Talk to Action has a lengthy review of a treaty that is meant to help debunk Christian revisionists who claim the US was founded on a single faith:

One of the most often used arguments that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation is Article 11 of the 1797 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. This is a pretty good argument, considering that the first sentence of that article begins with the words, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” Because the authors of the religious right version of American history can’t deny that these words are there, they attempt to dismiss them, usually using one, or a combination of, several popular arguments.

The first argument is really just a diversion, created by pointing out a mistake sometimes made by those who bring up this treaty.

[…]

The second is an out of context sentence from a letter written by John Adams. Religious right authors who claim that there are many such secularist misquotes need to use both of these because they just can’t find any other examples, although David Barton implies that he has found a third.

The really sad part, of course, is that by ignoring the truth of history the revisionists are far more likely to repeat the nasty and obvious mistakes again and again.

I occasionally run into something similar when executives or even mangers tell me that they have no security incidents in their company. The funny thing is that if they had no incidents, they actually would say “although we have had some incidents, none turned out to be security related”. A simple review or sample of their incident notes would confirm this. However, if they say they have had no incidents at all, then it is very likely they have in fact had many and are completely unaware of how many are security related. Easy to repeat mistakes if you have no idea when they are being made. Even easier to repeat mistakes when written proof, or evidence, is dismissed with diversions and false context.

You have to dig a little, but if you put two stories in the BBC together you get a strange mix of corporate security fighting against US-backed forces in Colombia.

Chiquita’s militia-men might be called everything from terrorists to security guards, depending on who you speak with, naturally. But you would have to be bananas not to see the irony, especially with regard to the latest Blackwater news.

The first story is from 2005, when the US was said to be fighting insurgents to their south, also referred to as “rebels and paramilitaries”.

Since 2000 the US has spent about $3bn on programmes to fight drug trafficking, train the Colombian army to battle insurgents and improve the institutions of government.

Anyone else notice that Iraqi no longer has insurgents? They all seem to be called terrorists or Al Qaeda now. Anyway, President Bush was able to get approval to continue the program in Columbia. Mounting evidence of a failure to reduce violence, let alone reduce the trade in cocaine, was apparently lost on the American leaders.

US officials are perplexed by the disparity between the eradication numbers and the availability estimates.

They suggest that traffickers are hoarding supplies of cocaine and releasing it slowly, and that government data on drug cultivation may be inaccurate.

Economics and market theory about the supply-side is one way to guess why controls weren’t working. A far more realistic perspective, however, is found in the second story.

What this means is that the link between global corporations and mercenaries presents a curious relationship. It turns out insurgents are often well funded by large international corporations, rather than derived from local markets involving “cultivation” and supply-chain issues.

A US judge has confirmed a $25m (£12.5m) fine on banana company Chiquita for having given protection money to Colombian paramilitary groups.

In March, Chiquita pleaded guilty to paying $1.7m (£850,000) to the United Self Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC).

The firm said its only motive was the safety of its Colombian workers.

Right. I am sure someone will say that the hundreds of thousands of “military contractors” working in Iraq, many directly for the US in lieu of government soldiers, are paid to ensure the safety of workers. Perspective, eh?

What ensures the safety of innocent civilians from groups like Blackwater, especially if there is no oversight and they are bound by no laws?

This incident [on Christmas eve, 2006] highlights the lack of control and oversight our government has over the 140,000 private contractors in Iraq. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Rep. Price of North Carolina, and over 15 other legislators have co-sponsored the Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act of 2007 (HR 369) that requires accountability for personnel performing private security functions under Federal contracts, and for other purposes.

For now it remains as it was last year when Rep. Dennis Kucinich asked Pentagon officials under oath if the US Department of Defense would prosecute a private contractor who murdered Iraqi civilians. He was told repeatedly,

“Sir, I can’t answer that question.” Finally Rep. Kucinich said: “Wow. Think about what that means. These private contractors can get away with murder…They aren’t subject to any laws at all.”

The loophole makes it easy for a favorite of the Bush administration, like Blackwater, to claim they act “lawfully” in response to criticisms of their latest attack on innocent life.

This US-based group of mercenaries clearly are not subject to the law because the Bush administration says so, unlike other private armies and militias who come under greater scrutiny for acts of “terror” (e.g. opening fire on civilians). I thought this report from the BBC had a particularly interesting perspective on recent events:

The policeman witness confirmed that there had been a car bomb. But he said it was 500m (1640ft) away from the convoy, and happened at least 20 minutes before the Blackwater convoy arrived at the intersection where they opened fire.

Thus, Blackwater, unlike Chiquita security, can open fire on innocent civilians if they want to and have no regrets. They might say a bomb fell somewhere nearby and they were scared. This will give some semblance of humanity, but as long as they carry the identity of “good guys” by the Bush administration, they do not need to justify their actions — they will get a pardon, a get out of jail free card, a medal of honor, etc.. Executive Protection points out that Blackwater, who initially was given a no-bid contract, is now actually operating without a license:

It’s also not clear what BW’s current status really is. BW’s license expired in 2006 however obviously that doesn’t seem to have been any impediment since they have continued to operate while the new license application was being processed.The government of Iraq has “banned” BW from working in Iraq but from a practical perspective, what does that mean? Simply put, the government of Iraq is incapable of preventing BW from operating in Iraq. The Iraqi government lacks the means to enforce any ban on BW. However it’s doubtful the State Department would allow BW to operate openly but does the State Department really have any choice?

No choice? Sloppy and unprofessional security work by the US administration. What did the US say when Chiquita argued that they had no choice but to continue use of their security guards? The BBC opines…

In any normal country with a properly functioning legal system, the men [from Blackwater] who opened fire would appear in court, and face a jury – who would judge their guilt or innocence on the basis of the evidence.

Even in the military they would appear at a court martial, and witnesses would be called.

But security guards in Iraq are not civilians, and they are not soldiers.

So will they ever have to face justice?

Ah, the obvious answer is that they already have, and Mr. Bush clearly feels that the legacy of Paul Bremer’s personal army is doing just fine, even if they act as though they are on some sort of crusade.

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire right-wing fundamentalist Christian from a powerful Michigan Republican family. His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer.

A major Republican campaign contributor, he interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992, finding time to intern for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher as well. Prince founded the mercenary firm Blackwater USA in 1997 with Gary Jackson, another former Navy SEAL.

This is not just about how US diplomats are treated, as Ms. Rice might suggest, but how the US views human rights, how it wields its power, and how it handles questions of justice.

See the differences? The term Banana Republic is a clue. Hypocricy is another…Iraq is wise to ban Blackwater, just as the US would like to ban Chiquita security from Columbia.

The BBC has posted a sad story of a woman in Switzerland tried and convicted of being a witch. Apparently 1782 was a year during Europe’s “Age of Englightenment”, but the circumstances of Anna Goeldi’s death suggest that torture and capital punishment were tools of the elite to cover up their own indiscretions:

But today Walter Hauser, a local journalist, does not believe Anna died because isolated Glarus remained mired in medieval superstition.

Researching the original records of the case, he found something far more banal.

“Jakob Tschudi had an affair with Anna Goeldi,” he explains.

“When she was sacked, she threatened to reveal that. Adultery was a crime then. He stood to lose everything if he was found out.”

But at that time in Glarus, witchcraft was a crime.

Mr Hauser calls Anna’s trial and execution “judicial murder”.

“Educated people here did not believe in witchcraft in 1782,” he insists.

“Anna Goeldi was a threat to powerful people. They wanted her out of the way, accusing her of being a witch. It was a legal way to kill her.”

Tragic, but the most interesting part of the story is how people today are reportedly unable to take responsibility:

At the local high school, many students are uncomfortable about reviving this old story.

“I agree it was shocking, but that was Glarus then,” says one girl.

“It happened a long time ago,” says another.

“I don’t think people today should be held responsible for the past.”

It is a familiar argument. Switzerland used it for years as justification for not apologising for the way it turned away Jewish refugees during World War II.

Imagine if we managed security by saying people today should not be held responsible for the past. What constitutes the past and what level of injustice is dismissable? Weeks, months, years, decades…and who decides? I can not see why the students do not take the easy opportunity to make a positive decision on this and seek justice. What risk, what possible loss/burden, is there to them?