Jump to content

Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Page 1

Those who support the use of this term seem to be in a minority even in the USA and Israel, and it has *no* support anywhere else in the world, it seems, so it is hard to make this article much more neutral than it is.

Can someone from the Texas Nazi Impire, or Jerusalem Post, add some kind of defense of this insanity? We wouldn't want to be accused of having a bias here. ;=(

Are you sure support for the existence of illegal combatants is that rare? Not in reference to Taliban-related specifics, but against the actual existence of illegal combatants? The page was originally made by Lir, who can hardly be said to have had a pro-US and Israel bias... Tuf-Kat

The appended sentence from the article doesn't seem to make sense if you combine it with the fact that they are called illegal combatants. Ie: how can you both be an illegal combattant, and not a combatant at all. And there has to be a differentiation between the logical use of the word combatant and the legal use. (Anyone who engages in combat is a combatant in the logical sense, but not necessarily in the legal sense).

"Such a person is not considered a combatant and therefore is not accorded the rights of a prisoner of war (POW)."

WDYT? --snoyes 04:20 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence in question. I am the one who has made the recent edits. I just forgot to log in. I think the article is clearer now. Chadloder 04:27 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks Chadloder. --snoyes 04:31 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference to the Israeli legislation introduced in 2000? Chadloder 04:28 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the following recent addition to the article. It is not factual, it is POV, and really does nothing to inform or educate the reader. Chadloder 01:36 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

In the 1942 context, the concept of an unlawful combatant is not controversial: the US was at war with Germany and the saboteurs did obviously not wear uniforms and openly bear arms as required for protection as prisoners of war. However, after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. applied illegal combatant status to its own citizens and to citizens of countries the US is not at war with. This effectively implies the US has given itself the right to call anyone in the world an illegal combatant and detain that person indefinately without trial. Those labelled illegal combatants are not told specifically what they are suspected of, nor given access to counsel. In addition, they are frequently held in isolation units and subjected to food and sleep deprivation.

I have also reverted Gretchen's edit which modifies a direct quote from the ex parte Quirin ruling. Take a look at the diff in the history and tell me if you agree that the edit of the direct quote was not valid.

I removed the recentj edition because it has the form of an argumentative editorial. While some of this material may have a place in the article, it must be presented as the opinion of a named competent party and not just presented as factual background. In fact it is highly contentious and in some aspects exceedingly doubtful. (I suspect copyvio too.) --Zero 12:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

POW, protected persons and geneva conventions

In excising David Newton's entire edit, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. The concept, if not the exact term "illegal combatant" goes way back in military law and practice and treaty obligations. Without this information, the article reads that the "illegal combatant" concept began unilaterally with the US Supreme Court in WWII--it did not. Much of the remaining article is a POV on behalf of those opposed to the concept.

I added citations and information, and cut most of David's arguably POV material.

I also removed this paragraph:

Under this Convention and other treaties, the established approach is that a person is either a civilian tried under civilian law or a combatant treated as a prisoner of war. Furthermore, it is generally accepted among some of these signatories and institutions that the detaining power does not have final authority over the PoW designation of detainees.

"Established approach" Citation? "generally accepted" By whom? Cecropia 00:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the answers to this question are pretty clear. Firstly, the phrase "established approach" does not require or lend itself to citation - it means that the approach has been used for a long time and has therefore become the de facto norm. In regards to generally accepted, the author is clearly refering to the signatories and institutions. Kevin Baas 17:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
Maybe that's what the author intended, but it happens to be wrong. Read the talk at GW Bush and Illegal combatant. -- Cecropia 18:01, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't see this addressed anywhere in the GW Bush talk page. There is mention of signatures and discussion of legal terms, but I don't see where authority over the PoW designation of detainees is discussed. Kevin Baas


Protest

I have removed the following section titled Protest until someone can prove that this actually took place. I cannot find any corroboration of it via Google. Chadloder 20:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Protest

Some citizens have declared solidarity with prisoners accorded this status, especially by declaring their profession to be 'illegal combatant' on official forms, especially if arrested during anti-war protest or anti-globalization movement activities. This practice is most common among anarchists, situationists, and Marxists.

my first impression is that the "most common among..." should read "political activists" (a.k.a. citizens exercising their duty as citizens), and that this is a very hard statement to qualify - it sounds judgemental to me. Other than that, the solidarity part seems quite plausible. I know there are many highly respected lawyers who have fought for the human rights of those deemed as unlawful combatants. Where is this information from? Kevin Baas 17:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Sentence wording

Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections.
I couldn't decipher the meaning of this sentence within its context. Does this sentence make sense to anybody? Mdchachi|Talk 18:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

some other points to consider

As the US Supreme Court ruling was in 1942 which was before the final draft of the 1949 GCIII, which is treaty ratified by the USA. Until the Supreme Court rules on a new case, with this ratified treaty taken into account (specifically Art.4.and Art 5) there will be contradictions in US law.

BTW GCIII Art 5 Second Paragraph states:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent
act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the
categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection
of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.

This is not somthing that the US seems to be doing at the current time although they are treay bound to do so.

But the US would contend that there is "no doubt" as to the status of the detainees in question. Are you implying that some international tribunal is supposed to decide this? Where is this in either Geneva or Hague? -- Cecropia | Talk 11:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
There is doubt. The prisoners (and others) would define themselves as POWs. The the USA can hold a "competent tribunal" to decide this issue. But they have not done so. Philip Tue May 11

The long held maritime practise of flying false colours is also accepted as a legitimate land war practise: See the Nuremberg TRIAL OF OTTO SKORZENY AND OTHERS http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/skorzeny.htm

Wing Commander Tommy Yeo-Thomas worked for SOE code name (White Rabbit) and was a major player in building up the Maquis. He was captured, tortured, and sent to Buchenwald from which he escaped. He testified at Nuremberg for prosecution against the guards at Buchenwald. He testified for the defence of Otto Skorzeny. http://www.anybook4less.com/detail/0753150492.html

His description of what the SOE did to kill Germans and destroy German bases left the court in a position that if they found Otto Skorzeny guilty then they would have to try many highly decorated Allies. The best source for this is "Commando Extraordinary Otto Skorzeny" by Charles Foley. http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/0261.html

Philip Mon May 10 23:22 NZST 2004

Citing a case precedent is interesting, but Hague requires that combatants, while in combat, be identifiable by a distinctive uniform or badge, if you are implying otherwise. There is no indication that the detainess in the Afghanistan case were attempting a legitinate ruse of war. -- Cecropia | Talk 11:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This url points to an article which argues that Taliban combatants may indeed have been wearing what in Afghanistan is accepted as uniforms by the local combatants on both sides.

Even if they were not wearing uniforms, there are other sections of GCIII under which they might fall and so be POWs (eg:.GCII.4.4. "Persons who accompany the armed forces", 4.5, 4.6 "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces", 4.B.1, and for some of them 4.C/33(chaplains)). Until there is a legally constituted tribunal to decide the issue the US Administration is in breach of GCIII which is a treaty ratified by the USA.

There is also provisions about how people should be treated regardless of whether they are POWs or not. GCIII 3.1 "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,[snip change of status in armed forces], shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,[snip]". GCIII 3.1.c[ to this end] "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". 3.1.d "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." I think current US Administration treatment of "unlawful combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, is in breach of this, because the USA defines its self as civilized but it is denying "GCIII" "persons" judicial guarantees which all but two of their own citizens enjoy.

When Napoleon came back from Elbe the Allies declared war on him, not France. So there is a precedence for states declaring war on individuals. The fact that the USA Executive says that they are at war with the al-Qaeda means that they can argue that the 2 US detainees held on the main land are "unlawful combatants", but in doing so they bind themselves with the treaties of the Geneva Conventions. This would not be true if they were to call it a police action. IMHO the sooner the US Supreme court rules on these cases (and considers how GCIII 1949 treaty obligations effect the rulings of 1942 Quinn Case) the better.

Philip Tue May 11 NZST

If you wish to "lawyer" the issue, you can always find excuses to support an point of view. You mention "persons who take no active part in the hostilities"--are you asserting that the detainees did not?; "persons who accompany the armed forces"--are you asserting these were such as press, chaplains and medical adjutants?; and I especially note you mention "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces"--first this is a limited right, second it is said that a large number of the detainees are Saudis and many other are non-Afghan nationals--I doubt that they spontaneously took up arms. The paragraph you cite specifies (my emphasis): "The inhabitants of a territory which has not occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize [...] shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
BTW the GCIII 3.1 "persons who take no active part in the hostilities" does not mean that they did not take part it means that they are not doing so now.Philip
That has nothing to do with the qualifications of whether they were lawful or not when combatants. That is Hague.

I do not wish to argue the right and wrongs of whether a Mad Muller should or should not be treated as chaplain, or if a detainees had a gun etc. I just think that the US administration should follow the GCIII. which means that they should hold a "competent tribunal" to decide if these people are POWs and until such time they should hold them as if they are POWs. If they are found to be 'unlawful combatants' and they have committed a crime then they should be handed over to a competent court for trial, if they have not committed a crime then they should either be defined as POWs or be released. If the US Administration does not do this then they are in breach of their treaty obligation.

I would appreciate it if some of these points were added to the main page. Particularly one that points out that US domestic law was decided in 1942 which was before the Nuremberg trials and GCIII in 1949. Without that knowledge the concept of 'unlawful combatants' seems odd -- Philip Tue May 11 NZST (2)

I have no objection to a modification of the Supreme Court issue--in fact I feel it should be deleted, because it does not need to be relied on in the current case. As to the "competent tribunal" we do not know that such tribunals have not been held. Since only a fractions of the tens of thousands captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan have been detained as unlawful combatants, there evidently was some process to determine who was who. Such tribunals need not be public, and the fact that the ICRC has complained about conditions and open-ended detentions but has not challenged their detention suggests they are not challenging their designation.
Let me suggest this to you. Since this article is about illegals combatants and not about specific examples, perhaps you can link to and begin an article entitled something like "Illegal combatant status of Guantanamo detainees" where arguments on their status can be placed. I would happily remove that discussion from here, because it muddies an otherwise straightforward article. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I don't really know what you guys are talking about here, but let me set the record straight for cecropia: The right to self-soveirgnity and political self-determination is inalienable, and takes precedence over all other law. - it supercedes legality, and any measure taken in regard to it should not be viewed in the guise of law, but rather should be considered from a sociological standpoint. - Kevin Baas 18:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
What did you just say, in terms of what it means to this article? You've just implied that noone can ever be put in jail, for any reason. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
Wow, is this the only method of argument you know how to use: taking things to the extreme in order to reduce them to logical absurdity? You should really expand your repertoiry, because this is not very convincing. Kevin Baas 17:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I asked you a straightforward question: What do you mean by "inalienable self-sovereignty and political self-determination" that "takes precedendce over all other law" and how does it apply to this article? Refusing to answer a question about your own assertion by claiming the other person is over the top is another lame debating technique. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:07, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
You did not ask me that question. You asked me a very vague question that did not give me any information at all about what you were having difficulty understanding. This was followed by rhetoric, so I wasn't even sure if that question was rhetorical or real. I think this is all very clear to anyone reading this. Thus, the criticism in your last comment is null and void. You did not ask me the question that you claim you did.
Furthermore, you misquoted me, and in no arbitrary way: your misquote changes the meaning of what I said. I refered to an inalienable right, you refer to "inalienable self-sovereignty". I am refering to the innate and inherent right of a populace to govern themselves. Insofar as poeple are governed by people, by way of laws, one can not have laws made by the same people that they are for without the right of self-sovereignty. Kevin Baas 21:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~
Taking what you said at face value, please relate that to this article about the legal status of belligerents and protected persons during combat, which is what this article is about. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:12, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
You seem to take law as a prima causa and a priori object-in-itself; you propund "pure law" as one would propound "pure mathematics" - yet everything pertinent to law is everything that is not the law itself. The "meaning" of a law is not codified purely and completely by it's legalistic description, but is manifested in its social, epistemic, and political setting. What I gave you above was an example of how non-legalistic matters can take primacy over legalistic matters when defining law, and why that relationship holds, insofar as the human body and the power struggle for soveirgnty is the constituent substance which lies underneath the surface of law. It is in this light that the term "unlawfull combatant" has a meaning which deserves discussion in this article. I mentioned the example to "set the record straight" because it seems that you fail to take this relationship into account and give these considerations commensurate authority. Kevin Baas 18:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Has Hague 1899 been superceded by the Geneva conventions?

In the area of who should be considered a POW, hasn't The Second Hague Convention of 1899 has been superceded by GCIII and GCIV? If so shouldn't the section in which Hague is used be replaced with reference to the Geneva Conventions? Philip Baird Shearer 03:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is that conventions are treaties that remain perpetually in force unless abrogated by the signatories. Codicils or amendments are sometimes adopted which are binding only on the signatories of thsoe amendments. Which provisions of Geneva III and IV do you have in mind? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As an exmple GCIII Art 4.. Philip Baird Shearer 05:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, that article essentially reiterates Hague II in supplying definition for the present article--I don't see any point of conflict. The major thing not reiterated is the discussion of the basic qualification of a belligerent, from which the entire concept of belligerent (entitled to POW status) and protected person is derived. I highly recommend you read US Army Field Manual 27-10 (Law of Land Warfare), which is referred to by ICRC author. It is kept up-to-date and is available here. It was my first point of reference when I taught the subject. The second point of reference was, of course, the treaties themselves. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)
The treaties themselves say that a "protected person", which is anyone detained by a foreign body, regardless of whether they are "legal" or "illegal" combatants are what have you, retains all human rights and must be treated decently. Geneva does not reiterate Hague. Geneva states what Geneva states. Kevin Baas 16:28, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
If we're going to get anywhere with this article, we have to have accurate base definitions. A "protected person" has nothing whatever to do with being detained by a foreign body. It is a person (usually called a "civilian") who is not a member of a valid belligerent force. Every person who is not a member of a valid belligerent force. They are protected (inter alia) from detention as combatants, and from various arbitrary rules of an occupying power. When a protected person engages in combat anyway, except in specific circumstances, they become unlawful combatants. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Kevin Baas 16:46, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)" Kevin Baas 16:53, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
We're going around too much with this. Yes, a protected person is any civilian in the hands of an Occupying Power, but that doesn't shield them from the deficits of becoming an unlawful combatant. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It grants them certain inalienable rights and protections. Kevin Baas 19:10, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

"Illegal" and "unlawful" combatant

Although the term unlawfull may be mapped, legally, to the term "illegal combatant", I think a large number of people, including contributors to this page, and I know for certain myself, ares sensitive to the different connotations of the word, but relectant to discuss this in the article. Perhaps we should bring this issue to the surface here? I understand the connotations to differ in this respect: "illegal" is an explicit and objective adjective, saying the act that has been done is not legal; that it is contrary to one or more laws. "unlawful", on the other hand, refers to an individual rather than an act or phenomena, and is a judgement of that person, rather than a logical statement concerning law. An unlawfull person is a person who is not law-faring, as an unpious person is a person who is not god-faring. I believe that these differences are quite significant. the word "unlawfull" is a judgement of a person that cannot be substantiated, and dehumanizes the person that it refers to, yet makes no specific claims of illegal acts. Illegal does not charaterize a peson or dehumanize them in any way, rather it makes an objective statement about an act or phenomena. What do dictionaries say about the two terms? Kevin Baas 01:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Another term used is "unprivileged combatant" (i.e., not having the privileges of the Laws of War, including freedom from civilian law prosecution and POW status). This is probably both the most accurate and NPOV. HOWEVER, I think hardly anyone who hasn't studied this stuff has heard the term, even it has been around for a century or so. I am personally agnostic as to which term should be used, since none of them appear in Geneva or Hague, but maybe you want to run a poll? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Poll: Illegal, Unlawful, or Unprivileged?

Please see the discussion immediately above. Since there is no "official" term, we could use any. "Illegal" and "Unlawful" are most common, known to most of the general public; "Unprivileged" probably most accurate and neutral, but least known. All the others could, of course, be redirects.

All terms describe an individual who engages in combat but is not eligible in treaty law or tradition for the designation of a belligerent, and therefore the special legal protections of that designation. Terms are in alphabetical order. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Illegal combatant


Unlawful combatant

  1. Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
  2. Kevin Baas 22:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Unprivileged combatant


Comments or second choices

Since the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, The US Government started to use the term "unlawful combatant" because that term has a meaning under US domestic law (ex parte Quirin). Most of the literature about the issue uses the term "unlawful combatant" (even if it is only to criticise the term). So given that this is an on-line facility, I think the best name to use is "unlawful combatant". It would probably be a good idea though to add a paragraph explaining that this is perceived by some people to be a pejorative term. Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Also there should be a brief mention and description of the other terms. Kevin Baas 22:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not voting (since I declared myself agnostic--whatever everyone else decides is fine by me) but I do want to make a comment. If we don't use "unprivileged" (since noone seems to know it except those who have had to work with it or are repositories of recondite knowledge) I would probably prefer "unlawful" since it has the sense of being "outside law." "Illegal" sort of suggests that a cop comes and arrests you--it's not like that. An unprivileged combatant who manages to survive the war without capture and ends up on the winning side (or sometimes doesn't even end up on the winning side) is not going to prosecuted. I'm just trying to deal with the symantics of the thing. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Given the lack of information, there is some question in some cases as to whether they are combatants of any sort. - `Hephaestos|§

If you're referring to the people at Guantanamo, I really think we should have a separate article covering that situation. The illegal/unlawful/unprivileged combatant has existed at least since the Laws of Warfare began to be codified (i.e., more than a century). That is the pupose of this article. Editors would then do well to use these points to argue who, specifically, is in that undesirable situation. I'm going to add more history and citation to this at some point as soon I get a chance. If noone else begins a separate article on Gitmo by then, I guess I'll try to start it myself. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
Too late, The Cunctator already created Camp X-Ray. Should I move the Guantanamo-specific discussion there ? -- DavidCary 03:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Title Change

Since the only people interested seem to think Unlawful is best and no one seems to like Illegal, I will change the title. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Added material on law

The material recently added needs some vetting, some coherence and some background. I don't have the time to go over right now, but among its problems are the fact that it puts the cart before the horse, defining lawful and unlawful combatants backwards, i.e., if you're a POW you're lawful, if you're not a POW, you're unlawful. Rather it is the other way around, your status (lawful, unlawful, protected person) is specified by Hague (not Geneva), after that determination is made, then the issue of POW status comes up. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Leave Hague to Hague and Geneva to Geneva. Geneva has it's own definition for "protected persons", specifically stated, and it refers to this definition in the Geneva. You can go ahead and state that if you cross-wire hague and geneva, then... But this is not the way the law is, as anyone can see. Kevin Baas 23:34, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)
For one thing, Geneva IV has less ratification than earlier treaties, so some of its provisions (esp. as refers to irregulars not in uniform, not mentioned here) are not in effect. Further, the mentions of qualifications of belligerents is repeated in Geneva, but is sourced from Hague. As to the line about what the U.S. military has or has not done, that was recently inserted. Not only is it outside the scope of NPOV (it's the equivalent of stating that "I've read the law and this man has committed murder". Wikipedia is not a court, and this is also outside the scope of this article. The article is about unlawful combatants, not whether or not a belligerent has violated the Geneva Conventions.
If you wish to wrangle this out, I propose we do what has been done with other articles such as Terrorism. Remove the new section with notation, protect (or not) the article page, and create a page Unlawful combatant/temp where all the arguing and editing can be done. When we've agreed, it goes back in the article. Agreed? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
OK, except I want to do all the arguing on *this* talk page. That's what it's for, right ?
That's fine--except--you're weren't logged in. Was that you, KB? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It was me. -- DavidCary 03:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I assume the paragraph we're talking about is:

'Articles 27 and 32 of GC4 have been violated recently by U.S. armed forces, in following orders from high-ranking U.S. military officers, specifically in abusing prisoners in Iraq. On June 21, 2004, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anon warned U.N. Security Council members not to grant the United States another exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, stating that it was wrong, especially after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.

There's also some major changes recorded at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Unlawful_combatant&diff=4376392&oldid=4375657 -- it seems well-intentioned, but someone more familiar than I with treaty law should check it. -- DavidCary 03:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I would fault that entire long section placed in the article by Jwrolf. S/he said the former wording was "politically motivated" but I'll have to source that out. I believe it is a military or academic interpretion. There are problems when someone selects out sections of law without context. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I am reminded of the book "Animal Farm". Kevin Baas 16:30, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Wrolf speaks.

Yes, it was a pretty big edit.

The main point for me is that GCIII 4 and 5 are controlling now for eligibility for POW status, and therefore by implication lawful combatant status. Use of the more limited Hague II Article 1 definition is equivalent to GCIII 4. A 1 & 2, excluding all of the others, especially GCIII 4. A 6 and GCIII 5. To use the superceded definitions reads like a political act.

My paragraph:

Articles 27 and 32 of GC4 have been violated recently by U.S. armed forces. On the other hand, since the forces opposing the U.S. have routinely and systematically violated these conventions, one can argue that they have no applicability whatsoever, (GC4 Art. 4 etc.) and that the modern battlefield has no rules, and total war now means everywhere, any time, any means, and for any or even no justification.

is part analysis, and part factual. While I feel strongly about the analysis, I also agree with Kevin Baas editing it out, at least until a more balanced analysis can be done.

The point I am trying to get to is that if we do not hold ourselves accountable for our actions, if we do not try to limit the impact of war, then we ourselves are guilty and we ourselves will pay a moral price, if we have any fond hopes of retaining or regaining any status as the good guys.

Analysis must be reasonable, and must adhere to Wikipedia:No original research andWikipedia:Neutral point of view. The fact that you consider it important for high-minded reason, even if your analysis were correct, does not empower one to violate those rules. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Which is why I agree with Kevin Baas editing it out. Of course, the U.S. Government seems to have adopted my POV (courts martial, at least for direct participants, disavowal of internal documents...).Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with Cecropia eliminating the factual portion of that paragraph. I believe it to be factually true and extremely relevant, given that the term "unlawful combatant" basically relates to one case of Nazi saboteurs in the U.S. and the current detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq. A wider discussion or a note with a link to a page with a wider discussion, I could certainly agree with. But it is a fact proven at court martial and in movie theaters across the country, and since there are so few detainees with unlawful combatant status, it is relevant that so many (relatively) have been subject to this treatment.

"Proven in movie theaters across the country"??? I assume you're referring to Farenheit 9/11. You're using a very bad example in Michael Moore. Even impartial reviewers who want Bush out are criticizing the selectiveness and maniuplation of the piece. You're being honest, but you're certainly impeaching any expressions of writing in a neutral fashion. Cecropia | Talk 16:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This is the Talk:Unlawful combatant page. For the humor impaired, adducing Fahrenheit 9/11 as comparable evidence to a U.S. court martial is a joke. You may now laugh.Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


I would also suggest that reading the text of treaties is good, but is not always sufficient. For one thing, you are outright mistaken that the notion of "unlawful combatant" relates to the WWII Nazi saboteurs. The reason for the confusion is that the terms unlawful/illegal/unprivilged combatant are not in the treaties as such. The treaties describe what qualifies a person to be regarded as a belligerent. The concept of unlawfulness covers those who do not qualify, but engage in combat anyway. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
"Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Kevin Baas 16:46, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
I do not understand how the notion of [unlawful combatant] does not relate to the WWII Nazi saboteurs - ex parte Quinn explicitly discusses "examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war", i.e. unlawful combatants.Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

on the Criticism section

I am changing the wording The treatment of unlawful combatants back to The legal status of unlawful combatants

For precisely the reason given by Cecropia when he made his change the legal definition of unlawful combatant is specified in international law...

This section is here because the US has not followed its international treaty obligations (as mentioned in this document) in GCIII Art5. [A]s their status has [not] been determined by a competent tribunal (GCIII Art 5), so they are not being held legally as unlawful combatants. If I am wrong and they have been in front of a competent tribunal, then they should be held under the condition specified in GCIV Art 5 until tried and found guilty of a crime when they should be processed throught the US penal system (no unusual punishment). Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US Specific Section

Before the recent US court cases, the US supreme court had not visited this since before GCIII, it would seem to me that the most recent US supreme court cases rulings should be mentioned in passing along, with the original case and they all should all be moved down to near the end of the article into a US specific section.Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The peculiar legal status of Guantanamo Bay is a factor in the use of Guantanamo as a detention center. Because sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba, the U.S. government has argued (and one circuit court has agreed) that people detained at Guantanamo are legally outside of the U.S. and do not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory (see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995)). However, in 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

This was taken from the GB page it holds the information with the stuff already on the page to update the US S.Court view of an unlawful combatant with consideration of the 1949 GC treaty obligations. Any one want to write a US specific section and place it just before the Criticism section? Philip Baird Shearer 04:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Treatment

"such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."

So, as I understand the interpretaion of "unlawful combatant", and why that abridges the human rights of the prisoner, is that the State has a right to beat the prisoners because not beating them would endanger the State? Kevin Baas | talk 19:57, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Depends if you think that beating someone is consistent with the later clause in the same article (GVIV art 5): In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity

Also there is the point that for many states they have their own domestic laws and international treaty commitments which forbids beating prisoners under any circumstances.

For example the official US methods of interrogation were developed by the British in the early 1970s to "question" people suspected of having information useful to the security of the State, in Northern Ireland. These (very effective) methods known as "sensory deprivation techniques" (and in court as "the five techniques") -- wall-standing, hooding, loud white noise, deprivation of sleep, deprivation of food and drink -- were designed not to meet the UK legal definition of tourture. Ireland took Britain to European Court of Human Rights and in a landmark judgement "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" January 18, 1978, the court ruled

167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ...
168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3 (art. 3).

On March 2, 1972, in response to the "Parker report" the UK government had abandoned the use of the techniques and issued directives to the the UK Security forces which to this day prohibit the use of the five techniques. Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enemy combatant

The phrase repeatedly used by the Bush regime is "enemy combatant." I am confused as to why "unlawful combatant" has replaced it in this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're different. I've fixed the redirect with a stub at Enemy combatant. To me, an "unlawful combatant" would be a civilian who attacks military (rather than military vs. military). So in that case, civilians in Iraq would be "Unlawful Combatants" during the Iraq war and at the time Saddam Hussein was President. They would be Iraqi citizens fighting the invading US/UK army. Vietnamese citizens fighting the US army during the Vietnam war would also be "unlawful combatants" in that sense.

Currently, rebels in Fallujah are murderers, terrorists, seditious conspirators etc. according to whatever Iraqi law they are breaking. In that case it is civilian vs. civilian, as the US has succeeded in "regime change" and are now not fighting Iraq, nor occupying Iraq, but helping the Iraqi government (such as it is).

"Enemy combatants" as defined by the US, are not civilian vs. military, but civilian vs. civilian (incl. government). Of course, civilian vs. civilian (should) fall under the normal rule of law, but the US government seems to have an arbitrary method of determining who is an "Enemy combatant"--as far as I know, it is simply an executive order with no judicial oversight. I think that is the distinction, and I think it's a very important distinction.--Ben 10:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely an enemy combatant is a combatant fighting for the other side in an armed conflict? So in the Falklands War enemy combatants were for the British members of the Argentinian armed forces. Unlawful combatants are not civilians. It includes people who have breached the laws of war: fighting under a flag of truce, or mercenaries, or a member of a militia fighting out of uniform, (unless the parties have signed Protocol I), or a person fighting without a command structure etc. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Unlawful combatant INSTEAD.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Unlawful_combatant/Archive_1&oldid=56800723"