A mercenary is a person who takes part in an armed conflict who is not a national of a Party to the conflict and “is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party”.

Certainly Blackwater isn’t the same thing as militia. But it is similar to them, in this way: both are private providers of security associated with, but not of, the State. Non-state providers of security are part of our British heritage, but very different from the European model of a “monopoly of violence.”

Since when did national origin have anything to do with the definition of mercenary? Last time I checked, Blackwater claims that their obligation is towards security alone, but Dan seems to equate them with being on par with colonial militias, which last time I checked such entities could take up an offensive position.

Oh, and keep in mind that I am not personally trying to argue the definition of mercenary, only pointing out that Dan’s post seems to refute Blackwater’s argument that they are not, despite whether that was his actual intention.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that Blackwater “does” hire virtually around the globe, most notably Chileans that have served under Pinochet would be one controversial example.

By drawing such a conclusion, are you therefore refuting Blackwater’s argument that they are not mercenaries?