The rule set is coming on armed guards

ARTICLE: "Armed Guards In Iraq Occupy a Legal Limbo," by John M. Broder and James Risen, New York Times, 20 September 2007, p. A1.

ARTICLE: "Where Military Rules Don't Apply: Blackwater's Security Force in Iraq Given Wide Latitude by State Dept.," by Steve Fainaru, Washington Post, 20 September 2007, p. A1.

Blackwater is so big to State that State defends it at every turn, and that's not surprising. But with the outsourcing comes the extension of diplomatic protection that's unsustainable. Unlike the military which has its own internal justice system, Blackwater's sitting on a "legal island," as Rep. Murtha put it, and that's not going to work for anybody over the long haul.

There's a reason why Blackwater joined the International Peace Operations Association: they can see the regulation coming and want to engage the process. But what they, and the IPOA, surely understand is that such regulations typically come in response to a tragedy or anger tipping point.

We may be there right now in Iraq, and Blackwater better pick its spots to bend so it does not break. Sometimes being the industry leader means more than just pulling in the lion's share of the business.

Comments

[Ted B. (Charging Rhino)]

To the outside world, Blackwater is becoming synonymous with "rogue element"...and it doesn't help our reputation having State fawning-over Blackwater like a slain drug-dealer's mama. Time for the tough-love approach; and for DoD and State to stop providing Blackwater with cover. Hopefully the post-mortems written in ten years will highlight how we should have proceeded in the benefit of hindsight and forensic analysis to write-up a better blueprint for the next-time. ...And there will be a next time; hopefully without ineffectual stand-ins for Gen. Garner and Amb. Bremer.

[Tom]

There are a number of parallels in this situation with Executive Outcome's actions and issues in Africa in the late 1980s.

The main difference being the level of media attention being paid to the situation since Blackwater is a US firm operating in an unpopular war where EO was mostly ignored in Sub-Saharan Africa by the media.

EO's action were certainly a contributing factor to the UN's International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries but that's not applicable to Blackwater in Iraq as they're being employed by one of the parties to the conflict.

Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina managed to get an addendum added to the October 2006 defense bill that conceivably places PMC/PMF contractors under the purview of the UCMJ for their actions rather than under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act.

So far to date though I have yet to see any reports of the DoD taking action under the new rules and there also appears to be some sort of potential Constitutional issues with potential inclusion under UCMJ.

[Mike Z]

Tom in his comment above makes interesting point with respect to Sen Graham and his effort to move jurisdiction for contractors from the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (18 USC 3261-3267), which applies to military dependents and contractors, to provisions of UCMJ. Why would this action not be commented on in the current discussion if UCMJ provisions were created for exclusive application to military personnel? No reference was noted in any Dept of State or DOD comments re Blackwater personnel falling under any existing law, or of possible modification by Congress of extraterritorial provisions of Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act or provisions of USA Patriot Act, Sect 804, 18 U.S.C. 7, to provide basis for appropriate actions in resolution of the existing political issues.

[vinit joshi]

Interesting comments,

In my humble opinion ( IMHO for you web-savvy folks ), any and all contractors should fall under UCMJ as it seems to be the only working system of regulations in a conflict involving US armed forces.

I am not sure, but historically what roles did soldiers for hire play in the wars of our nation? And in those conflicts what rules and regs. did they fall under.