Karma Bites
If it didn't involve such tragic circumstances, this story in today's Los Angeles Times would be amusing. It seems that it suddenly occurred to some in the administration that the Blackwater thugs might be committing the same crimes that the US is holding people at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp for allegedly committing.
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 is an outgrowth of federal reviews of the shootings, in part because the U.S. officials want to determine whether the administration could be accused of treaty violations that could fuel an international outcry.
But the issue 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 is a potential violation, they may have to limit guards' tasks in war zones, which could leave more work for the already overstretched military. [Emphasis added]
While these private contractors (immunized from criminal and civil liability by US law) are entitled to use force in self-defense, investigations into several of the recent incidents in which Blackwater employees have fired on Iraqis have shown that the Blackwater guards were not fired upon first. They initiated the fight. Given their status as civilian adjuncts to the military, that is crucial.
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.
"If we hire people and direct them to perform activities that are direct participation in hostilities, then at least by the Guantanamo standard, that is a war crime," [Michael]Schmitt said. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College and a former Air Force lawyer, has quite succinctly posed the dilemma the White House and the Pentagon face. It will be interesting to see how far-fetched the arugments against such a conclusion will be.
In other words, I don't think the Blackwater blackguards have to worry about Friday Night orange chicken, but an old lady can still dream, eh?
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 is an outgrowth of federal reviews of the shootings, in part because the U.S. officials want to determine whether the administration could be accused of treaty violations that could fuel an international outcry.
But the issue 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 is a potential violation, they may have to limit guards' tasks in war zones, which could leave more work for the already overstretched military. [Emphasis added]
While these private contractors (immunized from criminal and civil liability by US law) are entitled to use force in self-defense, investigations into several of the recent incidents in which Blackwater employees have fired on Iraqis have shown that the Blackwater guards were not fired upon first. They initiated the fight. Given their status as civilian adjuncts to the military, that is crucial.
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.
"If we hire people and direct them to perform activities that are direct participation in hostilities, then at least by the Guantanamo standard, that is a war crime," [Michael]Schmitt said. [Emphasis added]
Mr. Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College and a former Air Force lawyer, has quite succinctly posed the dilemma the White House and the Pentagon face. It will be interesting to see how far-fetched the arugments against such a conclusion will be.
In other words, I don't think the Blackwater blackguards have to worry about Friday Night orange chicken, but an old lady can still dream, eh?
Labels: Government Contractors, Guantanamo Bay, Iraq War
posted by Diane at 4:04 AM
2 Comments:
You're assuming consistency here, and that is a big mistake.
The idea is that nobody on OUR side could possibly be illegal combatants, because we're the good guys.
But if you use the Categorical Imperative, the Bush Administration has created a monster that will probably, in the long run, devour it.
The President will not see the inconsistency. He'll issue a directive, or make it part of a signing ststement, thinking that will absolve him from judgement.
It won't, though.
Post a Comment
<< Home