The Minutemen and Sons of Liberty of the American Revolution are Today’s “Unlawful Combatants” - Part Two

Part One

If we go back to the basic understanding of a an “unlawful combatant”, by the standards of the media and the White House, militias (Article 4A, subsection 1) are typically listed as not being an organized group and thereby automatically every member is labeled an “unlawful combatant”. That goes against the basic definition of a militia – they are organized and their strength is they can mobilize at the drop of a hat for quick guerilla action, which a large military force cannot.

If you think logically about it, militias by their very design, are the predecessors of today's special forces. Following this line of thinking, a militia can and is often comprised of voluntary members. What's the difference between a militia run by Hamas, Hizb'allah, Al-Qaeda, or the Sons of Liberty ?

The answer? There is no difference, except Hamas, Hizb'allah and Al-Qaeda have the worst public relations firm in history. The theory would sound like this: The Sons of Liberty were a “patriot” group who rose up in response to the policies of King George III, thereby they're not a true militia. There's only one problem: they were a militia in many respects. “ In the early months of 1766 there was such chaos that many of the royal governors had gone into hiding. The Sheriffs and Militia that they might have counted on to keep the peace were mostly members of the Sons of Liberty . ”

When it comes to Hamas, Hizb'allah and Al-Qaeda, they rose up to answer threats from outside oppressive forces not unlike the Sons of Liberty did.

“Those are all terrorist groups!” Well, maybe and maybe not. “ The first widely known acts of the Sons took place on August 14, 1765, when an effigy of Andrew Oliver (who was to be commissioned Distributor of Stamps for Massachusetts ) was found hanging in a tree on Newbury Street , along with a large boot with a devil climbing out of it. The sheriffs were told to remove the display but protested in fear of their lives, for a large crowd had formed at the scene. Before the evening a mob burned Oliver's property on Kilby Street , then moved on to his house. There they beheaded the effigy and stoned the house as its occupants looked out in horror. ” So as you can see, our “patriot” fathers were far from cordial or civil when they struck their own terrorist blows.

If you take this concept further to its logical conclusion, you would have to point out the Minutemen who fought in the American Revolution – a staple of this country's history and an integral reason why militias were protected by our forefathers in the Constitution. Again, the Minutemen are this country's best-known example of a militia – their name bore out their quick response nature to be called into the battle for independence.

“Oh, but terrorist groups fight dirty – you can't compare the two!” Well, guess what? So did the militias of the day, and they didn't fight by the accepted conventions of war set by the British (Article 4A, subsection 2D) . Remember, the British idea of war like conduct was to stand in lines, pack their muskets fitted with bayonets, and fire. The American militia was made up of men who had been at battle during the French-Indian war, and history tells us the Indians didn't play nice. Ask General Custer – I'm sure he's got a few profound words of wisdom on the subject. “ Their experience suited irregular warfare. Most were familiar with frontier hunting. The Indian Wars, and especially the recent French and Indian War, had taught both the men and officers the value of irregular warfare, while many British troops fresh from Europe were less familiar with this. ”This is an example of early guerilla warfare, and although the tactics are somewhat primitive, so are the ones currently employed by Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hizb'allah. There's an interesting lesson: low tech guile works wonders for a fraction of the cost.

The Geneva Convention (Article 4A, subsection 2) also states that a militia or organized resistance may operate inside and outside of their territory. This clause, in theory, should grant Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan the ability to operate within Iraq . The argument I'm basing this on comes from the specific wording “ Party to the conflict ”. One can accurately state Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is NOT party to the Iraq conflict based on regional separation, but that would force us to ignore they are a grieved party on two fronts: by membership and by religious ties, thereby circumventing the need to be inside the country. By what I see as a potential loophole, foreigners who enter Iraq based on the two criteria are legitimately operating outside their territory per the clause.