Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
This is starting to get very, very ugly. The Iraqi government says they have evidence that a bunch of Blackwater mercenaries (let's just call them what they are, for crying out loud) opened fire on a crowd of Iraqis unprovoked:
Iraqi investigators have a videotape that shows Blackwater USA guards opened fire against civilians without provocation in a shooting last week that left 11 people dead, a senior Iraqi official said Saturday. He said the case was referred to the Iraqi judiciary.
Which may not do any good. Here's the truly disturbing part:
It is doubtful that foreign security contractors could be prosecuted under Iraqi law. A directive issued by U.S. occupation authorities in 2004 granted contractors, U.S. troops and many other foreign officials immunity from prosecution under Iraqi law.Security contractors are also not subject to U.S. military law under which U.S. troopers face prosecution for killing or abusing Iraqis.
This is absolutely appalling. There are tens of thousands of mercenaries in the country and they can do anything they want without being under the jurisdiction of any legal system. They are, quite literally, lawless. And it was done by our directive, that situation was created intentionally. So much for the rule of law.
Comments
If I remember correctly, the "private security personnel" are also not covered by international law or the Geneva convention. There doesn't seem to be any court that has jurisdiction over this stuff.
Posted by: Wes | September 24, 2007 10:14 AM
Now let's fast forward a little bit. We have created a lawless private army, many of whose members likely lean to the wingnut end of the political spectrum. The Iraqi fiasco ends and these guys come home.
Does any one else see a threat to President X, a Democrat?
Posted by: NJ | September 24, 2007 10:17 AM
Don't forget, these boys are the darlings of Bush. He even deployed these mercs in NOLA as a law enforcement force. Deploying heavily armed mercenaries used to operating with out any consequence of law on our soil. Rule of law doesn't mean a damn thing to this administration and its lackeys.
Scary shit.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | September 24, 2007 10:27 AM
There doesn't seem to be any court that has jurisdiction over this stuff.
I believe the ICC does. Whether they can enforce their jurisdiction is another issue.
Blackwater must have had a chat with Aegis. "Hey, you don't want a replay of PNG."
Posted by: Graculus | September 24, 2007 11:11 AM
So what you are saying, is that the mercenaries are free game for anyone who wants to kill them, right? Or does it not work both ways?
Posted by: daenku32 | September 24, 2007 11:17 AM
Or does it not work both ways?
Ask a Fallujan
Posted by: Graculus | September 24, 2007 11:32 AM
I'm wondering how much legal weight such a US directive can have on the legal status of these mercenaries in Iraq. Sure, the US is occupying the country and all real governmental power and authority ultimately rests in the hands of the US, not Iraqi, government but the Bush administration has been pretending that the Iraqi government is sovereign and legitimate. It strikes me that this makes for a very potent challenge to an illusion born of lies and hypocrisy.
As far as the promotion of lawlessness and brutality that such a US directive represents, well, I no longer find such revelations shocking or unexpected. That is either a testament to my deepening cynicism or a logical response to the ongoing degradation of American values. I dearly hope it is the former.
Posted by: Dan McCausland | September 24, 2007 12:15 PM
There doesn't seem to be any court that has jurisdiction over this stuff.
Hang on, surely there has to be some sort of international law that applies to mercenaries. I would think that the hiring government (us, in other words) would be held responsible - possibly by the UN. Additionally, it is well-established that each individual has personal responsibility for carrying out illegal orders - so the ICC should be the right venue for individual trials.
Of course, as always, enforcement has to overcome political hurdles, and depends on the U.S. being less willing to take the world opinion black eye than to give up the criminals. Er, alleged criminals.
As far as the conspiracy theorists go...Blackwater is not big enough or powerful enough to enforce a change of government. If they try (which they won't), I'll be out there defending the Constitution from enemies foreign OR DOMESTIC - just as I swore 20 years ago. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alone.
Posted by: BobApril | September 24, 2007 12:26 PM
Just a quick FYI, the mercenary label is being thrown around far too easily in the case of PMCs. When they start conducting offensive military operations, then it will be deserved. Until then, they're just security folks. Unfortunately, a lot of the ones I dealt with were real cowboys back in 2004-2006 in Iraq. That was when the PMC bubble was ballooning and when everyone and their brother was taking leave of absence from their police or firefighting jobs and double-dipping in Iraq. There are however some very professional PMCs, particularly from South Africa, the UK and USA, but the cowboys are the one's drawn to the money and "chicks diggit" factor.
And finally, the simple fact that we don't have a SOFA agreement with Iraq complicates all of the jurisdiction issues. I've seen guys get in car wrecks where a local was killed and within 48 hours that troop was sent home to avoid the Iraqi legal system. The issue with PMCs being "untouchable" is a huge symptom of this lack of SOFA and their quasi-military status. Unfortunately there's been little effort to resolve it.
Posted by: Brando | September 24, 2007 12:36 PM
I believe the ICC does.
But only under protest.
http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm
I think Bush will pay as much attention to the ICC as he did to the Vienna Convention when executing Irineo Tristan Montoya. It was his administration as Governor through Alberto Gonzalez, who argued "Texas is not a signatory of the Vienna Convention" despite the fact that the United States was.
I'd be willing to bet he uses the exact same logic this time if the ICC actually tried it.
Posted by: Left_Wing_Fox | September 24, 2007 2:29 PM
At the end of the day, if the Iraqi government and courts want to prosecute and punish them, they can. They could just ignore the US drafted law or they could overturn it as unconstitutional, or they could invent some loophole. It's a question of how independent the judges are (not very as I understand), and how much the government is willing to piss off the US (again, not very much, but in the circumstances domestic pressure might be too much). Either way, it's not great for the rule of law.
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | September 24, 2007 2:44 PM
Just a quick FYI, the mercenary label is being thrown around far too easily in the case of PMCs. When they start conducting offensive military operations, then it will be deserved.
Just a quick FYI, that's pretty much what those Blackwater (Blackbriar?) goons just did.
Hang on, surely there has to be some sort of international law that applies to mercenaries.
The law of the country in which they operate applies, regardless of what anyone else says. IANAL, but it seems pretty clear to me that if Iraq has any sort of sovereign government, then that government has jurisdiction over all security operations on its turf. And if it doesn't have a real government, then the mercs are bound by the laws of their own country -- and not by any military law or orders, since they're not officially military personnel.
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 24, 2007 2:48 PM
Unless it has since been changed, the PMCs became accountable under some portions the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) as of the start of fiscal year 2007. I don't believe the revision in the law has been applied as a means of disciplining the contractirs as yet.
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2007/01/war_zone_contractors_now_subject_to_ucmj/
Posted by: Shaun | September 24, 2007 2:49 PM
Dan, what does "sovereign" mean? I'd ask the preznit but he doesn't seem to know. http://youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw (I'm new here - does this thing automatically parse links? Cool!)
There are several videos out there already - have been for some time, actually - allegedly shot by Blackwater guards themselves, documenting similar activity.
Does anybody really wonder why four of those guys were dragged, after being burned and mutilated, through the street in Fallujah?
Posted by: PeeJay | September 24, 2007 3:04 PM
If they are not part of the US military does that make them enemy combatants, subject to indefinate detention and torture in Iraq's version of Guantanimo
Posted by: Ratel | September 24, 2007 4:25 PM
Your link appears to go to an article entitled "US says Iran sending missiles to Iraq".
Posted by: g | September 24, 2007 5:01 PM
Also kinda chilling is the Religious Right tie-in to Blackwater via the Prince/DeVos connection to Focus on the Family, Amway, Bush, and the Republican Party.
Just Wiki it!
Posted by: SharonB | September 24, 2007 5:37 PM
SharonB - While you are correct regarding the ties between Blackwater and the Prince Corporation, which is now owned by JCI Controls and is located close to where Ed lives in Holland, MI, I'd like to make one claim regarding this company. Prince was a great company when they were run by the Prince family. I worked for a company that was a supplier to them for 9 years. They were very honest business-people who took care of their employees better than any other company I ever came across and were awesome contributors to their community. I learned a lot about how to do business the right way working with them.
I believe that one of the sons of the Prince legacy is a co-founder of Blackwater. I did not know him and I don't believe he had anything to do with Prince Corporation since he would have been too young to make much of mark there prior to their sale to JCI, which happened about 11 or 12 years ago.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 24, 2007 8:22 PM
I think Machiavelli said it best when it comes to mercenaries, theya re either no good, or they are too good.
Another sign the US is dangerously over-commited.
Posted by: James | September 25, 2007 4:47 AM
At the time, I wondered if it might be personal.
------------------------------
And to think that not too long ago the survivalist (god,guns and guts) crowd was warning us of 'jack-booted thugs' sent by the US gummit to oppress us.
You'd think such people would understand why an Iraqi might feel the need to defend his family against such (especially since they are from a different country/culture/language/religion.
Posted by: khan | September 25, 2007 4:59 PM
Ever heard of Elaphe schrenckii. It's also know as the Manchurian Black Water Snake. Coincidence? ;-)
Posted by: HM | November 27, 2007 8:36 AM
Khan -
As long as the Jack Booted Thugs are oppressing anyone who isn't a christian fundie, they are fine.. it's only if the JBTs are enforcing Tolerance, Religous Freedom or Universal Health Care that they must be resisted.
Posted by: Andrew Dodds | November 28, 2007 6:03 AM