Should Blackwater employees be prosecuted?

Question

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/blackwater_prosecutions

They are not soldiers. They are civilians. They are supposedly their for defense. If it found their shooting were unjustified, should they be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law like anyone else who murders?

Aside from the question, I'll make it known that I think Blackwater should not be in Iraq, unless private companies are hiring them. I do not believe that the government should ever employ mercenaries as a way to avoid using the citizenry to fight its wars. If the citizens do not want to fight, then perhaps the government should not start the war. It is after all the citizens government isn't it?

Answer 1

Blackwater is one parts of this war that makes me absolutely sick to my stomach. What are you saying to our troops in Iraq when you hire mercenaries at a higher salary to do the same job as the soldiers on the ground? And then you give them immunity from prosecution like they are some kind of US mafia.

Answer 2

If they cannot justify the killings then yes. Blackwater is contracted to provide security to government agencies and are not engaging in combat operations so they do not technically meet the definition of mercenary. A better term is "paramilitary."
I am not sure where I stand on using private security contractors in Iraq. In any case just like soldiers or anyone else they are subject to prosecution if they commit an act that cannot be justified as self-defence.

Answer 3

A mercenary should be held accountable for his or her actions...

If a mercenary is working for, or is hired by a company working under contract with a private party, , The mercenary needs to be held responsible for his or her actions... and so does the company for which he works... and I think the private party also has some responsibility.

If a mercenary is hired by the US Federal Government, he absolutely needs to be held to the same standards as the soldiers and others that are doing the same type of job... and at a comparable salary. If a mercenary in that situation gets out of line, he needs to be given to the local authorities and, if there needs to be a stipulation in the contract that the employees of the firm and the firm itself are responsible for their actions. If the employees act irresponsibly, the contract is canceled for cause, and the firm has to pay a heavy penalty. While I understand erring on the side of self preservation, and while I would agree that the burden of proof lies on the prosecuting, a security contract with the US government should not be looked on as a hunting license.

If our government is forced to hire mercenaries... what does that say about the people who refuse to join the military. I think a lot of the blame for the actions of the contractors should be theirs.

Answer 4

They will be prosicuted. Immunity does not mean they cannot be prosicuted at all, it means that Iraq cannot prosicute them. The US government can bring charges on them, just like US soldiers cannot be prosicuted by Iraq, but can be under the UCMJ. The question is, under what level of government do they get prosicuted under since Blackwater does not fall under the UCMJ.

I dissagree with your statement about security companies. I can see uses for them, if they are given direction. For example, in a failed government, if you need a police force until a local police force can be started, then a government should be able to hire a company like Blackwater, if they are given specific rules and specific authority. Expecially since the UN idea of trying to do this with international police has not proved to be successful. The key is having things spelled out directly in the contract as to what they can and cannot do.

As for the government starting a way.... The citizens voted for congress. The members of Congress then voted for authorization for war. So by the law of the nation, the citizens did vote to go to way through proxy of the elected Congress.

Answer 5

If they are found to have broken the law, then of course.

Black Water is not doing military work in iraq.

They are working for the State Department, augumenting the State departments own diplomatic security forces.

The US government, employees plenty of armed civilans in security rolls.

They always have, just look at the capital hill police.

Even the Secret service employees civilian security officers.

Answer 6

Just consider the source of the people who are bitc***g about Blackwater killing 14 people. How many of our troops have been killed just by friendly fire? These people are in a war zone not a high school at home in this U S of A. Can we please stop threatening our own troops with consequences for doing their job and get back to the job at hand; winning this war on terror!

Answer 7

Lets understand who own blackwater and that relationhip to this administrations' supporters.

Its all part of the buddy buddy system, and part of that no bid contracts.

As well as to have mercenaries willing to be part of one persons army.

Remeber that rporter that got his head cut off on camera.
The one under close scrutiny, was found to already be dead--as the body did not react like it would if it was alive.

And the language they were speaking did not fit the arabic chatter.

One could argue that it was part of the mercenaries trying to keep the chaos alive.

Would support all bush's war mongering wouldnt it?

Heck, bush has done everythign else, why anyone would put it past him.

AND what about that blackwater employee who went out on CHRISTmas one night, and ended up shooting an iraqi?
The employee was flown out of the country immediately, and avoided prosecution.

this shows that someone is protecting them.

The big question is WHO?

Answer 8

Should they be? Yes, if they broke the law...

Unfortunately, they are exempt from prosecution under Iraqi law, according to IRAQI LAW...

and no, private security forces are not mercenaries, no matter how much you hate Bush...

Answer 9

I think we should withhold judgment until we get both sides of the story.

About a year ago you were screaming about the Haditha 'massacre' and clamoring for court martials. Turned out that you should have kept your mouths shut - right?

And all because you only listened to one side of the story.

Answer 10

What did they do to the GIs that were involved in the mess at Abu-Greeb??

You think the guys in Cheney's private army should be exempt from the same rules as those in the regular army??