Our government is now created a category for those who are in the care of the parties which we fight. They are calling them "missing captured" rather than POW. This according to Rolling Thunder organizers.

Is this change in verbiage describing those captured an acknowledgement that we are not at war or in a lega war? Is it a possiblity that it is our way of granting a new category for our service men so we get to keep calling these we have captured detainees? Is this another admission that we are acting illegally?

Our men and women that have fallen in to the hands of those we fight are prisoners of war and nothing else. Although, I think it is Ok that we call certain captured persons detainees rather than POWs it si not Ok for our own government to sell our service members down the river and seemingly be disavowing thier rights under the Geneva Convention.

What has happened to us in this country? Have we forgotten that those who serve are keeping us free? If freedom is not free than is it not true that anyone captured in that fight is a Prisoner of War? Isn't it clear that our soldiers are Prisoners of war under international law like Geneva because they are clearly wearing a uniform and identifying markings? Are they attempting to surrsptisiously make our service members equal to those who consciously break international law by not wering uniforms, identifying marks, or being part of a natianal military. Or is this a way of admitting that we have civilian contractors that have gotten caught and are detained in Iraq, Afghanistan, or other places?

Since I seem to be connecting dots today...here are a few.



Food for thought or 'deep thought.'

This is dangerous. I want my military protected and funded. There was never supposed to be a private army.

I knew there were private security firms, but I had no idea how large this sector has grown. And I did not know that our State Department contracted with private security. This is frightening. Our military can't control these private efforts. How is this being allowed to get so out of hand? This is like something out of a fiction novel.

What is wrong with our reporters and journalists that big stories like this don't get any notice?!

I've read that the 'private army' the United States has in Iraq nearly rivals that of the actual U.S. military in numbers. And, of course, Bush and his cronies can't refer to them as POW's because they would then fall under the Geneva Conventions. And, if they fall under the Geneva Conventions once captured, someone with half a brain will say all the others in the private army, captured or not, working in Iraq fall under Geneva as well and that defeats the purpose of having the private army.

And whilst the media is to blame for not reporting it, would Americans really care if it was reported? Those of us on the left would, but would anyone else? Remember the Plame incident? Sure, it wasn't covered as much as it should have been, but it was still in the news and a majority of Americans didn't care. It shows how disconnected Americans are from their government, and it shows the dangerous times we live in. People say that during the Great Depression we came as close as we ever did to anarchy. In this time period, we're coming dangerously close to totalitarianism. The government is allowed to spy without warrants, the government is allowed to say who and who we may not have feelings for, the government decides what is decent and what is not, and this government goes as far as to present false information in the media to keep the people obedient. And where are the Americans to protest these outrages? A majority of them are dead silent. And to quote Robert Bolt, "Silence implies consent."

Your comments about unrest of the American public during the Depression makes me think of another reason that a big private armed force is a very bad idea. If we ever have one or two frightening terrorist attacks here at home....such as an explosion in a mall or school... people could panic and, in fear, be difficult to control. I think the present administration would bring in private forces to control our own people. Or use them to police a roundup of suspected ethnic groups. I assume a private force operates outside the rules and checks of military protocol and justice. In a climate of fear, I don't think most people would speak up to stop this. As you say, people are already going along with a slow erosion of civil rights, (spying without warrants), because of fear.

A private army is a bad idea because it is illegal and unconstitutional. The Constitution says in Article I Section 8 that the Congress has the power to raise and support armies. I went through the all references to "Defense" in the Federalist Papers and see no admissions about private contractors being used to wage war. However, I would assume that this "private army" being interpreted as equal to the King running the military would yield a decision that it is unconstitutional. The Founders had a worry about large standing 'public armies' regulated by congress so from these concerns and a knowledge of History you could properly deduce that they would have said no to using private contractors to wage war because it is too much like a private army. I also interpret the clauses giving Congress the express power to raise and support an army to mean the United States Army, Army Reserves, and National Guard, not private contractors.

I also interpret phrase "provide for the common defense," which appears in the preamble to mean the public supported army not these contractors. The Heritage Guide to the Constitution states that the framers, particularly Anti-Federalists, feared large standing armies because and army large enough to defend you was large enough to enslave you. They were clearly talking about a national military that was public in nature.