Could contractors be deemed unlawful combatants?

[RamboLiberal]

Source: LA Times

As the Bush administration deals with the fallout from the recent killings of civilians by private security firms in Iraq, some officials are asking whether the contractors could be considered unlawful combatants under international agreements.

The question has been raised as an outgrowth of government reviews of the shootings in part because the officials want to determine whether the administration could be accused of treaty violations that could fuel an international outcry.

But it also holds practical and political implications for the administration's war effort and the image of the U.S. abroad.

If U.S. officials conclude that the use of guards poses a potential violation, they may have to order limits on what guards can do in war zones, which could leave more work for the already overstretched military.

Even unresolved questions are likely to touch off new criticism of Bush's conduct of the unpopular Iraq war, especially given the broad definition of unlawful combatants the president has used in justifying his detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.


Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blackwater15oct15,0,3330051.story?coll=la-home-center

[babylonsister]

1. I hope so. They need to be held accountable by someone. nt

[Gregorian]

2. Well when one compares the case of John Walker Lynd?

Those Blackwater guys who disarmed the military troops in the Humvee incident would be unlawful combatants one would think.

And what about Lynd? Just what made him such fodder when so many of these Blackwater guys are running round like loose cannons?

This whole thing is driving me crazy. I mean we're talking about armed goons wandering the streets of the country of Iraq. Is there no one in this country who can imagine what it would be like if it were happening here?

I'm hoping dearly that someone outside of the US will begin taking steps to stop Bush and Cheney. And I know I'm being far too general to address this specific post. But that's kind of what I do around here. We all have our specialty.

[EFerrari]

4. They tortured him and it's on tape.

He never raised a weapon against our troops AND the Taliban were our allies when he joined them.

This case drives me nuts.

[Gregorian]

10. Sigh. All I can do is shake my head in disbelief.

We're both on the same page, as usual.

God damn it. I guess we need a forum on how to live in an insane world.

[Demeter]

3. Please, Out Humpty-Dumpty W! There's Glory for You!

...There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'



Follow-up observation: we all know what happened to Humpty Dumpty, don't we, children?


Through the Looking Glass, by Lewis Carroll, Chap. 6

http://www.sabian.org/Alice/lgchap06.htm


By all means, call an unlawful combatant by is real name!

[annabanana]

5. Let's see if Matt Lauer can "rehabilitate" Eric Prince on Today

this morning.

Starting now!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

6. Not a lawyer here...

But as I read Article 47 of the Geneva Convention (revised), I find the words: A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

I think this could explain Blackwater's "shoot first and ask questions later" approach. Even under the best of circumstances, they would not be permitted protection by the Geneva Convention. In other words, if they're taken prisoner, their ass is grass.

[jordi_fanclub]

7. Not a lawyer here neither...

... but there are interesting observations in the Geneva Convention.
The question is related with the nationality or residence of the Blackwater mercenaries.

IF the nationality or residence is in one "of a Party" (they ARE NOT -technically- mercenaries)
AND in that specific case they have -and could be- under protection of the Geneva Convention,
BUT consequently they are ALSO subjected to the LAW of their own (or of their residence) country.

IF the nationality IS NOT at any "of a Party" then they ARE mercenaries
AND in that case they "shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war".
(because they should be treated as SPIES or -in this case more appropriately- as TERRORISTS)

So, the MOTHERFUCKER-in-CHIEF et al. did not need ANY new law to apply to the Blackwater's employees.
THE solution -since 12 August 1949- is in the final paragraphs, here: http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/protocol1.htm
A next step is relatively simple to a prosecutor... for the US (or US resident) mercenaries: CRIMINAL LAW under the US Codes!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

9. I'm sure they'll get right on that...

Right after Cheney provides the names of his Energy Policy Committee

:sarcasm:

[bemildred]

8. How about criminal gangs? Could we "deem" them criminal gangs too? nt