News about the Ferguson shooting are continuing to be discussed, with people taking protests to the streets after the dismissal of Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of a teenage boy, Michael Brown. Although many attribute the incident to the realities of lingering racism in America, I argue that the issue arises from the flaws of the justice system in the United States itself – mainly, regarding law enforcement and the power granted to the police force. The reoccurrence of police shootings and reported police brutality especially in a country that promotes freedom and democracy is troublesome – the abuse of authority only makes the United States seem authoritarian, especially from an outside perspective.

The extent of this problem has even caught the attention of the UN Committee Against Torture, describing the situation as a “tragedy” although they chose to respect the decision made to not prosecute Officer Wilson. However, they did release information that the Brown Family reached out to them and held a private meeting, where they discussed the police brutality occurring during the protests after the incident, describing it as “represent[ing] violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.”

Indeed, police actions during the protests have been very forceful and they have stepped over many line. Even French black justice minister Christiane Taubira slammed Ferguson police brutality on social media. It is interesting to see how she is now under fire for these comments, since French politicians stated that it was not appropriate to comment on the US justice system. However, isn’t fostering a debate and bringing up such issues important in overall ensuring that human rights are checked and abuse of power does not occur?

American police forces have been known to use brute force in their proceedings, even actions that can be attribute to torture. Just because the US is a powerful nation that supposedly stands for democracy, does not mean that injustices from the system does not occur. Police officers in general, are given too much power, and often operate similarly to soldiers in the military, in terms of their motivations and exercise in judgment. Due to the fact that this has been a long-standing phenomena, I believe that it is up to the international community to start commenting and criticizing this system, as to avoid proliferations of events such as the Ferguson shooting.

Private security companies, although hugely controversial in terms of ethics in international security, are overall beneficial to society. Many have argued that due to today’s focus on capitalism and the market economy, the privatization of war is becoming more and more apparent, leading to the increasing role that mercenaries play in international affairs. The word ‘mercenary’ have a negative connotation, and private security companies are harshly criticized for the work they do. However, if one looks at the consequences that result from the work of these companies, it can be seen that all in all, they have been helpful and a valuable resource for advancing military, societal, and political aims leading to seemingly positive outcomes.

Because private security companies are associated with terms such as ‘mercenary,’ they are defined as soldiers that are just fighting merely for the sake of profit, completely stripped off any ethical or moral justification. However, this is not exactly true. Just because these soldiers are employed by a private company instead of a public entity such as a national government, does not mean that their actions and the result of those actions are not any more valuable than that of a national force. As with the example of Alan Bell and other CEOs of private security companies, many do not simply agree to a job purely because of the amount of compensation. For example, Alan Bell stated that he refuses to send his workers to Somalia because they currently lack a functioning government, comparing it to America’s Wild West. Since one cannot “protect people in a country that is completely dysfunctional,” Bell made it clear that money is not the only important factor in deciding where his company would operate in.

Although there are obviously some contractors who are willing to take jobs in areas that are questionable, many companies and individual soldiers do consider the implications of their actions and do pull out of jobs when the situation becomes disputable and the mission turns dangerous or ethically problematic. The fact that private armies are involved does not mean that a mission is necessarily automatically unethical. Some argue that private security contractors work without consideration for morality for own personal gain since they ‘fight for money instead of ideology’ although it would be inaccurate to label all companies in this way. Private military companies are often hired by governments to ‘protect nouns’ and provide services that national forces may not be able to do. They provide site security and fulfill security-related jobs.

It is important to note however, that rules of engagement regarding private security companies are ambiguous since they do depend on a war or a conflict being present in order to make a living. Many people who work for these companies do not have other skills besides those learned in the military and view this as a new career, since most cannot make the same salary if they worked back home. In the end, more education on private security companies is needed to help people understand what they do.