What goes around

The LA Times suggests that Blackwater and other "security contractors" may be unlawful combatants, at least when they shoot without being shot at--something they seem to do a lot of.

"Unlawful combatant" is a creation of the Bush administration, a convenient term to hold people prisoner. Take someone who was fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan. While the United States and its allies did not recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of the country, the fact is that it controlled the lion's share of Afghanistan until the US invasion. Yet the administration arrogates to itself the right to determine that a person who served in the Taliban's forces is an enemy combatant, not a POW.

Blackwater's mercenaries are combatants, yet they are not enlisted in any military service. If they engage in offensive operations, logic would suggest that they be considered outside the protections of military law.

The argument might seem academic, because it is clear that the US government will never permit its contractors to be treated the way we treat our enemies. And in the eyes of the part of the world that we most need to win over, Blackwater and its ilk have already been convicted. As yet another example of American hubris and hypocrisy, however, the issue can have important ramifications.