Unlawful combatant

From Freepedia

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.

Many Western advocates who oppose America's conduct in its "War on Terrorism" (after 9/11) advocate extension of combatant status to unlawful combatants, on 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.

Contents

International law and practice

The term "unlawful combatant" has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. However unlike the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions. So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not.

Prisoners of war

The Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a prisoner of war (POW). A lawful combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts but if captured, would be a considered POW. An unlawful combatant is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.

Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill 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.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews [of civil ships and aircraft], who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country...
...
Article 5
...
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

These terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias and the like (lawful combatants), and then those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture.

The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on.

If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under Fourth Geneva Convention.

Persons who are not prisoners of war in an international conflict

A non-combatant civilian "in the hands" of an enemy or an Occupying Power often gains rights through Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August (1949) (GCIV) if they qualify as a "protected person".

Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

If they fulfil the criteria they are a 'protected person' and are entitled to all the protections mentioned in GCIV. It should be emphasised that a national of neutral state, with normal diplomatic representation, in a war zone is not a protected person under GCIV.

But what of a combatant who does not qualify for POW status? If they qualify as a 'protected person' they get all the rights which a non-combatant civilian gets under GCIV but the Party to the conflict may invoke Articles of GCIV to curtail those rights. The relevant Articles are Article 5 and Article 42.

Part I. General Provisions
...
Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.
In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
...
Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
...
Art. 42. The internment or placing in assigned residence of protected persons may be ordered only if the security of the Detaining Power makes it absolutely necessary.

It is likely that if they have been found to be "unlawful combatant" by "a competent tribunal" under GCIII Article 5 and they are a protected person under GCIV, that the Party to the conflict will invoke GCIV Article 5. In which case the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State". They do however retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention."

If after "fair and regular trial" they are found guilty of a crime then the "unlawful combatant" can be punished by whatever lawful methods are available to the Party to the conflict.

If the Party does not use Article 5 the Party may invoke Article 42 of GCIV and use "internment" to detain the "unlawful combatant".

Persons who are not prisoners of war in an internal conflict

Civilians are covered by GCIV Article 3:

1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
...
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
...
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
...

But what of a combatant who does not qualify for POW status? Then they can expect to be treated humanely and before they are punished they can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court".

The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the mercenary trial in Luanda, Angola in June 1976.

Domestic law

United States

The term has been around for at least 100 years and has been used in legal literature, military manuals and case law. It was introduced into US domestic law in 1942 by a United States Supreme Court decision in the case ex parte Quirin. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of a U.S. military tribunal over the trial of several German saboteurs in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed):

"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. 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. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals."

The Supreme court ruling on the Quirin case was over sixty years ago; since then the United States has signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently grinding their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US domestic legal position and its perceived international treaty obligations.

In the wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) on September 18 2001. In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated:

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.[1]

Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on November 13, 2001, President Bush issued a Presidential Military Order: "Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism"[2] which allowed "individuals ... to be detained, and, when tried, to be tried for violations of the laws of war and other applicable laws by military tribunals", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely.

The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants".

With the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan some lawyers in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Aid and in the office of White House counsel Alberto Gonzales advised President Bush that he did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions in handling detainees in the war on terror. This applied not only to members of Al Queda but the entire Taliban, because, they argued, Afghanistan was a "failed state".[3] Critics[4][5] however, note that Gonzales also points to a little known law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act[6]. By declaring Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters did not have Geneva Convention protection it "substantially reduces the threat of domestic criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act," Gonzales wrote. Another memo[7], written by Attorney General John Ashcroft, again summarizes the position of the Justice Department on why the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda or Taliban prisoners.

Both memos warn against the possibility of U.S. officials being subject to prosecution for violating U.S. and international laws if the Geneva Conventions[8] are applied. With several "torture"incidents in mind sceptics think that these legal considerations could be a key argument[9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] for refuting the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, by explicitly addressing the War Crimes Act the memos acknowledge U.S. officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be war crimes.

Despite opposition from the U.S. State Department, which warned against ignoring the Geneva Conventions, the Bush administration thenceforth began holding such individuals captured in Afghanistan under the military order and not under the usual conditions of Prisoners of War [15]. For those U.S. citizens detained under the military order, US officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, argue that the urgency of the post-9/11 environment called for such tactics in administration's war against terrorism.

Most of the individuals, detained by the U.S. military on the orders of the U.S. administration were initially captured in Afghanistan. The foreign detainees, are held Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay on Cuba. Guantanamo Bay was chosen because although it is under the de facto control of the United States administration, it is not a sovereign territory of the United States and a previous Supreme Court ruling Johnson v. Eisentrager in 1950 had ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the USA.

There have been a number of domestic legal challenges made on behalf of the detainees held in Camp X-Ray and in other places. These include:

  • On July 30, 2002 The Washington D.C. District Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction because Guantanamo Bay is not a sovereign territory of the United States. This decision was appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court which upheld the decision. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court on September 2, 2003.
  • On November 10, 2003, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would decide on appeals by Afghan war detainees who challenge their continued incarceration at Camp X-Ray as being unlawful.
  • On 10 January 2004, 175 members of both houses of Parliament in the UK had filed an amici curiæ brief to support the detainees' access to US jurisdiction.
  • On June 28, 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul_v._Bush that detainees in Camp X-Ray could turn to U.S. courts to challenge their confinement, but can also be held without charges or trial.
  • On July 7, 2004, In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Pentagon announced that cases would be reviewed by military tribunals, in compliance with Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention.[16]
  • On November 8, 2004, a federal court halted the proceeding of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, 34, of Yemen. Hamdan was to be the first Guantanamo detainee tried before a military commission. Judge James Robertson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld[17] that no competent tribunal had found that Hamdan was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.
  • By March 29, 2005, all detainees at the Guantanamo Bay facility had received hearings before Combatant Status Review Tribunals. The hearings resulted in the release of 38 detainees, and confirmed the unlawful enemy combatant status of 520 detainees [18]. Reuters reported on June 15 2005 only four detainees had been charged and that Joseph Margulies, one of the lawyers for the detainees said "The (reviews) are a sham,... They mock this nation's commitment to due process, and it is past time for this mockery to end"[19].

Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was taken to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but was transferred to jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen. On September 23 2004, the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia, where he is also a citizen, on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship. The deal also bars Hamdi from visiting certain countries and to inform Saudi officials if he plans to leave the kingdom. He was a party to a Supreme Court decision Hamdi v. Rumsfeld which issued a decision on June 28, 2004, repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. However, such wartime unlawful combatant detentions for foreign-captured soldiers who are also US citizens were explicitly allowed by the Hamdi ruling, when Congress granted it to the Executive branch, [20] provided a habeas corpus hearing on the question of the alleged combatant status was first afforded. [21]

On May 8, 2002, José Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was arrested by FBI agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and held as material witness on the warrant issued in New York State about the 2001 9/11 attacks. On June 9 2002 President Bush issued an order to Secretary Rumsfeld to detain Padilla as an "enemy combatant". The order legally justified the detention by leaning on the AUMF which authorized the President to "..use all necessary force against those nations, organizations, or persons..." and in the opinion of the administration a U.S. citizen can be an enemy combatant (This was decided by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Ex Parte Quirin)[22]. Padilla is currently being detained without charge in South Carolina and is accused by the Bush Administration of being an illegal enemy combatant and a nuclear terrorist planning to set off a dirty bomb.

  • The November 13 2001, Military Order, mentioned above, exempts U.S. citizens from trial by military tribunals to determine if they are "unlawful combatants", which indicates that Padilla and Yaser Hamdi would end up in the civilian criminal justice system, as happened with John Walker Lindh.
  • On December 18, 2003, the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals declared that the Bush Administration lacked the authority to detain a U.S. citizen arrested on U.S. soil as an "illegal enemy combatant" without clear congressional authorization (per 18 U.S.C. § 4001(a)); it consequently ordered the government to release Padilla from military custody within thirty days[23]. But agreed that he could be held until an appeal was heard.
  • On February 20, 2004, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal.
  • The Supreme Court heard the case, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, in April 2004, but on June 28 it was thrown out on a technicality. The court declared that New York State, where the case was originally filed, was an improper venue and that the case should have been filled in South Carolina, where Padilla was being held.
  • On February 28, 2005, in Spartanburg, South Carolina, U.S. District Judge Henry Floyd ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him[24]. He relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in the parallel enemy combatant case of Yaser Hamdi (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld), in which the majority decision declared a "state of war is not a blank check for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation's citizens."
  • On July 19, 2005, in Richmond, Virginia, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began hearing the government's appeal of the lower court ruling. [25]


see also USA PATRIOT Act

Other countries

Other countries, including the United Kingdom, Israel, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand make theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof.

Critics and Proponents

The purported legal status of "unlawful combatants" in those nations currently holding detainees under that name, has been the subject of criticism by other nations and international human rights institutions; including Human Rights Watch and the International Committee of the Red Cross. In response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, a legal advisor at the Legal Division of the ICRC, published a paper on the subject[26] (which reflects the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of the ICRC), in which it states:

Whereas the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" are generally used and defined in the treaties of international humanitarian law, the terms "unlawful combatant", "unprivileged combatants/belligerents" do not appear in them. They have, however, been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The connotations given to these terms and their consequences for the applicable protection regime are not always very clear.

In the US the term unlawful combatant, critics maintain, has mainly been used to deny detainees basic civil rights, such as the right to a counsellor, a speedy trial and right of appeal. It has been argued that this gives governments a right to arbitrarily suspend the rule of law in a way that should not be accepted. The fact that many have been released without even being tried seems to suggest that among these suspects innocent civilians too are subject to arbitrary arrest. Furthermore, such a legal limbo would facilitate abuse of prisoners as was discussed earlier.

Proponents of unlawful combatant detentions have pointed to the vital necessities of winning wars, particularly when they involve concealed enemies. Wars justify a non-criminal approach which supports prevailing against violent enemies in military confrontations. Rather than being burdened by criminal processes and evidence gathering that is inappropriate amid "the rubble of war" but appropriate when the government would deprive a citizen or other presumed peaceful person of life, liberty or property, this view, supported by laws, cases and precedent cited in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld decision would allow the Congress plus the Executive to recognize conflicts (wherein recognizable enemies were presumably deemed present in significant numbers) where individual criminal approaches and burdens were inadequate for the nation's safety. With a required habeas corpus judicial oversight as a check on excesses or mistakes, this non-criminal incarceration, which would incapacitate dangerous enemies for up to an entire war term, rather than punish them as criminals with certain sentences, should be permitted, consistent with fundamental and historic war powers, including the Geneva Convention. [27]

Some governments whose nationals have been detained with this status, notably Canada, the UK, and Sweden, have intervened to limit the degree to which the rights of their nationals have been suspended. In general this has been handled on a case-by-case basis as numbers are few.

Many governments and human rights organizations worry that the introduction of the unlawful combatant status sets a dangerous precedent for other regimes to follow. When the government of Liberia detained American activist Hassan Bility in 2002, Liberian authorities dismissed the complaints[28] of the United States, responding that he had been detained as an unlawful combatant.

See also

Articles

Footnotes

See Wikipedia:Footnote3
  1. ^  US Congress' joint resolution of September 18 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF"); public law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224
  2. ^  President George W. Bush's Military Order of November 13 2001: Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism; 66 FR 57833 backup site
  3. ^ Outsourcing torture: The secret history of America's "extraordinary rendition" program by Jane Mayer The New Yorker Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 32
  4. ^ Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman article in The Nation posted June 28 2005 (July 18 2005 issue) about The Geneva Convention
  5. ^ Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings By Michael Isikoff Newsweek May 19 2004, 25 January 2002 - Memo from White House Counsel to President Bush opposing the application of Geneva Conventions to the conflict in Afghanistan in pdf format and other relevant memos
  6. ^ Federal Law 18 USC Sec. 2441 known as the War Crime Act or in another lay-out Federal Law 18 USC Sec. 2441 known as the War Crime Act
  7. ^ memo by Attorney General John Ashcroft in pdf format and other relevant memos
  8. ^ REFERENCE GUIDE TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS and States party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and Welcome to the Avalon Project at Yale Law School Documents in Law, History and Diplomacy
  9. ^  Former NY Congress member Holtzman Calls For President Bush and His Senior Staff To Be Held Accountable for Abu Ghraib Torture Thursday, June 30 2005 on Democracy Now
  10. ^ From John Ashcroft's Justice Department to Abu Ghraib by Joe Conason article in Salon May 22 2004
  11. ^ Bush and Blair are Called to Justice at Different Embassies Around The World WTI : World Tribunal on Iraq May 17 2005
  12. ^ US Lawyers Warn Bush on War Crimes Global Policy Forum January 28 2003
  13. ^ GONZALES ADDED TO WAR CRIMES COMPLAINT IN GERMANY; NEW EVIDENCE SHOWS FAY REPORT ON ABU GHRAIB PROTECTED OFFICIALS The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) is a non-profit legal and educational organization dedicated to protecting and advancing the rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
  14. ^ US attacks Belgium war crimes law BBC Thursday, 12 June 2003
  15. ^ Outsourcing torture: The secret history of America's "extraordinary rendition" program by Jane Mayer The New Yorker Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 34
  16. ^ Q&A: US Supreme Court Guantanamo ruling, BBC July 8, 2004
  17. ^  Hamdan v. Rumsfeld summary, full text (PDF File) – U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, presiding Judge James Robertson
  18. ^ DoD News: Combatant Status Review Tribunals Update No. 057-05, January 19, 2005
  19. ^  Guantanamo inmates can be held 'in perpetuity'- US Reuters June 15, 2005
  20. ^  Authorization for Use of Military Force: Padilla v. Bush: Jose Padilla under the Joint Resolution The Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce, issued by the Syracuse Collage of Law
  21. ^  Appeals Court Says Bush Can't Hold U.S. Citizen Published on Thursday, December 18 2003 by Reuters
  22. ^  Judge Says Terror Suspect Can't Be Held as an Enemy Combatant The New York Times March 1, 2005
  23. ^  The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849)
  24. ^  Comments on the Arrest and Detention of Journalist Hassan Bility in Liberia Press Statement by Richard Boucher, Spokesman in the U.S State Department, July 8 2002
  25. ^  "Because detention to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of “necessary and appropriate force,” Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here." http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html
  26. ^  "The Government also argues at some length that its interests in reducing the process available to alleged enemy combatants are heightened by the practical difficulties that would accompany a system of trial-like process. In its view, military officers who are engaged in the serious work of waging battle would be unnecessarily and dangerously distracted by litigation half a world away, and discovery into military operations would both intrude on the sensitive secrets of national defense and result in a futile search for evidence buried under the rubble of war." http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

External link

Retrieved from "http://en.freepedia.org/Unlawful_combatant.html"


Views
Personal tools
In other languages
Similar Links