Editing Mercenary (section)

===United States===
Civilians with the US Armed Forces lose their [[law of war]] protection from direct attack if, and for such time as, they directly participate in hostilities.

The [[Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893]] ({{UnitedStatesCode|5|3108}}) forbids the [[US government]] from using [[Pinkerton (detective agency)|Pinkerton National Detective Agency]] employees or similar private police companies.

In 1977, the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] interpreted the Anti-Pinkerton Act as forbidding the U.S. government from employing companies offering "mercenary, quasi-military forces" for hire (United States ex rel. ''Weinberger v. Equifax'', 557 F.2d 456, 462 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1035 (1978)). There is disagreement over whether this proscription is limited to strikebreakers only, because ''Weinberger v. Equifax'' states the following:

{{Quote|The purpose of the Act and the legislative history reveal that an organization was "similar" to the Pinkerton Detective Agency only if it offered for hire mercenary, quasi-military forces as strikebreakers and armed guards. It had the secondary effect of deterring any other organization from providing such services lest it be branded a "similar organization." The legislative history supports this view and no other.|United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit|''Weinberger v. Equifax'', 1977}}

In the 7 June 1978 Letter to the heads of Federal Departments and Agencies, the Comptroller General interpreted this decision in a way that carved out an exemption for "Guard and Protective Services".

A [[United States Department of Defense]] (DoD) interim rule revised DoD Instruction 3020.41 to authorize contractors, other than private security contractors, to use deadly force against enemy armed forces only in self-defense (71 Fed. Reg. 34826), effective 16 June 2006. Per that interim rule, private security contractors were authorized to use deadly force when protecting their client's assets and persons, consistent with their contract's [[mission statement]]. One interpretation is that this authorized contractors to engage in combat on behalf of the US government. It is the combatant commander's responsibility to ensure that private security contract mission statements do not authorize performance of inherently governmental military functions, i.e. preemptive attacks, assaults, or raids, etc.

On 18 August 2006, the US Comptroller General rejected bid protest arguments that the [[United States Army]] contracts violated the Anti-Pinkerton Act by requiring that contractors provide armed [[convoy]] escort vehicles and labor, weapons, and equipment for internal security operations at [[Victory Base Complex]] in Iraq. The Comptroller General reasoned the act was unviolated because the contracts did not require contractors to provide quasi-military forces as strikebreakers.<ref>Brian X. Scott (18 August 2006). [http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298370.htm "B-298370; B-298490"]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304001958/http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/298370.htm |date=4 March 2016 }}.</ref>

In 2007, the US Army was temporarily barred from awarding a $475 million security contract in Iraq, the largest one at that time, because of a lawsuit filed by a US citizen alleging violation of the Anti-Pinkerton Act of 1893. Three of the candidates under final consideration for the contract (to include intelligence services and security for reconstruction work by the [[United States Army Corps of Engineers]]) included British firms [[Aegis Defence Services]] and [[Erinys International|Erinys Iraq]], as well as [[Blackwater (company)|Blackwater]] of North Carolina. The case was later dismissed.<ref name=WP-2007-06-02>{{cite news |first1=Alec |last1=Klein |first2=Steve |last2=Fainaru |date=2 June 2007 |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102261.html |title=Judge Halts Award of Iraq Contract |newspaper=[[The Washington Post]] |page=D01 |access-date=4 September 2017 |archive-date=8 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170708175127/http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/01/AR2007060102261.html |url-status=live }}</ref>