Robert Green wrote:
"aemeijers" wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:32 PM, HeyBub wrote:

stuff snipped

By implication - and by our Supreme Court's definition - those
engaged in warfare that do NOT adhere to all four definitions are,
by implication, UNLAWFUL enemy combatants.

Your words "by implication" don't mean "settled, decided and Supreme
Court tested." They just mean "some people believe."

They weren't MY words, they were the determination of the Supreme Court in
the Quirin case. In that case, a group of German Saboteurs were put ashore
by U-boat on Long Island and the Florida coast (one claimed U.S.
citizenship). They were almost immediately captured and sentenced to death
by a military court. In their appeal for habeus protection, the Supreme
Court applied the Geneva Convention definitions and concluded they were
"unlawful combatatans" by definition. In Ex Parte Quirin, the Supreme Court
said:

" 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. The spy who secretly and
without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war,
seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or
an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for
the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar
examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the
status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war
subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals. "


But you've got a bigger problem. Who decides who is engaged in
lawful or unlawful combat? A LEO would surely know that an "on the
street" (aka the battlefield) pre-arrest investigation is not very
deep and innocent people are sometimes taken into custody because you
just can't sort out all the facts there on the street.

Uh, the president (or his designee) decides.