[Michael Eden]

Angkor,

I noted the original Geneva Convention term “unlawful combatant” without going to any lengths to explain the difference between it and “enemy combatant” because I frankly didn’t see any.

It is possible that liberal journalists used the term “enemy combatant” so they could then pursue the idea that it was a Bush creation rather than a long-accepted international principle.

Since my purpose was to simply put the overall term (whether “unlawful” or “enemy” combatant) into proper context, rather than to attempt to demonstrate that someone created the term “enemy combatant” to undermine the concept of “unlawful combatant,” I didn’t go into that analysis. But I’m glad you brought it up.

In any event, I hope your “big red rant” is not with me.

[angkor]

>>>>> In any event, I hope your “big red rant” is not with me. <<<<<

Nope, not one iota.

The media took extreme liberties with the terminology just as you say, and “undermine” is the perfect term although IMO they had some obscure journo agenda (being sissies) of not being “too judgmental” about the validity of terrorism (they are “objective journalists” after all) and so the ambiguous, redundant, and meaningless term “enemy combatant” served their multiple obtuse purposes ideally.

[LTCJ]

I noted the original Geneva Convention term “unlawful combatant” without going to any lengths to explain the difference between it and “enemy combatant” because I frankly didn’t see any.

Angkor is correct and there is a huge and critical difference. Under international law, enemy combatants are legitimate soldiers and have a right to be treated as such if captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights and are subject to execution.