BLACKWATER == UNLAWFUL COMBATANTS???

We know that Alberto Gonzales considered the Geneva Conventions "quaint" and that in the view of the criminal Bush regime, torture only means pain that could accompany organ failure or death. Now we find out that the mercenaries in Iraq may technically be "illegal combatants." Why wasn't this cleared up before now?

America's own unlawful combatants?
Using private guards in Iraq could expose
the U.S. to accusations of treaty violations, some experts think.
By Julian E. Barnes, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
October 15, 2007

(excerpts)

WASHINGTON -- As the Bush administration deals with the fallout from the recent killings of civilians by private security firms in Iraq, some officials are asking whether the contractors could be considered unlawful combatants under international agreements.

The designation of lawful and unlawful combatants is set out in the Geneva Convention. Lawful combatants are nonmilitary personnel who operate under their military's chain of command. Others may carry weapons in a war zone but may not use offensive force. Under the international agreements, they may only defend themselves.

For a guard who is only allowed to use defensive force, killing civilians violates the law of war, said Michael N. Schmitt, a professor of international law at the Naval War College and a former Air Force lawyer. "It is a war crime to kill civilians unlawfully in an armed conflict," he said.

If the contractors were the aggressors in an incident, they could be deemed to be unlawfully using offensive force, said Scott Silliman, a retired Air Force lawyer and now a professor at Duke University. He said they could claim self-defense only if they had been fired on. "The only force they can use is defensive force," Silliman said. "But we may be seeing some instances where contractors are using offensive force, which in my judgment would be unlawful."