has engulfed other vagrants.”