Blackwater Security in Iraq could very well be UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-blackwater15oct15,0,3485346,full.story?coll=la-home-center

The designation of lawful and unlawful combatants is set out in the Geneva Convention.Lawful combatants are nonmilitary personnel who operate under their military's chain of command. Others may carry weapons in a war zone but may not use offensive force. Under the international agreements, they may only defend themselves.

<snip>

But there is debate among those studying the question. Lawyers at the Justice Department are skeptical that the contractors could be considered unlawful combatants, but some in the State and Defense departments think the contractors in Iraq could be vulnerable to claims that their actions make them unlawful combatants.

<snip>

U.S. officials have described many of the suspected Al Qaeda and Taliban affiliates it holds at Guantanamo Bay as unlawful combatants either for taking part in hostilities against the United States or by supporting the hostilities while not part of a nation's military.

By that standard, some of the private guards in Iraq and Afghanistan also could be seen as unlawful combatants, particularly if they have taken offensive action against unarmed civilians, experts said.

------------
The article also mentioned that what Blackwater has been doing could be considered a war crime.

I just think this is interesting, because if these guys are not in our uniforms, are taking offensive actions and even killing civilians- under the same law that Bush is using to keep people in Guantanamo, they would be in very, very big trouble.

to Iraqi law.

But an international tribunal could do it. They'd have to get them in custody, first.

questioned under oath, that alone should worry us all, who protects them and how far does their stronghold reach out.

for the contractors and lack of military oversight were ripe for abuse.

isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

Only the US, unilaterally, defines unlawful combatants.

The Geneva Conventions distinguish between lawful combatants... and civilians, including civilian criminals.

In this case, the laws of Iraq grant criminal immunity to Blackwater. Declaring Blackwater personnel to be unlawful combatants would be the same damned abuse of international law as the US has wrongfully engaged in.

force which had invaded it illegally.

So much for the "laws" which grant immunity to Blackwater.

Only raw power protects them and the war criminals which pass themselves off as the Bush Administration.

I mean, all stuff of "do they have the power to do it" aside, they'd get a favorable hearing before the UN if they just said, we're claiming the right to revoke this law, it's extra-constitutional.

Until the Maliki government does so, those "laws" are in full force with the knowing consent of the sovereign government of Iraq.

brutal occupation at the hands of a nation twelve times your size and vastly more powerful.

If they're not willing to take the first step themselves, they shouldn't look at 'unlawful combatant' designations for solace. Like I said, that's a definition used only by the US. It's a made-up classification.

mercenaries will be kicked out in the end.

The guards also operate under immunity from Iraqi law -- immunity was granted in 2004 by U.S. officials -- and in a murky status with respect to American laws.

The designation of lawful and unlawful combatants is set out in the Geneva Convention.Lawful combatants are nonmilitary personnel who operate under their military's chain of command. Others may carry weapons in a war zone but may not use offensive force. Under the international agreements, they may only defend themselves.

The Geneva Conventions look with disfavor on mercenaries.

These hired guns fit neither the Geneva definitions of a signatory state's armed forces, nor of a legitimate partisan body.

Eric Prince is worse than 10 Bin Ladens. The man is evil.

Blackwater attacks innocent civilians, shooting them in the back as they try to flee. Iraqi insurgents plant IEDs, blowing up American vehicles. What exactly is the difference here? Just that Blackwater is "good" and the insurgents are "bad"? Sorry, that won't wash.

K&R

Many Blackwater folks need to either spend the rest of their lives in Jail or be executed for their war-crimes.

kick

saying that they aren't part of a defined military...when Blackwater and other contractors status could be viewed as the same.

definition of illegal combatant.

may be considered to be a spy. Spys are usually executed when captured.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute any such case in a U.S. court. The ICC exists to remedy that situation.

Mercs are unlawful combatants, and have been cosidered unlawful for ahem... DECADES now

... Hessans, the Swiss, the condottieri, Landsknechten, Varangian Guard (which could be considered mercenary), and so on... social standing slightly above pond scum...

...mercenaries were notorious for changing sides if they got a better deal... and if captured, they were often treated far harsher than actual troops (think about those four mercenaries near the beginning of the Iraq mess)... after all, they were mercenaries...

(I know N.B. knows this already, but many don't)