I heard once that, according to age-old rules of war, mercenaries not in the uniform of the nation they serve can be executed on sight like spies.
Is that the case and could, then, Blackwater thugs in Iraq be executed on sight by their opponents as mercenaries?
No and no.
To expand…
I don’t think that Blackwater personnel could be considered francs-tireurs in any traditional sense as they’ve private contractors providing security services instead of regular combat troops engaged in fighting or espionage.
The other side in Iraq isn’t exactly a signatory of the rules of war so I’d suspect that they’d execute them regardless of the uniform in which they’re traveling.
Mercenaries are people who take part in a war for financial gain and are not citizens or nationals of a party to the conflict.
Blackwater personnel are mostly US citizens, and their function is to act as bodyguards and site security, not to partake in active armed conflict. They don’t take orders from any national military, and they don’t go on missions or offensive raid of any kind. It’s highly inaccurate and disingenuous to call them mercenaries.
Whether or not they are thugs or incompetent bozos is another matter, which I am woefully unqualified to answer.
Thank you. The constant misuse of the word “mercenaries” drives me nuts.
Article 47 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention states the following:
In addition, Article 4 of the Convention (not the protocol referenced above) specifically provides for POW protection to the following types of people:
Unfortunately, I’m not aware of how those provisions have been interpreted, so I can’t say for sure what status the private military contractors have under international law.
Oh, and IIRC, the US is not a state party to Protocol I, which includes the mercenary provision.
For extra credit:
Read Licensed to Kill by Pelton. He is also the author of Dangerous Places which is a travel guide to the eponymous locales. LtoK is about the use of contractors to take over various functions of the military from food service to executive protection, CIA contractors, that nut job in Afghanistan who claimed he was working for the CIA and African mercenaries. He does a very interesting section on Blackwater, Dyncorp, et al. and mostly leaves it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. One thing that bothers me about Blackwater is that in some ways it is more about kicking ass than acting like professional soldiers. True, their job is very dangerous, but I wonder if presenting a less adversarial image toward the Iraqis wouldn’t have won a few hearts and minds. I have read a lot of other, mostly anecdotal stuff about Blackwater that makes them seem like a bunch of drunken, 'roid raging frat boys with machine guns. On the other hand, what do I know, I’m over here and there over there.
FWIW,
Rob
Blackwater has a lot of non-US people in Iraq. Chileans, Indians, etc. People from outside the “Coalition” and so are not considered officially protected by the US military as citizens.
Blackwater does do a lot of fighting. The blowup in Fallujah a couple years ago was caused by Blackwater soldiers running roughshod over the locals. The locals claimed they were raping and stealing as well as shooting. So one day the locals fought back and we saw on the news what the result of that was.
Since Blackwater is contracted by the US government, the Iraqi government has considered them to be mercenaries but on the same side. As mentioned above, the other side doesn’t care what uniforms they wear or the route their pay comes from. Enemy is enemy. All are shot or blown up when the opportunity arises. Since the people on the other side doing the shooting have no rights in the eyes of the US, whether they are killing “properly” under the rules of war doesn’t matter.
All I know is, Blackwater is a pretty badass name for a mercenary/security service or whatever you want to call it. Are their uniforms like, black with a picture of some kind of sea serpent or dragon or something on it? It would be really badass if the back of their armored vests had like, a picture of a giant barbarian warrior holding a gigantic sword with a half-naked blonde woman lying on the ground with her arms wrapped around one of the warrior’s massive gigantic legs, with like a huge skull in the background or something.
So, let’s look at this from another perspective…
What would happen if the insurgents were to execute a captive US soldier? What would be the means of repercussion?
Aside from military force, the channels would have to be legal. The only two bodies I know of would be the legal systems of the respective countries of the blackwater people, The Iraqi legal system, and possibly some international tribunal. I guess the International Criminal Court?
So right off the bat, the ICC wouldn’t come into play until the situation in Iraq becomes peaceful, as there would be no way of extraditing anyone, plus they normally only go after the big fish. The Iraqi legal system would have trouble bring them to trial, as the Iraqi government is officially fighting the insurgents, and the home governments of blackwater would require help from the Iraqi government too…
Basically, with the points made above about blackwater’s possible consideration as mercenaries, I think the important questions are these:
Could Blackwater be considered mercenaries with the stuff in Fallujah and also their non-coalition members?
Secondly, would you be able to execute a true mercenary? How does this work with insurgents? They are certainly not representative of a country as defined by the Geneva convention, at least, and isn’t that what all the rules of war are based on? If Japan hired mercenaries to attack the US could we legally execute all of them?
Really, “mercenary” cannot be defined in any useful way. Some young soldiers fight “for money,” some adventurers go out of their way to get in a scrap, and are paid, but do not do it for money. Some foreigners work with militaries for money but do not directly fight. On the other hand, these same people would resist (say) commandos attacking ‘their’ base.
Mercenary is a person you do not think has a dog in your fight.
Wouldn’t Blackwater fall into the recently-created “Enemy Combatant” category? Not subject to Geneva Convention protections, not subject to civilian law, eligible for indefinite imprisonment without charge in whatever the other side’s (in the hypothetical case that the US was fighting a recognized government like Iran’s) equivalent of Gitmo is?
Does any government besides the one operated by the USA take notice of the legal theory of ‘enemy combatants’ ?
What does this even mean? Do you have some kind of cite that the military treats non-US contractors as “non-protected,” and what that term means?
Contractors are subject to civilian law. See David Passaro, who was convicted in a US court for beating an Afghan. One can debate whether more charges should be filed against contractors for alleged crimes, but it is clear that the US courts can hear and convict contractors for their actions in other countries.
I’m talking about if captured by another country. If they’re soldiers, they’re to be treated as POWs. If they’re non-combatant civilians, they’re to be treated as civilians. If they’re not part of an official army, yet have taken up arms, they fall into that nebulous zone.
Blackwater accompanies convoys and engages in combat with any insurgents who might attack them. How is the substantively different from engaging in the types of combat that would make them “mercenaries?” In an insurgency, 90% of the combat is a result of providing security. When you say they are bodyguards and providing security, you make it sound like they are checking ID’s at the entrence to a club.
Of course, you can’t execute “mercenaries” on sight.
People are confused here. If you’re a soldier in a recognized army you can’t be charged with a crime for carrying out legitimate acts of war. A legitimate soldier wearing uniform who attacks an enemy camp and kills sleeping enemy soldiers has not committed a crime according to the Geneva convention. You can shoot at that soldier and kill him, you can capture that soldier and hold him as a POW, but you can’t capture him and charge him with murder.
But the same is not true for an ununiformed guy who isn’t a member of a legitimate military group. If said ununiformed guy sneaks into an enemy camp and kills sleeping enemy soldiers, then you can shoot at him and kill him, and you can capture him. But you don’t need to treat him as a POW, you can charge him with murder, and if found guilty of murder he could get the death penalty if the law allows the death penalty. The same thing would happen if I walked into a military base here in the US and started shooting people. I wouldn’t be treated as an enemy soldier, I’d be treated as a murderer, and I’d be charged with murder and sent to jail and possibly face the death penalty.
So a “mercenary” can’t be shot on sight by enemy troops, any more than any other civilian in a war zone can be shot on sight. However, civilians who pick up guns and start shooting at enemy soldiers can be charged with murder if they are caught doing so, this is why resistance fighters were executed after capture in WWII. (Note that there are exceptions during invasionsA British pilot who dropped a bomb on a German school and killed 50 schoolkids and then bailled out and was captured can’t be charged with a crime, only held as a POW. A french resistance fighter who shoots a German soldier guarding a bridge can be charged with murder, and will face a firing squad. Of course, this all assumes that these people would survive to be captured rather than being shot out of hand. But shooting a surrendering British pilot would be a war crime, shooting a surrendering french resistance fighter would be a regular crime. But a german soldier who saw a downed British pilot walking around after a crash could legally simply shoot that pilot, same as the pilot could bomb the soldier if the pilot were in his airplane. It’s only when the pilot attempts to surrender that the soldier can’t legally shoot him.
So a civilian in Iraq who carries around a gun and shoots at people can be charged with various crimes, depending on exactly who they shot at, and why, and how. But if it would be legal for a regular old civilian to shoot at someone, it would be likewise legal for a “mercenary” to shoot at someone. Basically a mercenary would be treated just like any other civilian. Regular civilians have the right to use force to defend themselves in certain situations.
And of course, this all assumes that the mercenaries would be fighting against an army that recognizes the Geneva conventions, which of course the fighters in Iraq do not. They aren’t going to hold a trial and legally execute mercenaries for murder, any more than they are going to hold US soldiers as POWs.
Ah – I misunderstood.
Blackwater is a common term for sewage. link to Wikipedia entry
Also a state park. 