
	Where results make sense

Topic: Unlawful combatant

Related Topics

Lawful combatant

Laws of war

Third Geneva Convention

Law of land warfare

UN Convention Against Torture

Fourth Geneva Convention

Belligerent

Mercenary

Alien and Sedition Acts

Ghillie suit

Special Forces

Parts per billion

Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan

Municipality

French railway history

In the News (Tue 10 Nov 09)

Northern Trust

Marvin Harrison

Peter Chernin

Gary Locke

Match Play

Penelope Cruz

Mickey Rourke

AR Rahman

Danny Boyle

Hugh Jackman

	Fed-Soc.org - Unlawful Belligerency and its Implications Under International Law (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		Unlawful belligerents were considered to be a threat to every civilized state and individuals falling into this category, including spies, saboteurs, and "guerillas" could be summarily punished, up to and including the death penalty.
		Significantly, unlawful combatants, be they al Qaeda, Hamas or any other organization, always have an opportunity to regularize their status, at least for laws of war-related purposes, by beginning to adhere to the relevant jus in bello norms.
		This blurring of distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants would be tantamount to concluding that there is no difference in the legal rules, applicable to police officers, who discharge their firearms or use other types of force, and criminals, who engage in similar activities.
	www.fed-soc.org /Publications/Terrorism/unlawfulcombatants.htm (8566 words)

	“Unlawful Combatants” in the United States - Human Rights Magazine, Winter 2003
		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.
		Thus, unlawful combatants could face unmediated and unsupervised interrogation and be denied access to counsel, family, or virtually any nonmilitary personnel (with only the possible exception of the International Committee of the Red Cross).
	www.abanet.org /irr/hr/winter03/unlawful.html (1996 words)

	CBC News Indepth: Iraq
		Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants.
		Even if they are found to be "unlawful combatants" they still have rights under international humanitarian law – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured.
		Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention.
	www.cbc.ca /news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html (1972 words)

	Balkinization (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		By definition, an enemy combatant of any type cannot be a civilian and the detention must be during wartime for the person to be a combatant.
		Thus, under process of elimination under this legislation, an unlawful combatant is a combatant, not a civilian, who does not fall under the definition of lawful combatant.
		A combatant is the polar opposite of a noncombatant civilian bystander.
	balkin.blogspot.com /2006/09/imagine-giving-donald-rumsfeld.html (4437 words)

	Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The term unlawful combatant (also unlawful enemy combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent) is a term used by the Bush administration to label certain persons as outside of the protection of the Geneva Conventions; those that have such protections are known as lawful combatants.
		An unlawful combatant is accorded neither the rights a soldier would normally have under the laws of war, nor the civil rights a common criminal would normally have.
		The implication is that the status of unlawful combatant does not exist, as a person is either a combatant, or a civilian.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Unlawful_combatant (7494 words)

	FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: "The Nation's Second-Highest Court" Upholds Military Commissions
		As I explained in an earlier column, the distinction between lawful combatants who abide by the rules of war and unlawful combatants who do not, turns on whether the combatants themselves distinguish between enemy combatants and civilians.
		Affording greater rights to lawful than to unlawful combatants is a legitimate means of inducing compliance with the laws of war; departure from the laws of war can be penalized by unlawful combatant status.
		Nonetheless, where the right at issue is the right to a fair and impartial tribunal to determine the charged combatant's status itself, the right cannot be withheld without assuming the very facts the tribunal is charged with determining.
	writ.news.findlaw.com /scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/dorf/20050720.html (1952 words)

	Al-Qaeda & Taliban unlawful combatant detainees, unlawful belligerency, and the international laws of armed ... (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		There is no legal or moral equivalence in LOAC between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants, or between lawful belligerency and unlawful belligerency (also referred to as lawful combatantry and unlawful combatantry).
		In the case of captured al-Qaeda and Taliban combatants, their combined unlawful actions in armed conflict, and al-Qaeda's failure to adequately align with a state show POW status is not warranted.
		It summarizes the four conditions of lawful belligerency under customary and treaty-based LOAC, and instructs why combatants who do not meet these conditions do not possess combatant's privilege; that is, the immunity provided to members of the armed forces for acts in armed conflict that would otherwise be crimes in time of peace.
	www.findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_m6007/is_55/ai_n8585592 (841 words)

	Supreme Court 'unlawful combatant' cases - Topic Powered by eve community
		The whole idea of establishing categories of lawful and unlawful combatants was to restrict the conduct of warfare to lawful combatants and legitimate targets and provide mutually agreed upon standards to avoid targeting 'non-military' individuals and structures without sufficient cause.
		The Geneva Convention and legal precedents are less clear, although in practice that seems to be due to the fact that most unlawful combatants were unlikely to be taken alive, or executed because they were unlawful combatants taken on the battlefield.
		Terrorism is the ultimate definition of criminal behaviour and to define the soldiers of the antagonist state in question “unlawful combatants” is gratiousnes in exelsius, not adhering to multilateral agreed law.
	williamgibsonboard.com /eve/forums/a/tpc/f/880007756/m/686101732/p/2 (3480 words)

	Rewriting The Army Field Manual \| Redstate
		Unlawful combatants have no rights we need respect, but we do nonetheless have moral responsibilities towards them by the nature of our own status as moral beings.
		We certainly shouldn't grant unlawful* combatants or anyone else the protection of bilateral agreements they refuse to abide by, lest we undermine the incentive for others to abide by such agreements (treaties are contracts, after all, and we weaken rather than strengthen their force by giving away their benefits to those who don't reciprocate).
		For this reason, those enemy combatants who disguise themselves (ie spies/terrorists) are punished by death- soley for the decption, regardless of the actions taken by the enemy combatant.
	www.redstate.com /story/2006/6/6/9134/09825 (5347 words)

	First Word » The Bill of Rights, RIP
		The majority opinion of the 5-3 ruling in the Hamdan case (Chief Justice Roberts recused himself since he was on the Appeals Court that had previously ruled in favor of the tribunals) was written by Justice Stevens.
		And though logically unassailable (one can no more deny that a man who is not a lawful enemy combatant is an unlawful enemy combatant than he can deny that a man who is not married is unmarried), it is unfortunately a tautology.
		Here an ‛illegal enemy combatant’ is defined as one who has been deemed such by “a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.” In other words, a military court decides who is an illegal enemy combatant.
	butler-harris.org /archives/74 (3695 words)

	Unlawful combatant - what's that?
		The United Nations, Amnesty International, and the Red Cross all have disputed the US definition of the prisoners as 'unlawful combatants.' These groups say they are prisoners of war, and are thus entitled to the rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, to which the US is a signatory.
		An 'unlawful combatant' was defined in a 1942 US Supreme Court Case, known as 'The Quinn Case.' The Quinn Case involved eight German saboteurs captured on American soil with plans to attack military targets.
		According to the international law of war, 'lawful combatants' are soldiers in uniform fighting for their respective militaries, while 'unlawful combatants' are people not in uniform who sneak into the opposing territory to wreak havoc.
	www.republic-news.org /archive/30-repub/repub_30_3.html (1120 words)

	Talk:Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		In the past, such illegal combatants were normally executed after such a tribunal; incarceration of illegal combatants (as opposed to execution) was rare, usually reserved for high-value prisoners.
		Well, one of the other criteria for whether a combatant is a lawful combatant is whether they were answerable to officers who were responsible for their actions, and, in turn answered up a chain of command.
		Therefore, if they are combatant, by the simple fact of not being a member of a contracting party's armed forces, citizen of a contracting party defending their own nation, and not being a civilian, they do not qualify for POW status.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Talk:Unlawful_combatant (2592 words)

	Media Matters - Baier uncritically reported Bush administration's baseless contention that critics of detainee bill are ...
		So under the measure, when the government arrests any noncitizen based on the unreviewed assertion that he or she is an "unlawful enemy combatant," that person's ability to challenge the detention effectively depends entirely on the government's willingness to provide a hearing, which the government can postpone indefinitely.
		A U.S. military panel, called a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, determines if the detainee is a, quote, "unlawful enemy combatant." The detainee has the right to challenge that status determination in federal court, specifically the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, considered the second most powerful court in the country.
		An additional problem is what is to stop the government(the prosecution) from intentionally or inadvertently classifying a U.S. citizen as an alien 'unlawful enemy combatant' That citizen would have no right to petition the federal courts for relief challenging their classification(noncitizen)but would have to wait a CSRT status determination which the government can postpone indefinitely.
	mediamatters.org /items/200610200005 (2798 words)

	CNN.com - Suspect may face fewer legal rights than in criminal court system - June 11, 2002
		The U.S. Supreme Court defined an "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" in a World War II case, Ex Parte Quirin.
		In the case, the United States was able to execute the saboteurs because they were not deemed to be prisoners of war but unlawful combatants.
		These groups say the detainees are prisoners of war and are entitled to rights guaranteed under the Geneva Convention, to which the United States is a signatory.
	archives.cnn.com /2002/LAW/06/10/enemy.combatant (463 words)

	Handling Illegal Enemy Combatants (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		Those combatants ascribed the status of "unlawful combatant" (sometimes called unprivileged combatant, irregular soldier, or "franc-tireur" - French for "free shooter" or armed resistance fighter) are usually cases of doubt as to whether such persons should be granted POW (Prisoner of War) status or criminal status.
		Technically, an "unlawful combatant" is someone who commits belligerent acts but does not qualify as a lawful combatant (under Geneva Convention III Articles 4 and 5).
		Further, sorting out the variety of unlawful combatants is a difficult task because some may have valuable information to give under interrogation and others may be relatively useless in this regard.
	faculty.ncwc.edu /toconnor/430/430lect16.htm (10160 words)

	FindLaw's Writ - Dorf: What Is An "Unlawful Combatant," And Why It Matters
		In contrast, an unlawful combatant is a fighter who does not play by the accepted rules of war, and therefore does not qualify for the Convention's protections.
		The Administration's response to this problem is to deem the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters unlawful combatants who are not entitled to anything better than indefinite detention.
		As we have seen, the contention that these fighters are unlawful combatants is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention.
	writ.news.findlaw.com /dorf/20020123.html (1804 words)

	FrontPage magazine.com :: Civil Liberties Hysteria by Henry Mark Holzer
		The government has made two previous “enemy combatant” designations in addition to Ali, both of American citizens. Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber was arrested in Chicago. Yaser Hamdi, sometimes referred to as Taliban John II, was captured in Afghanistan.
		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. (Emphasis added).
		The Court’s use of the characterization “enemy combatant” in discussing “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants is significant. That characterization established that the major category is “enemy combatant” (i.e.
	www.frontpagemag.com /Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8694 (773 words)

	Is That Legal?: Pulling the Plug on Padilla
		The nub of Padilla's habeas challenge is to his detention as an unlawful combatant.
		He's not being held as an unlawful combatant anymore; he's being held as a civilian defendant in the federal criminal process.
		If the government is ever serious enough about a person to name him an unlawful combatant and to stick to it (rather than folding, as they've done with Padilla and, effectively, Hamdi), there will be plenty of time for review.
	www.isthatlegal.org /archives/2006/01/pulling_the_plu.html (1627 words)

	Highbeam Encyclopedia - Search Results for Unlawful combatant (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		International law includes rules on the treatment of prisoners of war but extends protection only to combatants.
		Analysis: First group of prisoners arrives at Guantanamo Bay; distinctions between unlawful combatants and prisoners of war
		Rumsfeld defends handling of Afghan 'unlawful combatants' in Cuban detention
	www.encyclopedia.com /SearchResults.aspx?Q=Unlawful+combatant (278 words)

	Geneva Conventions - Topic Powered by eve community
		Once a person becomes a combatant IN ANY CAPACITY they can be held until the end of the conflict.
		In 1977 an "Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions" was proposed, further protecting the rights of illegal combatants and this additional protocol have AFAIK never been signed by the US.
		The point is sortof moot though as the things that have been going on already exceeds the bounds of the 1949 convention.
	forums.military.com /eve/forums/a/tpc/f/409192893/m/8240061190001?... (2040 words)

	AFF's Brainwash :: Chris Roach :: Padilla and Unlawful Combatants (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		Such combatants can be held for the duration of hostilities as a nonpunitive military measure antecedent to the President's "commander in chief" powers.
		But just as a lawful combatant can be held for the duration of hostilities and tried afterwards for any war crimes, so too can Al Qaeda detainees be held for the duration of hostilities and later tried for war crimes.
		The peculiarity of [J.D. Henderson's] argument is that it would grant, in effect, a speedy trial right to unlawful combatants--as the liklihood of their side quitting is less and also less certain--while it would allow ordinary POWs to be kept for the duration of hostilities and tried thereafter.
	www.affbrainwash.com /chrisroach/archives/020557.php (9821 words)

	POWs and Unlawful Combatants (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		What is the difference between being a POW and an “unlawful combatant?” Here is a brief summary of the issues.
		The 1942 Supreme Court ruling that military tribunals can be used was based on a case where the individuals were clearly unlawful combatants (i.e., were not POWs).
		One could argue, however, that even if the prisoners are considered to be POWS, as long as the US government is engaged in a conflict against world-wide terrorism, Article 118 does not come into play.
	es.rice.edu /projects/Poli378/s02.pow.html (631 words)

	Unlawful Enemy Combatant in the White House (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-11-03)
		He would of course never be tried as such, given that it's his own bogus law, but one would be hard pressed to find a stronger homegrown example of "unlawful enemy combatant", as defined by the Military Commissions Act of 2006, than George W. Bush himself.
		They wanted it rammed through Congress with virtually no debate whatsoever, before a midterm election in which they face the very real threat of losing majority control of both the House and Senate, just to keep their own asses off death row.
		They probably also figured they could intimidate us with a purposely vague definition of "unlawful enemy combatant" so we would keep our mouths shut, for fear that we might be sent away for speaking out.
	opednews.com /articles/opedne_john_per_061004_unlawful_enemy_comba.htm (1317 words)

	Jose Padilla and the Military Commissions Act
		You’ll recall that the government’s position was that Padilla, as an “unlawful enemy combatant” suspected of having committed terrorist acts, was not entitled to the procedural rights guaranteed to criminal defendants in the Bill of Rights, including the rights to counsel, due process, and trial by jury.
		Even if Padilla is acquitted in the federal-court action, there is little doubt that the Pentagon will immediately take him back into military custody as an “unlawful enemy combatant” in the war on terrorism, requiring Padilla to once again embark, in a habeas corpus proceeding, on a long legal journey to the Supreme Court.
		All the government would have to do at the habeas corpus hearings is provide some evidence that the Americans it is holding in military custody have engaged in some act of terrorism and then cite the Second Circuit opinion and the Military Commissions Act in support of its power to continue detaining them.
	www.fff.org /comment/com0610f.asp (1174 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)