On Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:35 -0500, Gig 601Xl Builder
wrote in
:

Gig 601Xl Builder wrote:
Larry Dighera wrote:
US Contractors are not subject to US law nor Iraqi law, nor the Geneva
Convention, nor the Freedom Of Information Act.
If Blackwater is acting irresponsibly on the ground, imagine what they
can do in the air.

Let's see an unarmed turbine powered 2 seater. Do you think it might
just be for the President of BW to have some fun in?

And one other thing... Your first sentence is not correct.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C212.txt

-STATUTE-
(a) Whoever engages in conduct outside the United States
hat would constitute an offense punishable by imprisonment
for more than 1 year if the conduct had been engaged in
within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of
the United States -
(1) while employed by or accompanying the Armed Forces
outside the United States; or
(2) while a member of the Armed Forces subject to chapter
47 of title 10 (the Uniform Code of Military Justice),
shall be punished as provided for that offense.



It is my understanding that Blackwater was working for the State
Department, and was not affiliated with the US DOD or US military at
all.



http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ter/index.html
What happens to private contractors who kill Iraqis?

Maybe nothing Blackwater USA employees are accused of killing
several civilians, but there might not be anyone with the
authority to prosecute them.

By Alex Koppelman and Mark Benjamin

... "The question for the U.S. is whether it will hand over its
citizens or contractors to an Iraqi court, particularly an Iraqi
court that's going to try and make a political point out of this,"
Singer says. If the United States is not willing to do so because
of concerns that the trial will be politically motivated, he adds,
there's a new question at hand. "If we really say that openly,
doesn't that defeat everything we heard in the Kabuki play last
week with [General David] Petraeus and [U.S. Ambassador Ryan]
Crocker, that everything was going great? What happens if we say,
'No, we don't think you can deal with this fairly in your justice
system?'"

That leaves international and U.S. law. But international law is
probably out. Even before the Bush administration, the United
States had established a precedent of rejecting the jurisdiction
of international courts. The United States is not, for example, a
member of the International Criminal Court in the Hague. (In 2005,
the government of Iraq announced its decision to join the court;
it reversed that decision two weeks later.)

U.S. law, meanwhile, is hopelessly murky. More so than in any of
America's previous conflicts, contractors are an integral part of
the U.S. effort in Iraq, providing logistical support and
performing essential functions that were once the province of the
official military. There are currently at least 180,000 in Iraq,
more than the total number of U.S. troops. But the introduction of
private contractors into Iraq was not accompanied by a definitive
legal construct specifying potential consequences for alleged
criminal acts. Various members of Congress are now attempting to
clarify the laws that might apply to contractors. In the meantime,
experts who spoke with Salon say there's little clarity on what
law applies to contractors like the ones involved in Sunday's
incident, and the Bush administration has shown little desire to
take action against contractor malfeasance.

In June of this year, the Congressional Research Service -- a
nonpartisan research arm of Congress -- issued a report on private
security contractors in Iraq that included a discussion of their
legal status. The report's authors gave a bleak picture of
prospects for prosecution under U.S. law, referring at one point
to "the U.S. government's practical inability to discipline errant
contract employees." ...