"Unlawful Combatant" a definition;

[DarkPhenyx]

Well, there was an interesting discussion on Gitmo, and the question was asked. Here is something I found in less than a minute Google'ing the topic. Anyone else have anything better?

http://1rev.net/archive/30-repub/repub_30_3.html

"An 'unlawful combatant' was defined in a 1942 US Supreme Court Case, known as 'The Quinn Case.' The Quinn Case involved eight German saboteurs captured on American soil with plans to attack military targets. The US in this case was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed in the case to be prisoners of war, but unlawful combatants. The court then went on to explain the difference.

"According to the international law of war, 'lawful combatants' are soldiers in uniform fighting for their respective militaries, while 'unlawful combatants' are people not in uniform who sneak into the opposing territory to wreak havoc."

" 'The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war,' reads the 1942 US Supreme Court decision, 'seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoner of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.'"

From this it looks like, to me, that the folks in Gitmo are not unlawful combatants. I've been saying this from the begining. We've let the ball slide on this one and we need to get it back out in the open. Spread teh word people.

[PsychoDad]

1. Thanks DarkPhenyx

For finding the particulars on this.
So that puts the majority of the prisoners who were captured in their own country back into the partisan catagory?

And what is the obligation of the US under international treaties toward the treatment of partisan captives? Is it the same as a POW or is the status changed because these civilian fighters have no uniform?

[DarkPhenyx]

2. I believe they have a different status...

...but I'm not sure what it would be. I'll have to do some more "leg work" unless someone beats me to it. I think, gut reaction, is that partisans can be shot w/o question unless you actually capture them and take them into custody. At that point I don't know what their status, and treatment requirements, becomes.

Crap! I'm forgetting my military training on this stuff.

[IrateCitizen]

3. Don't confuse the issue with facts, DarkPhenyx

Those people at Gitmo are terrorists -- the worst of the worst. Especially the teenagers being held.

Hell, there are plenty of people on these boards who have no problem with their treatment outside the boundaries of international law. You'll find an even smaller percentage of support among the general populace.

But, that doesn't mean that it isn't important to spread the word anyway.... ;-)

[DarkPhenyx]

4. Yeah, I'm bad about that.

I have a very bad habit of pointing out things and pissing off people who really would rather not know. I am so bad that I actually ask for definitions and supporting facts and documentation. I don't mind really if the person is simply stating their opinion, but I do want them to acknowledge that fact.

I've said it before, and no it isn't a truly original thought, that "Ignorance Fear and Agression do not make a good foreign policy". I think I saw it on a bumper sticker someplace.

I also like pointing out that if we condone this or that behavior in our government or our party then we have to be willing to accept it in the opposition as well. To do any less it hypocritical and it removes us from the moral high ground.

[IrateCitizen]

6. Now you're REALLY going off the deep end!

I also like pointing out that if we condone this or that behavior in our government or our party then we have to be willing to accept it in the opposition as well. To do any less it hypocritical and it removes us from the moral high ground.

Are you crazy? We're Americans! That means that we ALWAYS have the moral high ground -- AUTOMATICALLY. Even suggesting that others would have the right to do the same to us is, to put it bluntly, UNAMERICAN!

</sarcasm>

But you know where I'm coming from here, right?? ;-)

[DarkPhenyx]

8. Oh yeah...know it well.

Fight that particular attitude ever day. Drives me absolutely insane. Particularly when you rub their faces in the documented proof and they still hold to their "informed ignorance".

[sistersofmercy]

5. I could be wrong about this but I thought they were called

enemy of the state combatants oo something to that effect. It's interesting because Israel passed an "enemy of the state combatant" law I believe in 2000. Similar to Patriot act in that a person can be arrest and detained indefintely without representation, due process etc, it was written up in an AI report. Of course, I'll go look it up later if you would like but right now I'm on my first cup of coffee.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. I'm on my 4th cup of coffee...

...and it's only 9:30. Mmmmmmmmmmm, the warm glow of a caffine high.

If you can find that I'd love to see the report.

It's interesting, to me, that the people we are calling "Enemies of the State", "UNlawful Combatants", and "Terrorists" are what, 200+ years ago, we would have been calling "Partiots" and "the Founding Fathers". The FF's were by no means al-Queda, but they weren't far from many of the other organizations on "the list".

[sistersofmercy]

10. I can't function without coffee.

I'll go find you a link on the AI report, FYI if you go to amnesty web page then to library type in the country, I've read all the reports on Israel and Iraq. I don't like Humans Right Watch because the founder Bernstein signed a PNAC letter about China a few years back.

[PsychoDad]

11. Interesting...

Under this administration's logic the french resistance would have been Illegal combatants and terrorists...

Just what the nazi's thought of them :silly:

Very telling

[DuctapeFatwa]

9. Do US soldiers in Afghanistan always wear uniforms?

Seems like a while back this question came up at a Pentagon briefing, someone asking about the ones who wear traditional Pashtun sportswear separates and pass secretly through enemy lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property...

IF memory serves me, Victoria Clark's answer was "we'll get back to you on that.."

[sistersofmercy]

12. This is definitely a make up the rules as they go along game!

It's the same with the Kurdish groups affiliated with PUK (I think that's the one) being called freedom fighters when in fact they are terrorist who have been carrying out terrorist activities in S Turkey for decades. I read somewhere the US was going to start going after the group now, perhaps that is how they got Turkey to commit some troops. Turkish troops in N Iraq is a huge mistake in my opinion.

[DarkPhenyx]

13. PKK...Kurdish Workers Party.

Turkish is one of my languages. :) I've commented on this little hypocrasy myself on a couple of occassions. My teachers at the Defense Language Institute were Truks. They really hated the PKK.

[sistersofmercy]

15. I was in Turkey a few years ago, personally I love the country.

What a beautiful language. I can't keep all of the Kurdish groups in Iraq straight. I found a very interesting and telling sight about Iraqi opposition groups, I have the link somewhere.
I man I met on the airplane going to Turkey was from Ankora (spelling) he filled me in on the problems with the Kurds as well as Islamic extremist in general. I can't wait to go back to Turkey.

[DarkPhenyx]

14. US soldiers are supposed to always wear...

...American uniforms while in combat situations. For the most part this also includes their off duty hours. It is specifically to prevent them from being accused of being spies adn whatnot. Even pilots shot down behind enemy lines are supposed to keep their flight suits on, though they do remove any insignia.

[sistersofmercy]

16. Here's the amnesty link.

The report for 2001 mentions the law says it has not been passed but the 2002 report reveals what is called "Administrative Detention"
I hope the link works, if not let me know. Also of interest, I can never seem to pull up the 2000 report.
http://web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf/ISRAEL+OCCUPIED+TERRITORIES?OpenDocument

[DarkPhenyx]

17. Thank you!

I'll have to review this when I get home.

[leanings]

18. The criteria

includes an identifiable command structure, openly bearing arms, wearing uniforms or other distinctive markings, carrying an ID card, and obeying the laws and customs of war. Detainees identified as Al Qaeda don't make it, and are not subject to Geneva Convention protections. Taliban may or may not be, depending on individual circumstance.

Where the US is wrong is that the Convention requires an international panel to determine whether or not the prisoners are POW's or unlawful combatants. According to the GC, most of the Gitmo detainees probably aren't lawful combatants. But there's never been a legal determination.

[DarkPhenyx]

19. You don't consider the Taliban...

...to be an identifiable command structure?