Right now we have a serious problem with recruitment for the armed forces. Why shouldn’t all these mercenary firms be seized and the empoyees forcibly inducted into the US armed forces?

The recent ruling of the Supremes in Kelo vs. New London greatly expanded the power of the gov’t to seize private property for public use, because it “unquestionably serves a public purpose”.

The seizure of private property for a war effort is not without precedent. In 1952, President Truman threatened to nationalize steel mills to avert a strike that could have cripppled the production of ware material. At various times throughout US history, the gov’t has threatened to draft civilian workers in place to keep them from striking. Why should the mercenaries not face the same challenge? I’m not suggesting the privatization of the military, quite the contrary, I’m suggesting that private US security firms in Iraq be nationalized, and their employees be forcibly inducted into the US armed forces subject to the pay conditions, and military justice just like the average soldier. … more
Although an outright seizure and nationalization of the private security industry (ie the Mercs) would appear to be prohibited by the Court’s decision in Youngstown Steel Tube vs. Sawyer. At the time the Supremes stroke down the nationalization because:

We are asked to decide whether the President … was acting within his constitutional power when he issued an order directing the Secretary of Commerce to take possession of and operate most of the Nation’s steel mills. The mill owners argued that the President’s order amounts to lawmaking, a legislative function which the Constitution has expressly confided to the Congress and not to the President. The Government’s position is that the order was made on findings of the President that his action was necessary to avert a national catastrophe which would inevitably result from a stoppage of steel production, and that in meeting this grave emergency the President was acting within the aggregate of his constitutional powers as the Nation’s Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States….

The President’s power, if any, to issue the order must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself. There is no statute that expressly authorizes the President to take possession of property as he did here. Nor is there any act of Congress to which our attention has been directed from which such a power can fairly be implied. There are two statutes which do authorize the President to take both personal and real property under certain conditions….However, the Government admits that these conditions were not met and that the President’s order was not rooted in either of the statutes….

The recent decision in Kelo would appear to lower the bar neccesary for the gov’t to seize property, and in Youngstown a statute, a legislative bill authorizing the action, would have allowed the gov’t to seize the steel mills in 1952. Why shouldn’t our Democratic congresspeople be introducing bills to authorize the gov’t to seize the private security industry operating in Iraq a la Youngstown, and avert a manpower shortage that could neccessitate a draft. Undoubtedly that would serve a public purpose.

By drafting these mercs, they would be subject to the same military justice as the rank and file soldier, they would be subject to the same pay scale. No more $1000/day, try $1000/month if they’re lucky. For those who don’t understand what nationalization means, it means the US gov’t would own and operate the mercenary firms. I’m not suggesting that the US privatize it’s military, I’m suggesting that these mercs be forced to fight for the same pay as the average soldier, and that they be subject to military justice, stop loss orders, the whole bit.

0 0 votes
Article Rating