| From: | woneal@*******.NET |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Runner's Attitudes |
| Date: | Thu, 3 Jul 1997 01:15:40 -0005 |
> This is a pretty long post in reply to Ashlocke. I paste in my
> conclusion, or a short version of the post, at the top.
<snip some stuff, I'll try to brief, honest : )>
>
> First of all, Lone Star is contracted to BE POLICE. That is their
> job. Policing. Now that means they get paid for doing police work, so
> they are paid to arrest criminals or wanted people in their jurisdiction.
> If someone does something in a corporate area and leaves, they become
> wanted when a corporation requests them extradited. As long as requested
> extradited, they can also be hunted by bounty hunters legally. But they
> would still have to go through a rather complex extradition trial. (Which
> is greased considerably by a prisoner exchange.).
For the most part I agree with you. I will point out a few things. I
would say there is a large difference between a police/peace officer and
someone hired to police an area. The main difference being the attitude
of the individual about both the job and the people they police. Most
cops I know, inspite of the hard time I tend to give them, actually care
about their job and their community. Their heart is in what they do.
However, most security guards I know don't care anywhere near as much.
Perhaps a better example would be US forces in Vietnam, technically a
policing action. Yet we were nearly at war with the South Vietnamese we
were supposed to be protecting. As I said, the difference is attitude.
My point being that LS officers are less likely on the whole to care about
communities they are assigned to, than would real police officers. IIRC
FASA alluded to this some in the person of "SPD" who dislikes LS because
of that very problem.
>
> It states in Corporate Shadowfiles that corporations has
> extradition treatments with LS and each other. Wether they honor them is
> uncertain. If Ares asks LS to extradite Mr. Jonathan Smith for bombing
> Ares Central Stadion and 10000 people, LS will do so as quickly as
> possible. Why? They cannot let something like that slide, and it's a good
> PR boost if they catch the bastard. Now if it's Joe Schmoe, LS doesn't
> have that incentive, but if Ares wants him bad enough, they offer someone
> LS has wanted extradited from Ares in return - and then it's in LS's
> interest.
Here also I pretty much agree with you. Extradition would be a likely
route, and probalby a very cost effective one, for Corps who wanted to
catch runners who'd made it off Corp property. Why put your own security
assets at risk when LS is bound by contract to take care of it for you?
Not to mention the Corp get's out of having to pay overtime and combat
pay. The problem being as I mentioned above, that LS is likely to be less
"enthusiastic" than perhaps a Corp would want.
>
> > Most shadowrunners work for either Corporations or
> > Governments, hired to pull black ops in *another* corps territory.
>
> > This situation is akin to rl special forces performing similar acts in foriegn
> > countries. They are breaking the laws of those countries, often violently so,
> > does that mean they are criminals? Of course not, they're soldiers carrying
> > out the wishes of their governments.
>
> Interesting. Do you consider an Iranian terrorist a criminal? I
> assume you do not, since you do not view terrorist or hostile actions
> undertaken by persons in the employment of governments criminals.
To be frank, if I were an Iranian, no I wouldn't view them as criminals.
As a US citizen I would. Which is kind of my point. Runners often are
criminals, but they are more than that too. It's one of those questions
that doesn't have a simple answer. And btw, when was the last time you
heard of Iran extraditing such a terrorist to the US or anywhere else for
trial. It's very rare to hear of (it does happen actually, and you can
bet there were a lot of backroom deals to make it happen), because in Iran
those terrorist aren't terrorist, they're national heroes.
>
> The problem is that your choice of black op organizations
> '(such as US Rangers or British SAS or Israeli Mussad)' is 'good'.
> The SAS, for instance, is an anti-terrorist force; they are not the
> only kind. Terrorist groups, assassins, saboteurs all is similar,
> only less palatable, and their actions and MO is more in line with
> those of shadowrunners. In any case I assume you by 'black op' means
> operations which is legally carried out by the government instigating it.
There's nothing legal about black ops. Most US citizens would be very
surprised to learn the extent of the CIA's dealings with mercenaries and
just how many "dirty deeds" the CIA has financed. But that's not the
point, neither is the fact that these mercenaries were in the employ of a
government. What they did was VERY illegal in the country they targeted,
yet was sanctioned by that bastion of democracy, the US. Kind of a
paradox isn't it. What is the point is that these mercenaries broke no
laws within the US, so by US laws were not criminals. However, in the
countries in which they acted they were. So you could say they both were
and were not criminals. And that's my point. Shadowrunning, or real
life mercenary work (the two run in a lot of parallels) is a very grey
area. Criminal is a legal term, and so whether you are criminal
or not depends largely on where you are standing at the moment and who's
laws you have, or haven't broken.
>
>
> >*snip* shadowrunners = black ops team/spies.
> > Is this criminal activity, or just the Corp equivalent of a "cold
war"?
>
> As for black ops, remember that all black ops are sent anonymously.
Of course, that's why they're "black" No ID, no shoulder patches, etc.
> They are intended as DENIABLE ASSETS - a word associated with
> shadowrunners... and for the same reason. Governments cannot take
> official responsibility for sending a black ops team into another
> nation, simply because it is illegal to do so - domestically
> and internationally - unless this action can in some way be directly
> protecting the nation's interests. (Rescuing hostages, for instance.).
All true. And all important info about shadowrunners, who they are, what
they do and why they are hired to do it.
>
> A detail about how legality works internationally.. when an American
> black operation kidnapped Manuel Noriega, he was taken to USA for a trial
> there. Calling it a legal nightmare is an understatement, but on the
> whole it was not that big a problem, since they managed to prove the
> operation was directly protecting the nation's interests.
That was a strange case. Only the US would actually kidnap someone and
then worry about legally and morally justifying what they did. The French
certainly didn't bother with justification when the sank the Rainbow
Warrior, SAS doesn't bother about it when they assassinate IRA cells, and
the Mussad has never worried about much of anything so far as I know
(those are some cold individuals who have my respect if not my fear). You
are right in that at lease the guise of protecting national interests is
often an excuse. But in reality it is often just that, an excuse, a means
to an end. (I mean really, justifying the sinking of a civilian vessel on
grounds of protecting national whaling interests is pretty thin.)
>
> The cold war actions are domestically protected by the constitution
> and 'due to national security'. Corporations has no such clause. It
> wouldn't look good in a Corporate Charter, since they are not a
> nation and not under military threat, and has no agencies to handle
> this.
Now there's something else I've wondered about, at least where the
megacorps are concerned. If they are large enough and powerful enough to
get, and in some cases force, extraterroritality, exactly who do they file
said charter with, and how does it get enforced? Lord knows today, in rl,
company charters often get "bent". And as for enforcement, the tobacco
"trials" have been fun to watch (I live in the tobacco state, so that
issue is close to home, literally).
>
> If corporations did get to the level of government symbiosis they
> would have 'national security' clauses then they would no longer be
> corporations, but communist governments.
> (Whaaaaa? Figure it out. :)
I get the impression the Big 8 are getting close to that now.
Aztechnology is a special case, because it literally is the government of
a country.
>
> The Shiawase judgement giving corporations the right to protect
> themselves and their personell is not enough for a 'national
> security' clause to allow them to assassinate, steal or kidnap
> something from another corporation.
True, but that hasn't stopped them from doing so anyway. But this isn't
really my point. My point was only that just because you have broken laws
in say MCT corporate territory does not mean you have broken laws in UCAS
territory.
>
> > I'm not talking about "shadowrunners" who commit random acts of
violence,
> > who gleefully and *deliberately* gun down innocent bystanders, who steal
> > whenever it suits them, who live by no code of ethics or standards at all.
> > What I'm dealing with are professionals who are hired to do specific jobs
> > under specific circumstances and the rest of the time live pretty normal
> > lives.
>
> I do not see the distinction. Wether you put a bullet in a man
> because you're paid to, or because you just felt like it, doesn't
> matter in the eyes of Lady Justice.
Ah... but who's justice? And lets not confuse morality with legality.
Something can be morally wrong and still be legal, or be illegal but not
immoral. I'm not saying you were, just didn't want things to stray in
that direction.
As for the distinction, it would be this. In one case the individual
shot someone for pleasure, in the other they shot someone because it was
necessary. One is a job the other is just plain sick.
Did that clarify what I was saying?
--
Ashlocke
(woneal@*******.net)
"We shall never be able to remove suspicion and fear
as potential causes of war until communication is
permitted to flow, free and open, across international
boundries." -- Harry S. Truman
