Proof Positive -- The Bush Administration Is Using Unlawful Combatants

Blackwater is a mercenary force. Yes, we use the more "politically correct" term of 'security consultant', but as they say, "A rose, by any other name..." In light of recent news, however, this takes on a somewhat more... disturbing cast.

As this blog has reported in the past, more than 100,000 'security consultants' are in active service in a combat or combat-supportive role in Iraq. For now, please keep that in mind as I go in what will seem like a 90° angle from that point. The LA Times today reported on the fact that, apparently, the Bush Administration is set on invoking military tribunals on its military prisoners -- you know, the 'unlawful enemy combatants' that we hear so much about? Consider:

The central issue in Khadr's case seemed to some to be ridiculously technical. In 2004, Khadr was ruled an "enemy combatant." The Military Commissions Act of 2006 set up the tribunals to try "alien unlawful enemy combatants."


In Monday's decision, Navy Capt. John W. Rolph, the deputy chief judge of the court, wrote that the trial judge was correct in determining that only unlawful combatants could come before the court. The appeals court also noted that the original Combatant Status Review Tribunal that ruled Khadr was an enemy combatant used a "less exacting standard" than was laid out in the Military Commissions Act.

So whether someone is an enemy combatant or an unlawful enemy combatant is a 'ridiculous technicality' is it? Well, what is the difference between the two, then? According to Wikipedia, To Qualify for prisoner of war status [by being a lawful combatant,] persons waging war must have the following characteristics [...]:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

The same Wikipedia entry notes that mercenaries are unlawful civilian combatants. And then you have the US requirements to be an Unlawful Combatant:

In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment.

Note that this only allows Mr. Bush to add to the 'rolls' of unlawful enemy combatants.

The conclusion is clear: The United States of America Is Actively Using Unlawful Combatants.

Not that this ought to surprise anybody, really: this country I love has been lead by hypocrites for far too long. And in case you still need evidence of this, consider this, brought to us by the NY Daily News:

President Bush announced news sanctions today against the military regime in Myanmar and called on UN members to support struggles against dictatorships around the world.

"The people of Lebanon and Afghanistan and Iraq have asked for our help, and every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand with them," Bush told the UN General Assembly.

"Every civilized nation also has a responsibility to stand up for the people suffering under dictatorship," he said. "In Belarus, North Korea, Syria and Iran, brutal regimes deny their people the fundamental rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration" of the United Nations.

[...]
[UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon] called peace in the Middle East is [sic] vital to the stability of the region and the world.

"We know what is required: an end to violence, an end to occupation, the creation of a Palestinian state at peace with itself and Israel, and a comprehensive regional peace between Israel and the Arab world," he said.

Notice the subtle digs by the UN Secretary-General against the two most significant US foreign policies; the ending of the Iraqi occupation (which is, operationally, exactly what we're doing in Iraq), and the creation of an independent Palestinian state -- which would, of course, fly directly in the face of traditional US support of Israel.

Now, as a libertarian I have nothing against private armies. That's not where this argument is being directed. What I have a problem with is the use of private armies in an unregulated, 'above-the-law' manner by my government. If we're going to raise a furor over the use of unlawful combatants by our enemy, what the devil are we doing, using them ourselves?