Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
"HeyBub" wrote:


2. The people being detained by the military are not criminals. They
have broken no criminal law nor have they been arrested. They are
"unlawful enemy combatants" (UEC) and not entitled to the
constitutional protections afforded criminals: no lawyer, no trial,
no indictment by a grand jury, no witnesses, nada. Neither are they
POWs. They fall into the same group as spys, saboteurs, guerrillas,
fifth-columnists, and other nasties caught on the battlefield. They
are not protected, nor even mentioned, by the Geneva Conventions on
War nor any of the similar protocols. Our nation's UEC was Major
Andre, who was hanged by George Washington.

Actually they are mentioned in the Geneva Conventions. I always get
a kick out of people who suggest that the UEC should be treated
according to the GC. The GC authorizes summary execution.

I think the conventions and protocols define "lawful enemy combatant" as
someone who evidences four specific requirements: 1) Wears a uniform or
distinctive regalia, 2) Carries arms openly, 3) Has a defined chain of
command, and 4) Conducts themselves according to the rules of war. Any other
combatant is, by definition, an "unlawful enemy combatant," and our U.S.
Supreme Court says they can be executed out-of-hand. (U.S. v Quinn).

There are provisions in the conventions for dealing with non-combatants
captured on the battlefield: Medical personnel, construction workers,
transport drivers, and others who may be aiding a war effort as well as
exceptions for hastily-organized militias. But other combatants, spys,
guerrillas, saboteurs, and the like, by any other name, are "unlawful."