Quote:
Originally Posted by Rainbow Six
|
Thanks. I always wondered what the legal definition was. And boy, that definition pretty much spells out to me that in modern times mercenaries are to be treated under the local criminal code rather than the Geneva Convention's rules for prisoners of war. That could be very very ugly for anyone caught plying that trade. One can only suppose that these articles were written to actively discourage the use of mercenaries in military conflicts.
I don't suppose anyone can offer any informed commentary about the international consensus that led to the actively discouraging the use of mercenaries? I mean, I can think of some very good reasons why we don't want private armies controlled by corporations, especially when they might have the throw weight to take out small governments and create their own private kingdoms. There's enough trouble with criminal organizations and rebel groups doing that. But why was there such a consensus that military force shall only be wielded by recognized national entities?
Is it as simple as national governments wanting to keep their monopoly on force?
And by this definition I just realized something... all those international jihadists who come in from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnyia and Bosnia... they meet the definition under the Geneva convention for Mercenaries.
(a little cut & paste)
2. A mercenary is any person who:
(a) is specially 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, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(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.
I'd be willing to bet that international Jihadists would claim that c) and d) do not apply to them.
They would claim d) does not appy because by being a Muslim they are automatically "a party" to any conflict where there are Muslims fighting because the "Umma" transcends national boundaries. This is a pretty weak arguement (imho) and probably wouldn't fly in court.
They would claim c) does not apply to them because I presume they would claim that their faith brought them here and they are not receiving any pay. This is baloney on a couple of levels. On a case by case basis, there have been plenty of examples of Jihadists receiving pay, but it is in no way universal. The families of Suicide Bombers often receive large stipends. In Afghanistan Pakistanis who aided the Taliban were extremely unpopular (and subject to be killed on sight during the Taliban's collapse) because the Taliban compensated them (in part) by giving them wives. Essentially girls kidnapped from villages, forcibly married (to legalize the impending rape) and then, when the Pakistanis left Afghanistan for home, these girls were often sold to brothers in the Waziristan border region. I mean, no point explaining to your family where you picked up this child bride when you return from fighting the good fight, right?
And then there are the
Houris... the much rumored 72 virgins. If a Jihadist really believes he's going to get a pile of hotties in another dimension upon his death, does that could meet the definition of being "motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain."
However, it might not meet the definition of "material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party," for two reasons.
1) Are Hotties in another dimension really "material compensation?"
2) Since even the locals who fight in Jihad are supposed to get the the 72 virgins, it wouldn't count as "substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party."
To classify international Jihadists as mercenaries under this rule, you'd have to assess how much the international jihadists are being compensated and whether it is more than the locals are getting paid. But since the local insurgents are usually working for nothing in these conflicts, being instead motivated by politics, nationalism, tribal identity or religion, ANY pay would move an international Jihadist under the definition of mercenary.
Just some thoughts.
A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing