Are Private Military Contractors "Illegal Combatants?"

[Vogt]

Private military contractors do not obey the Geneva Convention and their behavior is not answerable to it. So, should they be captured on the ground by the enemy, should they too be indefinitely detained and routinely tortured with impunity?

[Rabrrrrrr]

1. It would only be fair.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. I hate to say it, but yes n/t

[Avalux]

3. No one's following the Geneva Convention.

And who would label military contractors "illegal combatants"? The question you're asking isn't answerable, IMHO, because the United States is the occupier at the consent of the Iraqi government. Whether it be our military or contractors who are paid to play shoot 'em up.

[MemphisTiger]

4. The CIA doesn't fall under the Geneva Convention either

that is how we get around the war crimes for the treatment of prisoners since the state department is over the facilities not the military. Convenient isn't it?

I think the contractors work directly for the state department not the military.

[billybob537]

5. U.S. law expressly prohibits

the training, hiring,and outfiting of merceneries. That in MHO makes them ILLEGAL as soon as they HIRE ON.

[Igel]

6. I disagree with 'should'; in the absence of the Geneva

Conventions' applicability it's still the case nobody should be tortured. It's not like that's the proper default.

But the Iraqis doing the fighting are under no obligation to abide by anything in the Geneva Conventions. They didn't agree to them, they're not answerable to them.

[mike_c]

7. no, of course not-- and neither are Taliban fighters, partisan insurgents

...and so on. The Geneva Conventions refers to beligerents as "armed forces" but does not impose any specific criteria about the nature of the forces or the arms they bear as long as their actions are part of the international conflict in question (as opposed to criminal assault, etc). I understand the irony intended by the OP-- if the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, etc. are not protected under international law, why should the mercenaries attached to U.S. forces be protected-- but the irony sidesteps the more important issue, IMO. The U.S. is abusing its prisoners and civilians under its occupation in contravention of the Geneva Conventions, no matter what tripe the administration regurgitates to justify its crimes. I don't agree that tit-for-tat is a rational response. Mercenaries are combatants under the Geneva Conventions, just like insurgents against the occupation.