Stan said: "IMO exceeds proportionate use of force on civilians" and I agree, but the question then becomes why are they charged with manslaughter instead of killing civilians beyond military necessity exceeding proportionality? Maybe it is me, but I see a transition here from the rules of war to the rules of law for political purposes and not justice. My question then becomes what is the procedure or what are the rules for making that transition. We see this same thing in some of the military cases in both Iraq and Afgan. So the next question is should we make a transition between the rule of war and the rules of law?
In the contractors defense (and I am not saying this happened, but just throwing it out there for thought), if you are in the middle of an ambush firefight, where everyone is runnning and ducking, and an unknown individual approaches you with his hands in the air (in a country full of suicide bombers) what would you do???

Understanding we don't have all the information, for example, were the contractors operating under a set of ROE (Rules of Engagement), and were they authorized the use of deadly force? There should be something in the State Department Contract with Blackwater that addresses this ... please don't tell me the State Department hired these guys without providing some type of ROE.

BTW: Stan and Tom thanks for those two articles it is interesting when you compare them, the more balanced article seems to be a non-US source.