SwiftVets.com

[GeorgiaBoy]

Round two from the NYT

Found on Drudge...

New legal opinion by Bush admin concluded for first time some non-Iraqi prisoners captured by US forces in Iraq not entitled to protections of Geneva Conventions, NYT set to lead in Tuesday editions, newsroom sources tell DRUDGE... Developing...

Administration will seek additional billions early next year to fund Iraq, Afghan wars, WASH POST reporting in Page One lead story on Tuesday, insiders tell DRUDGE... Developing...

[twicearound]

Yes the deluge has begun, throwing stuff at the wall to see if anything will stick as Hayworth said on Scarbrough. WPO has one too.

Spin, Spin, Spin, NOT!
_________________
twicearound

[Endaar]

[reconflyer]

From free-definition.com:
http://www.free-definition.com/Illegal-combatant.html
Unlawful combatant
Definition, Meaning, Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlawful combatant (also illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant) describes a person who engages in combat without meeting the requirements for a lawful belligerent according to the laws of war as specified in the Third Geneva Convention. Countries that identify such unlawful combatants may not necessarily accord them the rights of prisoners of war described in the Third Geneva Convention, though they retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention such as 'respect for their persons, their honour [including rape, or any form of indecent assault], their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, ... [to] be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity'.

The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. It was introduced into US domestic law in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=1). In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, 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 prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."
Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof.

Any private, seaman or airman knows from the LOAC training that they've received that unlawful combatants are not protected.

That is why we wear uniforms and have a chain of command.

We are talking unlawful comatants, terrorists, killers, criminals and murderers.

DAMMIT IT AINT THAT TOUGH TO COMPREHEND NYT!
_________________
Active duty AF 1986-Present
Enlisted Aircrew 1990-Present

[rparrott21]

Terrorist and murderers have no rights..

[shadowy]

Do they want to get outraged because we don't have enough troops on Iraq's borders to blow incoming terrorists to hell, or because after we catch them alive we give them lower status than legitimate military POW's?

Wah, we aren't killing them. Wah, we're being mean to them.
HUH?
Must get aspirin now.

[neverforget]

What uniforms are the terrorists wearing? Or are we supposed to consider them deprived and buy them some?
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971

[GIaunt]

Since no of the terrorists are in uniform these days... couldn't we label them all "illegal combatants" and treat them as such?

Isn't this exactly what is happening in Gitmo?

[reconflyer]

Any way that they (the NYT) try to spin terrorists as lawful combatants will only do harm to our country and to our cause, and shine light on their glaring subjectivity.

They are not lawful combatants, no. They are more like John Kerry's type of combatant, cutting off heads, shooting the livestock, blowing up kids.

Hey, maybe that's why Kerry doesn't have the heart to go after these murderers...

They are kindred spirits...

Holy Sh!t, I think I'm on to something

reconflyer
_________________
Active duty AF 1986-Present
Enlisted Aircrew 1990-Present

[reconflyer]

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...
...

Article 5

...

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.
These terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias and the like (lawful combatants), and then those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture.

The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on.

A non-combatant civilian gains rights through Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIV).

I'm not a lawyer, but this seems fairly straight-cut to me
_________________
Active duty AF 1986-Present
Enlisted Aircrew 1990-Present