Douglas Johnson wrote:
"HeyBub" wrote:

The 4th Geneva Convention defines a "lawful enemy combatant" as one
who a) Wears a distinctive uniform, b) Carries arms openly, c)
Reports to a defined chain-of-command, AND d) Conforms his conduct
to the customary rules of warfare. By extension, anyone not meeting
all four of these conditions is an "unlawful" enemy combatant.

Eh? No. From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses
prisoners of war:

"Art 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, fulfil 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.

[...]

(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. "

Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice
no uniform is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign
recognizable at a distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?

No identification of any kind is required under (6).

I can find nothing in the 4th Geneva convention that addresses legal
or illegal combatants at all.

My mistake. The 3rd Geneva Convention is correct. "Lawful enemy combatant"
is defined in the Military Commissions Act and tracks exactly the
definitions given in the 3rd Convention. By extension, those not qualifying
under the 3rd Convention or the Military Commissions Act as "lawful" enemy
combatants must, perforce, be "unlawful" enemy combatants.

You are correct also in my misuse of the word "uniform," when distinctive
emblem is the standard. But (6) doesn't really apply to al Queda operatives
from Saudi Arabia, Morocco, and other places scooped up while fighting in
Iraq and Afghanistan.