Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

What's an Unlawful Combatant?

We're The Great Old Ones Now

12:46 / 13.05.04

Donald Rumsfeld thinks Iraqi prisonners are 'unlawful combatants'. That's what they said about GITMO prisoners. Does the term have any basis in law, or is it just a way of asserting the right to behave in a more unpleasant way towards them than Geneva requires of captured servicemen?

sleazenation

13:15 / 13.05.04

I'd say Rumsfeld working on the assumption all those who oppose the coalition occupation, previously termed insurgents, are not entitled to be treated as enemy soldiers under the Geneva Convention because the coalition dissolved the Iraqi army. No Iraqi army supposedly equals no enemy soldiers. Thus anyone who opposes the coalition forces is an unlawful combatant...

Jester

13:35 / 13.05.04

Yes, he is very much taking advantage of the gray area created when people fight without the validation of being part of a national army.

sleazenation

13:48 / 13.05.04

Or rather when an occupying power unilaterally disbanded opposing army.

fluid_state

16:46 / 13.05.04

A quick google search for the term "unlawful combatant definition" sent me to the Wiki's information.

(cross-pollinating threads, I found an interesting reference to "US president Bush signed into law measures allowing US forces to use torture on captured 'terrorists'". it can be found here.)

raelianautopsy

00:56 / 14.05.04

Wasn't it created in the Roosevelt Administration durring WWII for German spies and such? Unlawful combatants are not subject to fourth and fifth ammendmant rights or to treaties such as the Geneva Convention. The Bush Administration dug up that legal albotross so they could do whatever they wanted to prisoners.

And it was just as unconstitutional then as it is now. (Roosevelt? Being unconstitional?)

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

07:05 / 14.05.04

Personally, my definition would have something to do with whether the combat itself was lawful... but then, that's just me.

bjacques

15:45 / 22.05.04

I'd have thought the laws on espionage in wartime and in peacetime were pretty clear, and would have covered spies or saboteurs, like those Germans who infitrated NYC by U-boot, but got caught when they thought the Dodgers were from LA or something like that "Unlawful combatants" are ones who shoot back when you start a war without calling it one. With UCs you can ignore the Geneva Convention until somebody starts a torture blog.

Ray Fawkes

20:56 / 22.05.04

Technically, an "unlawful combatant" is supposed to be anybody who engages in international conflict without identifying themselves as part of an army.

However, the Geneva Convention covers them - if they can claim that they don't have the time or resources to equip themselves properly, or if there's any doubt as to whether or not they can.

There is really only a very little bit of "wiggle room" for claiming that anybody involved in a declared war is an "unlawful combatant". Much less than those who involve themselves in undeclared combat.

flufeemunk effluvia

14:46 / 26.05.04

¡JOKE CORNER!

Q: How do you spot an Enemy Combatant?

A: Beats me. The government decides that. Always trust the government!

Add Your Reply