Lordy.  The very notion that our federal executive branch is managing a contractor army to promulgate its policies, apparently outside of the oversight of the legislative branch, is the kind of revelation that takes your breath away.  

The presence and extent of mercenaries, or commercial warriers, has been popping up in the news lately.  This video is given by Jeremy Scahill, an investigative reporter at The Nation.  The Bush II administration has placed soldiers of fortune in Iraq (and elsewhere?) whose fundamental operating sensibilities may be rooted in their company Articles of Incorporation rather than the ideals of a nation state.  On a recent edition of Fresh Air, Terry Gross interviewed Scahill and he recounted some chilling observations related to the emergence of the private army business.

No doubt, the DoD has a thousand page contract and hard drives full of MIL-Spec terms and conditions that a contractor must abide by.  But the contractors are well paid for their trouble. 

What the people of the United States lose, apparently, is accountability.  One of the reasons a nation state has a military is to promulgate foreign policy.  The checks and balances and the separation of powers provided for in the US Constitution assure that power is shared and that there is accountability by each of the branches. However, what we have here is a circumstance whereby one branch of government has war-zone contractors obligated to the DoD, which is under control of the Executive Branch.  Exactly what is their status in regard to congressional oversight?

Let me clarify my point. It isn’t clear that there is anything inherently wrong with the US government hiring militarized contractors.  However, everything is wrong when we hire military contractors who are hidden from, or are not subject to our system of checks and balances.  It is doubly true when we ask these people to expend ammunition on our behalf.

What US law covers the conduct of US military contractors in a foreign conflict? What is their status if they are captured?  Would they be non-military combatants and be disqualified from international law covering the humane treatment of prisoners of war? Would other nations treat them like we treat the detainees at Gitmo- i.e., criminals with no rights or due process? 

What rights here at home do these folks have in comparison to US military veterans?  Do not the people of the US owe some debt of gratitude for their sacrifice? I think so.  Will Haliburton or Blackwater see to their medical needs in 20 years? Good questions.  The federal government, for all of its flaws, does have resources that function over multi-decade timeframes.