David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/24/2010 4:49 PM Douglas Johnson spake thus:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Doesn't make any difference as to citizenship. The GC applies only
to the armed forces of a signatory country. If were to ship a
couple regular army types (in uniform and under orders from their
commanders) off to Cuba, then you might have a case.

This is a very persistent myth. The Fourth Geneva Convention
applies to "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".
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9...25641e004aa3c5

Not just armed forces. Any national of a signatory.

Thank you for your persistent attempts at correction here.

Too many believe that the term "unlawful combatant" has any real
meaning in the realm of international law. It's yet another
concoction of that other axis of evil--you know, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, etc.

The term "Lawful enemy combatant" is defined in the Geneva Convention.
Presumably those belligerents who do not meet the definition are "unlawful"
enemy combatants.

Nevertheless, the term "UNlawful combatant" was coined by the U.S. Supreme
Court in Ex Parte Quirin:

"By universal agreement and practice 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."
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...ol=317&invol=1