as the story developed i realized that they seemed to be even less civilian than i originally thought. when i first heard about "civilian contractors" killed in iraq, i assumed they were unarmed office workers or service employees who did menial work for the occupation authorities. instead, however, they turned out to be mercenaries. the press didn't call them that at first, but now everyone admits that they were they were armed and paid to guard supplies as they move around iraq. in other words, the outsourced work they were picking up from the military was not some civilian function to support the troops, but rather functions that go to the heart of the military's own role. so the "civilian contractor" label seems even more out of place. they were doing military things that were contracted out. shouldn't they be called "military contractors"?
so this afternoon, it occurred to me. there is a new term that fits these guys perfectly: "unlawful combatant." unlawful combatant is the term created by the bush administration to justify doing whatever the hell they wanted with the prisoners they captured in afghanistan. according to the administration, the normal rules of war do not apply to "unlawful combatants." they can be killed by lawful combatants on the battlefield, but also get none of the usual protections for POWs when they are captured. the somewhat circular definition i found here (see the bottom of page 3 to the top of page 4) defines unlawful combatants as follows:
For the purposes of this article the term “unlawful/unprivileged combatant/belligerent” is understood as describing all persons taking a direct part in hostilities without being entitled to do so and who therefore cannot be classified as prisoners of war on falling into the power of the enemy. This seems to be the most commonly shared understanding. It would include for example civilians taking a direct part in hostilities, as well as members of militias and of other volunteer corps — including those of organized resistance movements — not being integrated in the regular armed forces but belonging to a party to conflict, provided that they do not comply with the conditions of Article 4A (2) of GC III.(emphasis added)
Article 4A of the Third Geneva Convention (referenced in the above paragraph as "GC III") states as follows:
Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:note that the above definition of combatants who are entitled to "lawful combatant" status includes "supply contractors" Article 4A(4). but from the context, it seems to me that it is referring to unarmed people since all of the others who are in the Art 4A(4) group would generally be unarmed people. (besides, the definition of "unlawful combatant specifically references "Article 4A (2)", not Article 4A(4).
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
(6) 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.
as for Article 4A(2). do these guys have a clear chain of command as required by 4A(2)(a)? do they have a distinctive uniform as required by 4A(2)(b)? i could be wrong, but i don't think they do. thus, under the bush administration's definition, the mercenaries we employ in iraq would fit the definition of "unlawful combatants" that the bush administration has created.
that doesn't mean their death was right or justified. on the contrary, it is horrifying. but it is worth considering that if the u.s. did the same thing to the other side, the bush administration might not have seen anything wrong with it these killings. after all, they claim that "unlawful combatants" are outside the normal rules of war and thus fair game for anything.
