Judging Blackwater

While White House thugs pay lip service to the murderous habits of Blackwater thugs, and Blackwater tries to evade investigations that might prove false their claims of not being thugs at all, a new problem is quietly poking like a turd out of the anus of the Bush administration. After years of fanciful Pentagon talk about unlawful combatants, some U.S. officials are asking if Blackwater mercenaries mightn’t actually be legally defined as unlawful combatants themselves.

In defending their case for Guantanamo, the U.S. argued that anyone involved in hostilities who wasn’t part of a nation’s army was eligible for the “unlawful combatant” label. As Blackwater’s civilian body count grows, lawyers at the State and Defense Departments are increasingly concerned that America’s hired guns fall into the same category.

“If we hire people and direct them to perform activities that are direct participation in hostilities,” opines Naval War College international law professor Michael N. Schmitt, “then at least, by Guantanamo standards, that is a war crime.”

While the U.S. was good enough to grant immunity from Iraqi law to its military contractors, an unlawful combatant tag would open them to prosecution under international law.

by Scott Saxon