Even assuming that they all are unlawful combatants (what does it even mean? Fighting for the wrong side? Is bombing civilians lawful? If not, all American soldiers are unlawful combatants), I can only ask: "so?".
They are not American citizens -well, that should not change their right to habeas corpus. Whatever you charge them with. Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi
They are not American citizens -well, that should not change their right to habeas corpus. Whatever you charge them with.
Speaking practically, that is. The Fates are kind.
members of the CIA
One can make an even stronger case that the American militias that fought King George were "illegal combatants."
The alleged distinction between legal and illegal combatants is toxic.
The definition of illegal combatant is much more difficult to nail down, and there's a good argument that such a concept isn't valid. Basically, if you're not a soldier, then you're a civilian, and are entitled to all of the normal rights that any other civilian has. If you shoot somebody, you get tried for murder in the civilian legal system of the country you're in.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
Not to put too fine a point upon it, but there seems to be something of a similarity here...
-- But if a fighting force constitutes an army in every respect but the wearing of uniforms (but what is a uniform? -- red coats? -- camouflage suits? -- gang colors? -- arm bands?), does this make them not an army? -- Wouldn't prosecuting them as civilians overwhelm a system intended for a different purpose? -- Aren't there some precedents to consider (whatever they may be)? -- As a long-term question, shouldn't all this be reassessed with due consideration of the inevitable future context, that of fine-grained, universal surveillance?
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps, no.
The point is that there are only two categories of people, civilians and combatants. And there are legal systems to handle each case. Bush's trying to invent a new category and then a new legal system to handle it is the problem.
Bush's trying to invent a new category and then a new legal system to handle it is the problem.
I don't think Bush is trying to invent a new category. I think Bush is saying 'I can do wtf I like and you can't stop me heh heh heh.' He's then leaning on the government machine to cover his ass with rationalisations - which he doesn't personally care about, and probably doesn't even understand.
If non-uniformed combatants are used regularly by conventional armies, I believe that it is considered a war crime - i.o.w. they are combatants and when captured become PoWs, but can post-bellum be put on trial for war crimes.
If the non-uniformed combatants are irregulars - that is, militias, resistance groups, saboteurs and other armed groups that take up arms against an invading enemy when there is no time or opportunity to organise a conventional defence. They are combatants and thus become PoWs when captured, are subject to the laws of war, etc., etc.
To my admittedly non-lawyerly ears, the second part sounds like it fits the combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq pretty much perfectly.
The legal status of spies in wartime is somewhat unclear to me, as is the status of foreign nationals from third countries who travel to a belligerent country to throw bombs on their own private initiative.
