Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 2

Informative, but difficult to understand in places:
 * What does this mean: "the president personally, after consulting with Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, and Senior Adviser Karl Rove, decided to go for a walk"?
 * What does this mean: "The nation wondered what would happen, with seemingly no law established in this area, but for the administration's actions."
 * What does this mean: "At this point there were these two most famous enemy combatants, and the 600+ in Cuba not going anywhere in our legal or military system."
 * Is "president" capitalized or not?

Accuracy note
This is nothing against your re-write Viajero, (some of it is arguably a little POV like "hawkish," but on the whole it is good) but I do think there is much more pertinent information missing and until the article and the format is "settled" I think this should be at the top of the page to let readers know there is far more to it than what is written (if there is a better tag than "accuracy", feel free to change it). For example: "arrested or captured in armed combat," is that really the case? Is there even an enemy combatant law or is it just a concept? If there is, we need to use that for a source. Also, who decides who is an enemy combatant (I'm fairly sure it's an executive order, but I haven't scoured for a source on that)? Why don't the Geneva Conventions apply to at least Afghanistan,is it because war has to be officially declared or some other reason? etc.

Do you agree or do you think it's accurate enough as it is? I just don't think there is enough information here for readers to get an accurate overview of the concept.&mdash;Ben 18:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

and had I thought of it earlier, I would have put the accuracy note before you had even re-written, it's just that you left out the part about executive decision, and I think that's very important... if it's true. But I can't put it in if it isn't! :P --Ben 18:10, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Ben, you raised a number of problematic issues. First and foremost, the concept of illegal enemy combatant has never been legislated or formally defined anywhere. No, there is no such law. Geneva only deals with two categories: civilians or military personnel. It is something that Bush's advisors have come up with so as to avoid having to go through the normal channels and be able to expedite the "war on terror". I don't think there is a single executive order for it; it is applied on an ad hoc basis. As to why the Geneva Conventions don't apply to Afghanistan, this is because the White House decided that the country was a "failed state" and Conventions weren't applicable to its citizens. Yes, this is all very problematic, and its status is very unclear under international law. This is indeed exactly why it is so controversial; it potentially jeopardizes the civil rights of both Americans and non-Americans because of the absence of due process. If you are interested in this subject, I recommend you read this long but very interesting article by Jane Mayer: "OUTSOURCING TORTURE: The secret history of America’s 'extraordinary rendition' program" (It appeared in last week's New Yorker and I used it as a source for this article. As to the word "hawkish", if you substitute "pro-war" it means the same thing, and I don't think it is controversial to indicate that many individuals in the Bush adminstration are "pro-war"; this is well documented. In closing, I am not thrilled about the "accuracy disputed" message; it may be incomplete but it is not inaccurate (but I will not remove the tag). Lots of WP articles are incomplete; this is no sin. All the best, -- Viajero 19:02, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The main thing I'm worried about is inaccurately framing the term. I think that the article should have enough facts that the reader is able to determine the legitimacy and legality on their own and from their own perspective. From what I personally know, and from my personal perspective, it is entirely illegitimate, it seems to me that Bush can just say "this citizen is an enemy combatant" and then spirit them away to Guatanomo without trial or lawyer. I just want to know if my views are based on the reality of the situation or if my view is based on an oversimplification. Maybe there are checks and balances as to who is determined an enemy combatant (not that that would necessarily make me agree with imposing this political concept). It's just such a nebulous term (something I think is an entirely purposeful way of defining it, but that's besides the point) that it suggests certain contexts which may or may not be true or accurate. Is it fair to compare people deemed "enemy combatants" to "prisoners of war?" if so, then what war? The "war on terror?" Can that be said to be a war, and if so, can it be said that all terrorists are engaged in "war?" and that for example, say Britain, can deem random Irish guys in Britain "enemy combatants?" There are just so many questions and I think it is better to actually avoid trying to answer those questions and wrangle with them by writing the most accurate article from the most objective and neutral point of view. I mean, Jose Padilla was not "arrested or captured in armed combat" unless you believe all terrorists are engaged in armed combat, that combat being the "war on terror," which is a concept defined by the Bush administration. He was, as far as I know, simply a person "planning to blow up a building for a political reason" and therefore, a terrorist. --Ben 17:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * First, I need to apologize: I left a rather terse note on your Talk page. I didn't realize that Ben == Benapgar. My mistake.
 * Second, you were parsing the phrase "arrested or captured in armed combat" in a way which I hadn't intended. I have changed it to: "captured in armed combat or arrested". In this way it accounts for cases like Padilla.
 * For the rest, I am having difficulty distinguishing between your discomfort with the concept "illegal enemy combatant" (shared by all fair-minded souls I would hope) and the article has it now stands. What is lacking? How can we improve it?
 * All the best. -- Viajero 19:14, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * First off, I think not relying on comparison to present the concept is the best way. Information relating to the Geneva Conventions should probably be in its own section (i.e. how the concept circumnavigates the conventions) and comparison and contrast to prisoners of war and unlawful combatants should be in their own section. The history of the term (how it came about) and examples of the use should both have their own sections as well. The way it's written now is like it is "the history of the term 'Enemy Combatant'" which, while relevant, doesn't get the concept across in a straightforward way. We must have a legal definition, even if that definition is "there is no legal definition of an enemy combatant." Note also that if there is no legal definition as you claim, the modifier "illegal" in the title is incorrect then, right?

What I'd like to see (in no particular order) is:


 * How people are labelled this way (the legal definition or who makes the decision to label people)
 * The result of being labelled this way (what happens if you are labelled this way)
 * The conceptual framework which is used to label people this way. (who is an enemy combatant, why are they enemy combatants)
 * History/development of the concept (Gonzales etc.)
 * Criticisms of the concept (legal criticism etc.)
 * Comparison/contrast to similar concepts (Geneva conventions, prisoners of war, unlawful combatants, etc.)

This isn't a perfect way to describe it, but I think it would be a good start. Not all of this stuff is necessarliy known (for example, if the President can declare anyone an enemy combatant, why a President would do so is irrelevant in a legal and governmental context as it does not guarantee reasons of future Presidents)--Ben 18:51, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Enemy combatant
I think the redirect from "enemy combatant" to "Illegal enemy combatant" is not correct. Surely an enemy combatant is a combatant fighting for the other side in an armed conflict? So in the Falklands War enemy combatants were for the British members of the Argentinian armed forces. It should be redirected to combatant Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've moved all the the links to that page to either "illegal combatant" or "illegal enemy combatant". I have then redirected it to "combatant" Philip Baird Shearer 16:53, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unlawful combatant
What is the diffrence between "Illegal enemy combatant" and Unlawful combatant? Philip Baird Shearer 17:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merge with Unlawful combatant section United States
It seems to me that if this page is going to become a useful article it will have to start to duplicate the "Unlawful combatant" page. So it makes to merge them on the lines specified in Duplicate articles. This page should then become a redirect to the "Unlawful combatant" page. I have already edited the Unlawful combatant page so that there is a clear section for the USA and any additional material from this article should be placed there. I am going to leave the banner in place for a couple of days before I start to move anything so that the original authors have a chance to move what they think is relevent before I have a go at it.

I have added the template:merging to this article which has produced the following at the top of the article:
 * This article is in the process of being merged into Unlawful combatant, and may be outdated. If necessary, please only edit the page shown above, as this page's content may be deleted in the future.

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:56, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But "Unlawful Combatant" has an entirely different legal meaning than the American "Illegal Enemy combatant." They are similar, but "unlawful" refers to International Law and the Geneva Conventions. "Illegal Enemy combatant" refers to American law. They are seperate legal issues and should be dealt with separately. Illegal Enemy Combatants are not Unlawful Combatants. If you don't agree, you can simply deduce this from the fact that "Illegal Enemy Combatants" are not afforded any rights under the Geneva Conventions because they are not in the Geneva Conventions in the first place. People deemed "Illegal Enemy Combatants," as far as I know, gain no rights from International law, and therefore are not "Unlawful Combatants" under that law.


 * The problem with generalizing the term Unlawful Combatants to include "Illegal Enemy Combatant" is that this raises the issue of "what is combat?" and "what is it illegal to do in combat?" which the Geneva Conventions long ago sorted out for the most part. Throwing out their definition to create our own based on a POV definition, not a legal one, of "combat" and "unlawful" will cause all sorts of POV problems in the article. I'll be the one causing them too, so you probably don't want to start that. (I'll say things like "I do not consider terrorism combat" or "what makes this illegal." I even think this article should not have the word "Illegal" in it, since apparently you don't have to even commit a crime to be hauled off to Guatanamo.)--Ben 00:40, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "unlawful combatant" article used to be called "illegal combatant" and was changed because of the "ex parte Quirin" case, that was the only Supreme Court reference in the US was "unlawful combatant" at the time the change took place. If you look at President Issues Military Order Detention, Treatment, and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism, it does not use the phrase "illegal enemy combatant", the phrase seems to be a shorthand used by the US administration and does not have a precise legal definiton, this is something that the US courts are sorting out.

The word "enemy" is not realy relevant here because it is implied in "unlawful (enemy) combatant". Usually what happens if it is an illegal friendly combatant is arrested by their own side they are tried under their own military code of justice and do not have any protection under GC because they are not POWs.

The problem with the Quin case was that it took place before the current Geneva Conventions (GC) were written, so the GC are not fully incoporated into US domestic law. As the current cases grind their way through the US domestic system this is starting to happen eg (from the unlawful combatant article):
 * 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 that no competent tribunal had found that Hamdan was not a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions.

Without the surrounding information which the unlawful article contains about GC and other information I would agree with you that it is not possible to write a balanced article. But with that in place it should be possible to do so for the current US position which the US courts are slowly bringing into line with international law.

BTW It is not highlighted in the UC article but many of the combatants incarcerated by the Americans have no protection under GCIV. This is because,(once they are found to be illegal combatants by a competent tribunal (under GCIII)), most of them are Nationals of a state that has normal diplomatic representation in the State [USA] in whose hands they are . Philip Baird Shearer 09:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE ADD ANY NEW COMMENTS TO Talk:Unlawful combatant Philip Baird Shearer 13:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)