Matters Blackwater (Merged thread)

[Polarbear1605]

One question that I have - goes back to Polar Bear's point - is why we couldn't simply try these guys for the violation of the Law of Land Warfare. We are signed up to the various treaties and conventions that make up said law and even the statute of the International Criminal Court puts primary responsibility for prosecuting war crimes (violations of the laws of war) on states rather than on the ICC. Indeed, we have so prosecuted in the past although not civilian contractors. Moreover, American legal tradition does not require a statute law to prosecute - violations under the common law can also be prosecuted, at least within recorded American history.

Did I tell you folks I like the way John thinks.
John answered one of two questions I have about the prosecuting under the Rules of Armed Conflict. The first is if we went that route, what are the chances that the US could/would lose control and we would have US citizens standing trial at the Hague by the International Organization? Once we start the legal process in the good old USA could another country start a prosecution at the international level at the same time or after? One reason I ask this question is I know Iraq was not real happen about this incident. John if you could post a reference on the "state rather than the ICC" thing, it would be appreciated.

#2 If we charge someone for killing a civilian(s) that was not a military necessity; the Rules of Armed Conflict state the the "Field Commander" determines military necessity. Understanding that the the military has a well defined chain of command (and the UCMJ) but does the State Department? or another way to say it is; if the contractors are working for the State Department who determines military necessity??