Enemy combatants

by Simon 6 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  We keep hearing the phrase "enemy combatants" which seems to be a new invention to mean people fighting on or near the battlefield but not part of the army.

  These are baaaaaad people, we are told (how dare they defend their homes and countries god damn it!).

  They can be tortured, imprisoned without notification or trial and generally not treated very well. The legalities of this are in serious doubt.

  What then of the numerous "enemy combatants" in Iraq at them moment? What should be done with them? What are their status? Who do they answer to?

  I'm talking about the private armies and security forces.

  Who are they accountable for? Why can a private force be allowed to operate somewhere? Who controls them? Who do they answer to? Are they above the law? What about the people they kill?

  Just seems like a recipe for disaster and bad will for me.
• 

  myauntfanny

  I'm talking about the private armies and security forces.

  I'm a little worried about that too. Do mercenaries even have to honour the Geneva Convention?
• 

  Simon

  Exactly ... calling them 'private contractors' doesn't alter the fact that they can go round shooting people.

  I don't think there is place in an occupation for this kind of force thought I suspect it helps the US administration disguise the true troop requirements.
• 

  Curious Mind

  I think enemy combatant was a term used to describe people who had come into the country just to pick a fight with Americans
• 

  Curious Mind

  No ,contractors are not constrained by the geneva convention but they are not allowed to just randomly shoot at people ,however they do have the right to return fire if fired upon
• 

  myauntfanny

  No ,contractors are not constrained by the geneva convention but they are not allowed to just randomly shoot at people ,however they do have the right to return fire if fired upon

  Normal soldiers are in the same position, but they are also accountable under the geneva convention, right? It is these mercenaries who are now going to be put in charge of the prisons, according to last night's evening news. So if they get into torturing prisoners, who will they be accountable to? Only their bosses?
• 

  myauntfanny

  And if they are caught doing nasty things, the government can refuse to take any responsibility because instead of being soldiers who represent the American government, they are just private employees who did a bad job and have to be replaced. Would they have to face court martials, the ends of their careers? I agree with Simon, it's a recipe for disaster.