Read "Manual of the Mercenary Soldier" (1988), by Paul Baylor. Serious book for real-world mercs. It covers this issue. One well-known player had written something like "xxx happened. I was there" (and could thus get in on the war). Baylor writes "He didn't spend a lot of time hanging around Vancouver or Helsinki."
(Baylor was writing pre-9/11. The rules are different now for US citizens.)
You should post this as an answer to that question -- summarize the relevant parts, maybe throw in a few quotes, and add a citation at the bottom. It'd be a great contribution. At the very least, you should post a comment on the question with the book's title and author, so interested people can see it.
One thing I think people ought to know is that there is also a community of mercenaries that don't have anywhere near the professionalism expressed in this post.
See "The Road To Raqqa" (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MzPiuwzEtuY) for examples of bikers, homemakers & software dev mercenary outfits organized just on Facebook, operating in combat zones currently.
> Why do programmers looking for easy cash from VCs they can blindside with a storm of buzzwords migrate to San Francisco? Its one of the absolute worse places to run a company, but its one of the best for starting a company simply because the community is there.
Makes sense. I always considered myself a tech mercenary.
In the context of getting a degree: 'Spence discovered that even if education did not contribute anything to an employee's productivity, it could still have value to both the employer and employee. If the appropriate cost/benefit structure exists (or is created), "good" employees will buy more education in order to signal their higher productivity.'
E.g. if communication costs were really zero, then everyone would try to get a job by applying, which lowers the average applicant quality.
But if the cost of applying is high, then only highly committed, self-selected applicants who think they will eventually get the job will apply.
Suppose an American contracting for the Angolan government shoots a Canadian in Angola. Would the latter have civil or criminal claims on the former in a Western court? How do mercenaries manage this legal risk?
In most of the places where operators are required, the law is so fluid that there is little recourse save a select few. It is almost guaranteed It is not going to be some random Canadian on holiday and if they are out on contract themselves well then those are the risks. Contractors and operators outside of diplomatic channels have little protection or recourse for when stuff goes bad. Many times the laws of a particular town change when the next local gang takes power and short of major genocide once the peace is restored no one is really interested in digging up a missing person her and there. Unless you carry a charter or are flagged, you are pretty much on your own in most of these zones.
The general presumption, at least in the Anglo tradition, is that laws are territorial. So while Congress in theory has the power to punish conduct that takes place overseas, it must explicitly say so in the enactment and only occasionally exercises that power.
In your hypothetical, if an American killed an American in Angola, he could be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1119. But the fact there is a special statute for murder overseas tells you something--generally, there is no recourse for these violations when they happen abroad. For example, in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the Supreme Court held that citizens of Nigeria could not sue British, Dutch, and Nigerian corporations for brutally putting down a peaceful resistance in Nigeria in the 1990s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiobel_v._Royal_Dutch_Petroleu....
Although some circuits have declined to extend Kiobel to situations where the tortfeasor is American: https://uclawreview.org/2014/12/04/are-american-companies-li.... So potentially in your hypothetical the Canadian might have recourse in American courts.
I think one answer might be that unstable regions tend to be relatively lawless, so there's no worry about prosecution (particularly crossborder), and any risks that do attach in that situation may be manageable via other means.
The stuff contractors got away with in Iraq was ridic, some of that within eyesight of American military. I can only imagine what you could get away with in a worse shithole.
I remember reading in a credible source, I believe the NY Times, about a private contractor threatening the life of a U.S. State Department official in order to make something happen, and getting their way. Look at all the things Blackwater (most famously) and other did, with (almost?) complete impunity.
I have no expertise in the matter, but my impression is that the law isn't a consideration in combat zones. Perhaps someone with actual experience can comment.
I feel like any area that is already so unstable that a handful of ex-Marines have a real shot at knocking it over is probably about to fall over on its own regardless, so why would they bother hurrying the inevitable?
This is a bizarre post to see here, and an even more odd comment thread. No one else is curious to understand the context on that subreddit and why at a meta-level this whole discussion is interesting to this particular community on hackernews?
It's not a subreddit - it's the world building stack exchange, for people creating worlds for novels and games. I was surprised to see an answer by an actual mercenary, and thought it might be of general interest. It's a part of the world I know very little about.
That guys blog is also worth a read (the link is in his profile).
Thanks and good point about it not being a subreddit. I certainly didn't mean to say this was inappropriate here, only that I found it interest it was posted; and was surprised no one was having the meta-discussion around how interesting it is that this community exists!
(Baylor was writing pre-9/11. The rules are different now for US citizens.)