A couple weeks ago, a congressional committee issued a report on Blackwater. Started before the mid-September shooting that has landed the company in so much trouble, the report detailed all sorts of misdeeds and got all sorts of attention. The NYT had a Page One story on it. Mentioned briefly in that piece was this:
Contrary to the terms of its contract, Blackwater sometimes engaged in offensive operations with the American military, instead of confining itself to its protective mission, the [report] found.
That struck me as a big deal at the time, and I meant to blog it. Two weeks later, it still strikes me as potentially a big deal--all the more so after reading a smart article in this morning's LAT suggesting that contractors like those at Blackwater could be labeled as unlawful combatants if.... they engage in offensive operations.
So, did they?
