"So are they enemy combatants or not? You stated that they were, so under the definition they would be afforded rights under the Geneva Convention."

They are unlawful combatants. I'm not sure where you think I said they were "enemy combatants" and I'm not sure why you think that just because they are combatants that they are afforded protection under the Geneva Conventions.

"If you are now stating that they gave up their rights to be treated as an enemy combatant then they must be criminals. Criminals have rights."

Everyone has rights. The question isn't whether or not they have rights. The question is "What rights do they have?" They are not entitled to the rights of a POW under the 4th Geneva Convention. To have those rights they would have to have been classified as "lawful combatants." They are not entitled to the rights of a civilian under the 4th Convention. To have those rights they would have had to have not taken any part in hostilities. They are entitled to the rights afforded an unlawful combatant because that is the category they fit into. An unlawful combatant is, by definition, a criminal, hence the "unlawful" part.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

Both lawful and unlawful combatants have rights. I am not stating that one has more rights than the other, but under the Geneva Convention they are both classified as enemy combatants. See my previous post. What I think you are saying is that if they are unlawful combatants then they should not have any rights. That is incorrect.

Most unlawful combatants qualify for protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV) until they have had a "fair and regular trial". Once found guilty at a regular trial, they can be punished under the civilian laws of the detaining power. The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Mercenary trial in Angola in June, 1976.

You are saying they are entitled to lawyers, habeus corpus, and civilian courts. Not even lawful combatants are given such rights.

So you are saying unlawful combatants have additional rights as clearly as night follows day.

I'm not saying anything that is not international treaty. Under the Geneva Convention lawful and unlawful "enemy combatants" are entitled to a fair trial. That does not mean access to civilian courts, but it does mean access to some legal representation.

Not an expert on the Geneva Conventions, but I believe the intent of your quote is to give them a mechanism to challenge their status as illegal combatants.

Found on battlefield with AK 47. Case closed. Next.

It is not a trial to establish guilt of some criminal offense beyond a reasonable doubt.

"under the Geneva Convention they are both classified as enemy combatants"

That is not true and you should stop saying that just because Wikpedia says so. The Geneva Conventions don't refer to "enemy combatants" at any time in the text. They refer to Persons who fall under certain categories, namely those deserving certain protections as POWs or as "Civilians" or as "Wounded and Sick", etc. The fact is, contrary to Wikpedia, those who participate in hostilities do not qualify for the protections afforded "civilians" in the 4th Convention.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't know where you get that I think that suspected terrorists should be given the same rights as civilians. I don't. Unless they are a US Citizen. Padilla should have been given the same rights as Timothy McVeigh. As you may recall, McVeigh was a home grown terrorist in every sense and definition. He killed persons. And he was given a civilian trial.

If the person is a foreign "combatant" then I think they should be given rights as agreed in the Geneva Convention. It is only right that we give the same rights that we would expect US Citizens to be given abroad.

Also, you are absolutely correct in that the GC does not refer to enemy combatants at any time. You must have looked up the definition in Wikipedia.

An unlawful combatant is a spy, saboteur or (sometimes) a terrorist who pursues a military objective outside the commonly accepted laws of war. Not wearing the uniform of a sovereign nation (as in spying) or not being under the command authority of a recognizable entity are the chief reasons for a combatant to be classified as "unlawful". By contrast, uniformed soldiers who commit atrocities are tried for war crimes.

There are many special cases, as well, including those in recent years of armed militants who are deemed not to enjoy protection of the Geneva Convention (GC) on the grounds that they are not part of any country which is a treaty signator. These people need not be accorded lawful combatant status according to the laws of war. Unlawful combatants had historically been executed, often on the battlefield.

Harsh measures had previously been regarded as justified in part to deter belligerents from engaging in atrocities or perfidy. Nevertheless, many Western advocates who oppose America's conduct in the War on Terrorism advocate extension of combatant status to unlawful combatants, claiming various humanitarian, legal and political grounds. There is the humanitarian idea that everyone should get a fair trial. There is the legal theory that the Geneva Convention automatically applies to all enemies of treaty signatories. There is the political idea that requiring America to extend GC protection to its detainees is good, because it will otherwise undermine its military strategy.

The "Detaining Power" may choose to accord detained unlawful combatants the rights of prisoners of war as described in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), but is not required to do so. Unlawful combatants may retain rights under the Fourth Geneva Convention in that they must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". (Other terms occasionally used include illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant.)

The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in GCIII; nor does the word "combatant." However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories of persons who are entitled to prisoner of war status. "Prisoner of war" is generally synonymous with "detained lawful combatant." If there is doubt about whether persons have fulfilled the conditions that confer prisoner of war status, Article 5 of the GCIII states that their status may be determined by a competent tribunal.

"I don't know where you get that I think that suspected terrorists should be given the same rights as civilians"

Probably because you keep talking about the 4th Geneva Convention which specifically deals with the treatment of Civilians during war.



"Padilla should have been given the same rights as Timothy McVeigh. As you may recall, McVeigh was a home grown terrorist in every sense and definition. He killed persons. And he was given a civilian trial. "

Well, he comitted crimes on American soil, which changes how he can be prosecuted. If he had gone to England to kill people, he would likely have been prosectued under British law.



"If the person is a foreign "combatant" then I think they should be given rights as agreed in the Geneva Convention."

That's fine, and I'm waiting to see where they haven't been given the rights afforded by those Conventions to an unlawful combatant.



"It is only right that we give the same rights that we would expect US Citizens to be given abroad."

Wrong. Our job is to protect American citizens and they are allowed certain rights under our Constitution. Non-citizens are not given those rights. It is a privilege to be a U.S. citizen. The whole point of having privilege is that you get something other people don't. I don't expect that an American will be treated in accordance with our laws if they committ a crime in another country. Neither should we be expected to treat foreigners under our laws.



"Also, you are absolutely correct in that the GC does not refer to enemy combatants at any time. You must have looked up the definition in Wikipedia"

Actually, I read the Conventions. Combatants and non-combatants are defined by the Hague Convention. The term "unlawful combatant" or "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant" are simply terms to describe people taking part in hostilities who don't meet the requirements for protection under the Geneva Conventions afforded to combatants.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I don't understand your post, tritnow. In your own words you talk about foreign "combatants", whatever they are supposed to be, should get the same rights as US citizens abroad. Are you talking about US soldiers, US noncombatant citizens, or illegal US combatants, though I am not sure the last category even exists in reality?

Then in your quote you put how unlawful combatants have historically been executed, often on the battlefield.

Before I respond I need to understand what foreign combatants are? The term foreign is irrelevant. The only relevant terms are whether they are legal or illegal.

The Iraqi army was constituted of legal combatants. They were captured and released at the end of hostilities, with the exception of those who stand accused of war crimes, like Hussein. They are entitled to a trial, and they will get one.

The terrorists we are fighting now are entitled to a bullet on the battlefield. To the extent we don't do that, they are way ahead of the game in terms of their rights.

"The terrorists we are fighting now are entitled to a bullet on the battlefield. To the extent we don't do that, they are way ahead of the game in terms of their rights."

Spot on ...in a nutshell!