United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives

Dwight D. Eisenhower said "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplace power exists and will persist we must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. Because I agree with our former president I must negate the resolution Resolved: The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives. My first contention is that the private military firms violate human rights in the name of the US. Private organizations like CACI and Titan directly contributed to violations of common article 3 to Geneva Conventions (III) and (IV) and article 76 of Geneva Convention (IV) as well as violations of articles 7 and 10 of the ICCPR and article 1 of the CAT. The United States is responsible for acts of commission or omission that these organizations are doing. Kateri Carmola political philosophy professor said "PMSCs can be said to provide security for some, but not justice. To the extent that they are a new face of international policing, they are thus ethically problematic in their social impact," The private firms are going against US morals, we cannot have that in our country. In no way can the US be justified in sending these private firms abroad because they are no following the morals that our country was made on. My second point is that the private firms undermine professional military ethics. Andrew F. Krepinevich said "the continued existence of PMFs performing a military function destroys the ability for the profession to exist at all. If the performance of military functions in contingency operations by PMFs becomes a commonplace occurrence (and, if something is not done very soon, we will reach this point in the very near future), then our military uniforms, medals, and even codes of honor will become nothing more than anachronistic window dressing." If we continue to have private military firms the honor and prestige in joining our military will be lost, witch is not what we need. Peter W subger said "the military is a unique sort of profession. It is responsible for the safety of all of society. It is for this reason that the military is the only profession to have its own system of law and we speak of its role in society as one of duty, honor, and sacrifice. Insert "private" in front of military and we must, in turn, substitute such honored concepts as "service" and "mission" with profit-oriented words like "job" and "contract."" Motivation for joining the military will be money and the prestige will be gone if we continue to use these private firms. My third contention is that the private firms are violating international law. International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of law that contains both human rights law and the law of armed combat (LOAC), and since its twentieth-century codification, it has consistently banned any person on the battlefield that might appear to be anything resembling a mercenary . Centuries of civilization have realized that war needs rules in order to be fought and survived even as war is transformed the necessity of the rule of law remains . America needs to take international law seriously and ban private military firms. The government is obligated to make sure their government and military is not corrupt. A lack of morality is corrupt and the private firms are not being moral. The private firms don't care about anything but the money so they will go against morality for money witch we cannot allow. The United States is not justified in sending private military firms abroad to pursue military operations because the military firms are not just.