Are "unlawful combatants" protected under Geneva?

[Vattel]

The answer is yes. The laws of war do require things like wearing a fixed sign visisble at a distance, carrying one's arms openly, not pretending to be a civilian, etc. The Bush Administration used such requirements as a pretext for arguing that its detainees in Afghanistan are not entitled to any Geneva protections. That argument is deeply flawed. Consider, for example, the following excerpt from Art. 5 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:

"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 security of State or Occupying Power as case may be."

Spies and saboteurs do not wear fixed signs visible at a distance, they do not carry their arms openly, etc. But they are clearly afforded Geneva protection under the quoted article (e.g., they must "be treated with humanity") even though for obvious security reasons those protections fall short of those granted to combatants who have full POW status.

[HamdenRice]

1. In a word, yes. nt

[Warren Stupidity]

2. We made the term up to argue that they aren't.

As the GC never mentions our made up term, we made the vastly specious argument that our new gobbledy-gook classification is not covered. It was deliberate bullshit from the start.

[Vattel]

3. Unfortunately, widespread bullshit now.

There even seemed to be some confusion on certain DU threads about whether being denied full POW status meant that you had no protection at all under Geneva. I thought the brief post on the matter might be useful for some.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. Oh I agree - we need to cover this over and over and over again.

The Obama Administration is doing a Massive Waffle Dance right now over the entire issue, I ain't going to believe in change until there is some real change I can believe in, and so far, with respect to the criminal war policies of the former administration, nothing much has really changed.

[sampsonblk]

5. Exactly (nt)

[Voltaire]

9. No such thing as an Unlawful Combatant

just as there is no such thing as a Death Tax. Republicans are good at falsely naming shit to make it look good and then acting on the falsehood.

May I live long enough to see them ALL get what justice demands. Whatever that justice might be.

[Occam Bandage]

11. I'd say there is.

A combatant who does not obey the rules and laws of war is unlawful (as anyone who disobeys laws is unlawful), and is of course a combatant. Many of the people we capture are unlawful combatants, and so are not afforded POW protections. However, that doesn't put them in some special Unlawful Combatant legal classification, it simply means that they aren't covered by the Third Geneva Convention (POWs), but rather instead the Fourth (civilians and others).

[Warren Stupidity]

15. It is not a recognized catgegory of persons under the GC

and we have used it as a legal term as if it were. That is the meaning being discussed, or at least the meaning I meant when I discussed what this term is about.

[LiberalFighter]

13. I think the US invading Iraq illegally made themselves unlawful combatants.

[dcindian]

6. Yes well done.

I am getting tired of the POW argument. The US needs to start treating other peoples with all the humanity it would demand for one of it's own citizens.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Yes, but to be clear, not as POWs. They're protected as civilians.

There is no person in a war of any sort to whom the Geneva conventions do not apply. Every captured person is either afforded POW or civilian protections.

I assume you're referring to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8216246&mesg_id=8216246

I believe that FrenchieCat's theory is wrong, and that the prisoners we are keeping in Afghanistan indeed should either be openly rendered to the Afghan government for trial under Afghan law with all the protections that affords, or should stand trial under American courts for violations of American law with all the protections that affords, or should be released.

[Vattel]

10. actually

I was referring to more than one thread. You are quite right that those combatants who violate the laws of war do not get POW status. If there is doubt about whether they have violated the laws of war, they are to be treated as if they had that status until a proper tribunal judges one way or the other. My only point, to which you agree, is that not being granted POW status does not entail no protection under the Geneva Conventions. (I don't agree with the everyone is protected either as a POW or a civilian theory, but that's a long story.)

[EmilyAnne]

12. I'm up for a long story if you're up for telling, Vattel. I am trying to learn all I can about

this.

Thanks!

[Vattel]

14. I will do a more thorough post on this Tuesday afternoon

when I get more than a few minutes of free time.

[treestar]

8. Evil Buscho has created so many problems

They worked harder at creating people with no rights than they did fighting terrorism.

[mmonk]

16. The farce called "unlawful enemy combatant"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x275217