Vetting armed private security personnel.

• Author: McConnell, Jonathan
• Position: Ethics Corner

* Four hundred miles from land. The nearest vessel isn't even showing up on the radar. A container ship is sailing in the middle of the ocean. A skiff approaches, what does the armed security guard do? No one would hear it if he popped off a few rounds. Sure the ammo count would be off, but he could say he spent that on zeroing the weapon.

This is a fight private maritime security companies operating off the coast of Somalia face every day. How does a firm find personnel with integrity that go beyond what is codified or the industry standard? How does it evaluate die mental capacity of someone to be fit for duty as a privately contracted armed security personnel?

While the above may seem to be an extreme scenario, innocent fishermen have been killed in high-risk waters. In one case Italian marines onboard an Italian-flagged MT Enrica Lexie opened fire on a fishing boat, the St. Antony, thinking that it was a pirate ship, and killed two unarmed Indian fishermen on board. This case is still being investigated and has greatly strained relations between the two nations.

While it takes a certain type of person to be able to take the life of another human being, it takes a mature professional to abstain from taking a life. Security personnel must realize that their work is not an exotic adventure and that taking the life of another human being is a decision wrought with far-reaching consequences for everyone involved.

Under U.S.C.G. Port Security Advisory (5-09), the Coast Guard gives the Minimum Guidelines for Contracted Security Services in High Risk Waters. It references the normal U.S. flag requirements for citizenry, but then references 18 U.S.C 922(g). Essentially, anyone who can legally possess a firearm in the United States qualifies to serve as privately contracted armed security. A low threshold may be fine for gun owners wanting to defend themselves or their families, but there should be a higher hurdle for those contracted to use deadly force on behalf of another. It is incumbent upon the firms hiring them to adopt enhanced standards.

While it may be easy to find personnel that meet this low legal threshold, it is far more difficult to properly evaluate and select a person with the wherewithal to make life and death decisions. Personal interviews are one thing, and it is surprising how many applicants will exclaim in an interview that they just want to get out there and kill somebody. Thus, most firms rely on references of those who...