Is there an outline somewhere about the term " unlawful combatant "

From this thread by jack rabbit post #12
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x573797
------
Moreover, the catch-all phrase under international law for those who are not
prisoners of war is not "unlawful combatants," a term which is not found in any
recognized body of international law, but rather "protected persons."
------------
Found this googling around

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dorf/20020123.html

This article mentions this order but after reading it twice the term
"unlawful combatant" does not seem to appear here either.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011113-27.html

So where did this term first appear and where is it defined in any sort of offical document ?

The question is, is the term " unlawful combatant " just another bushism that has been designated a " talking point " and made it's way into the language of war crimes by virtue of being repeated by people that appear to be in charge or is this term really of no ore legal status than " DWB / Driving While Black "

the first time I ever heard the term was in October of '01, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan. At the time. . .I thought "uht oh. . .kiss the geneva conventions good-bye."

Never thought that human rights would be abused to the degree that is being reported now, especially in light of the estimated high percentage (60-90 %)of innocents who have incarcerated and abused.

It's such a travesty.

I think the Pope was right when he said something to the effect of . . . the revelations of abuse of Iraqi prisoners will do more harm to America than 9/11.

The Geneva Conventions only mention two status categories for individuals: Combatants and non-combatants.

Even spys are considered combatants, but have a special exemption out of having to notify the spy's home country that they've been caught. Otherwise, they must receive the same protections as other combatants.

I think there was a World War II Supreme Court decision which used the term "enemy combatant" or "unlawful combatant" to describe Germans who were sent here to plant bombs and surrendered instead, and were executed after a military tribunal found them guilty.

The Supreme Court overturned a precedent to allow Germans arrested on US soil, including one who was a US citizen, to be tried by military tribunal.

This case is infamous in law schools, but charming to the Bush Administration.

The Geneva Convention says EVERY prisoner must be "treaed with humanity."

.. you really wonder about those cases, too. I have no faith in the government anymore.

The term "unlawful combantant" is not part of international law or part of the Geneva Convention. The term is used from an old US Supreme Court case arising out of WWII that has been used by the Bushies to justify the treatment of the detainees in Cuba as well as the treatment of Hamid and Patillo here in the US.

I will look for the case later or you could look at the briefs in the Padillo case that is before the US Supreme Court if they are filed on line. There will be a discussion of this concept in such briefs.

The Bushies lached onto the phrase and have distorted the concept so that it is not consistent with the old Supreme Court case.

it has no recognition in the international world. It is not contained within the Geneva Conventions and appears nowhere within International law. What they did was take the accepted term of "lawful combatant" and turn it on it's head in order to contravene the Geneva Convention, imo.

I found these articles with discussion on this question:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/1/27/212434.shtml

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/iraq/genevaconventions.html

I found this very helpful in that it addresses your very question, I believe.

What is an unlawful combatant?

When it comes to the United States, there are actually two conflicting definitions, one from international humanitarian law and a second rather legalistic definition from the United States Supreme Court.

The Geneva Convention says lawful combatants can be:

Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … 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.


An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition:
An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished.


As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform.

When al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters were captured following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the United States argued with the UN over what they should be called.

Mary Robinson, the UN's human rights chief, said they should be considered prisoners of war, as defined in the Geneva Conventions. U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and other American military officials called them "detainees" or "unlawful combatants."


http://www.cbc.ca/news/iraq/issues_analysis/pow_030324.html

I remember this (I have one of those memories) from right after 9/11. When they started shipping people off to Gitmo. There were several good pieces about that, I heard an excellent interview on NPR back then, about that term. It does not exist. It was made up for Bush's use in filling up the Halliburton-built prison. And, made up to allow us to pretty much do whatever we wanted to those people. The people of Iraq, according to the Justice Department memo that was released yesterday, are not considered POWs, because they are part of a "failed state". Of course, after Bush's policies have hit our 50 states here, most of us would come under that "failed state" designation, I supposed.

Oh, and they're going to demolition the infamous prison in Iraq. Just coincidentally, Halliburton and pals are in the prison-building biz. How convenient! Wonder who'll be getting THAT contract.