facts like who is supporting whom? The historical norm is that the Ambassador and his mission is the supported element (Presidential Letter of Appointment) except in cases where a major military operation is being conducted. In that case, the Ambassador runs a parallel operation with DOD but not in support of DOD. (However, a friend who is a former US Ambassador insists that in all cases the Ambassador is the supported element.) Part of the problem - sorry about this JMM - is that lawyers actually write legislation. Thus it makes darn little difference what Sen. Sessions intended; it is only important what the legislation actually says.

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.

Cheers

JohnT