- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
"The only justification the U.S. government has provided for keeping the other three is the moniker "enemy combatant," a term that has been made up solely for the purpose of denying them prisoner-of-war protection and civilian protection under the Geneva Conventions"
The enemy or unlawful combatant term describes anyone who doesn't meet the requirements of the Geneva Convention as a "combatant". These are the requirements
From Wikipedia (love it) . . .
Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
-- that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-- that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
-- that of carrying arms openly;
-- that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
I think that by and large most of the Iraqi insurgents, al-Qaeda, and Taliban do not meet the definition of a combatant because they don't have a fixed distinctive sign, but they don't follow the other 3 much the time either (note the "ALL of the following conditions"). There's a fancy latin legal phrase meaning "the inclusion of one is the exclusion of the other" ("Expresio unius exclusio alterius est" I believe) that since they don't meet the standards for a combatant they have NO protection under the Geneva Conventions (from the US, the UK is different because of the additional protocols). That means they are not POWs and could be shot out of hand, condemned to hard labor, etc.
I disagree with the concept of Guantanamo prison, but I think the legalities have been followed.
