I wouldn't hire him.
Ron Kuby, a civil-rights loon (I hesitate to use such obviously inflammatory and derogatory language, but in this case it seems entirely apt) of previously good repute, has suggested that the US violated the truce of the high seas when it took a soon-to-be-accused pirate prisoner under a white flag.
The only problem is, there is no such thing as truce for non-sanctioned belligerents on the high seas. This young man (and reports differ over just how young, but he is quite young) was not sanctioned by a letter of marque or uniform and flag. He "belongs" to no government and no nation. He was accused of (though not yet charged; that will probably change on Tuesday) bearing arms against lawful commerce on the high seas, which is a charge roughly as old as the US: piracy. It's been a criminal act here since long before the constitution was ratified.
The fine black line that delineates a pirate from a "privileged" (under the Hague Conventions) belligerent, who is entitled to do harm under orders of a superior state authority, is a pretty fine one, but nonetheless a dark one: there must be, if not sanction by a state, then a clear delineation of the privileged combatant by open use of arms (which the pirates did) and distinguishing clothing, or a "mark" visible at a distance which distinguishes them from civilian noncombatants (not present.) Here's the hard line which the Somali pirates crossed: any otherwise unprivileged combatants, such as armed civilians and militias, who wish to be protected by the laws of war as combatants, must obey the laws of armed conflict with respect to civilian persons and other acts, among which piracy is notably not present. This threatens to become a circular argument: the men who took and then lost the civilian ship were committing acts of piracy, which removes them from privilege under the laws of armed conflict; therefore, they are not entitled to privilege under the LAC and IHL (international humanitarian law) because they are pirates...which can lead to prosecution for piracy. "Status crimes" (e.g., being a pirate) are pretty tough to prosecute, since they generally refer not to states of being (like being a man, or a cocker spaniel) but to specific acts, which until proven in court of law, are...well, not legally acts. But the fine black line which distinguishes a pirate from a privateer, is a document called a letter of marque, which must be carried by the previously unprivileged combatant, to establish their sanction by a state on the high seas, to commit acts (like boarding and firing on foreign-flagged vessels) which otherwise would constitute piracy. Not being able to produce such a document, no person is subject to the protection of a flag of truce and can be captured and even prosecuted for his perfidious, invidious, and unlawful acts, because had they been sanctioned by a state they would have been lawful.
Bottom line: a state is required to establish the privilege of its combatants. No state privilege, all bets called off. Kuby clearly misunderstands one of the most basic principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, the distinction which provides "privilege" to state-backed combatants, and denies it to criminal behavior by private individuals.
The only problem is, there is no such thing as truce for non-sanctioned belligerents on the high seas. This young man (and reports differ over just how young, but he is quite young) was not sanctioned by a letter of marque or uniform and flag. He "belongs" to no government and no nation. He was accused of (though not yet charged; that will probably change on Tuesday) bearing arms against lawful commerce on the high seas, which is a charge roughly as old as the US: piracy. It's been a criminal act here since long before the constitution was ratified.
The fine black line that delineates a pirate from a "privileged" (under the Hague Conventions) belligerent, who is entitled to do harm under orders of a superior state authority, is a pretty fine one, but nonetheless a dark one: there must be, if not sanction by a state, then a clear delineation of the privileged combatant by open use of arms (which the pirates did) and distinguishing clothing, or a "mark" visible at a distance which distinguishes them from civilian noncombatants (not present.) Here's the hard line which the Somali pirates crossed: any otherwise unprivileged combatants, such as armed civilians and militias, who wish to be protected by the laws of war as combatants, must obey the laws of armed conflict with respect to civilian persons and other acts, among which piracy is notably not present. This threatens to become a circular argument: the men who took and then lost the civilian ship were committing acts of piracy, which removes them from privilege under the laws of armed conflict; therefore, they are not entitled to privilege under the LAC and IHL (international humanitarian law) because they are pirates...which can lead to prosecution for piracy. "Status crimes" (e.g., being a pirate) are pretty tough to prosecute, since they generally refer not to states of being (like being a man, or a cocker spaniel) but to specific acts, which until proven in court of law, are...well, not legally acts. But the fine black line which distinguishes a pirate from a privateer, is a document called a letter of marque, which must be carried by the previously unprivileged combatant, to establish their sanction by a state on the high seas, to commit acts (like boarding and firing on foreign-flagged vessels) which otherwise would constitute piracy. Not being able to produce such a document, no person is subject to the protection of a flag of truce and can be captured and even prosecuted for his perfidious, invidious, and unlawful acts, because had they been sanctioned by a state they would have been lawful.
Bottom line: a state is required to establish the privilege of its combatants. No state privilege, all bets called off. Kuby clearly misunderstands one of the most basic principles of the Law of Armed Conflict, the distinction which provides "privilege" to state-backed combatants, and denies it to criminal behavior by private individuals.