In general, what do people think of the idea of hiring others to kill people on your behalf? And, when they aren't
hired to kill people, but do a lot of that instead of the work they're supposed to be doing, how should that be handled? How many people out there think the rule of law should apply, especially when the goal is to
steal oil bring democracy to a former dictatorship?
Blackwater is preparing to answer for the
unprovoked massacre of 17 civilians, and the harm this has caused to the army's mission and the personal safety of all Americans in Iraq.
The hired soldiers from Blackwater have turned themselves in, to stand trial, in Utah. One among them has any connection to the state of Utah, the others are hoping for a soft on crime jury, in light of the state's past. (
Mountain meadows) This bid failed. So far the defense appears centered around a technicality - the rule of law itself is over any individual working in support of the Department of Defense
's mission, but Blackwater's checks were signed by the Department of State. Defense lawyers argue this should make their clients unaccountable.
There are more private contractors supporting the US mission in Iraq than there are US soldiers. Blackwater has been bilking the taxpayer some
$800 to $1,100 a day for toy soldiers - by contrast, General Patraeus is paid "only" $500 a day for his services, and only 1 of him.
Blackwater has fired a disturbing number of their guards. The most common reasons are "weapons incidents", followed by "drug and alcohol related violations".
My quesion is, do you think these people should be accountable? Or is anarchy a better way to establish the rule of law?