I realize that to many this will be splitting hairs.
As I read Kos's entry from this morning, I began to wonder what exactly was a "mercenary?"
What follows below is a post from my blog where I try to answer this question.
I've withheld comment on the atrocities committed in Fallujah this past week, with the exception of pointing out the bleedingly obvious (see Cheney's pre-war "liberator" comments).
Back to Fallujah. It was reported on the 31st of March that 4 American contractors were ambushed as their vehicle travelled through Fallujah. As I read this and saw the accompanying AP photos (see my post below) I recoiled in horror at the savagery. I had pictures of engineers or builders in my head. I couldn't help but think, "Why? Why did you have to go Iraq!? Stupid m#@@#" [meaning both groups - the killers in Iraq and the contractors from the US]
As time passed, more information about the people killed came to the surface. It turns out that the 4 indeed were contractors, but more specifically, they were security contractors from a company called Blackwater Security Consulting, of Moyock, N.C. These people were not the run of the mill contractors I had pictured in my mind's eye. These people were highly trained military operatives.
Here are some photos from the Blackwater website:
These are heavy duty security personnel. Some have gone so far as to label these people mercenaries. I have to admit. Once I heard they were with Blackwater, I too thought, "Oh Christ, they were over they for money!!" And my sympathy meter dropped to zero. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime, right?
While I will not deny that these people were over there earning a helluva living, some reports put it in the $1000 per day range, I do have to take issue with whether these people were, in fact, mercenaries.
According to the Geneva Convention a mercenary has to fit all of the following provisions:
a) Being especially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict
b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities
c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces
d) is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of a territory controlled by a party to the conflict
e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict
f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces
All of the above taken from http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/0/ffc84b7639b26f93c12563cd00434156?OpenDocument.
Looking at these line by line it would appear that (a), (b), (c), (e) have definitely been met. I'm still wrapping my non-legally trained head around the double negative in part (f). I think what (f) is saying is that if States A and B (say A is France and B is Spain) are at war with one another, members of the armed forces of State C (Andorra, that landlocked little country high in the Pyrenees caught between France and Spain and who are neutral to the conflict) are not considered mercenaries.
I have to wonder about part (d). I think one could posit that all of the people killed in Fallujah were nationals of a party to the conflict. As far as I know they were all Americans, and hell, we started this whole thing.
So this is a six-pronged test and one part failed, hence these people were not mercenaries, at least according to the Geneva Convention.
QED?
Had I not looked at the GC webpage for the precise definition, I would have seen the people killed in Fallujah as not being members of the armed forces, in a warzone, earning lots of money. To me that spells mercenary. But be warned, if my logic is correct here, people will be correct in saying that these people, in fact any American in Iraq could never be a mercenary.
Fresburger