[angkor]

The proper term is "unlawful combatant" and in fact it was widely used (even in the media!) for a good many months after 9/11, until some kind of insidious and mendacious media meme took place to change it to an ambiguous "enemy combatant" (ambiguity being the friend of sissy journalists), which means nothing. Even the article above states the Geneva Conventions term is "unlawful combatant" and there is in fact no legal term "enemy combatant", unless it's the guys in uniform. Jihadis are always "unlawful combatants"!

Big red rant off!

[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.