News Are Unlawful Combatants Entitled to Geneva Convention Rights?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Winzer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Bin Charge
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the legal and moral implications of Usama Bin Laden's status as a terrorist and whether he should be tried under U.S. law or military jurisdiction. Participants debate the evidence linking him to the 9/11 attacks, with some arguing that while he had prior knowledge and involvement in terrorist activities, conclusive evidence directly connecting him to 9/11 is lacking. There are differing opinions on whether he deserves a fair trial, with some suggesting that his actions warrant extrajudicial measures rather than legal proceedings. The conversation also touches on the complexities of jurisdiction and the challenges of trying a figure like Bin Laden in a civilian court. Ultimately, the thread reflects deep divisions on how to address terrorism and justice in the context of international law.
  • #31


Non-state, illegal, enemy combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, international law, or the U.S. Constitution. You capture them and then try them via military tribunals.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32


Nebula815 said:
Non-state, illegal, enemy combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, international law, or the U.S. Constitution. You capture them and then try them via military tribunals.

This is a whole other can of worms. Suffice it to say that broadly speaking it is not only regular uniformed forces that are protected by the GC and specifically regarding situations of surrender it states that any person who is not actively taking part in hostilities is protected.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

If we are to discuss further intricacies such as unlawful combatants and such then we ought to do so in another thread.
 
  • #33


TheStatutoryApe said:
This is a whole other can of worms. Suffice it to say that broadly speaking it is not only regular uniformed forces that are protected by the GC and specifically regarding situations of surrender it states that any person who is not actively taking part in hostilities is protected.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm

If we are to discuss further intricacies such as unlawful combatants and such then we ought to do so in another thread.

Well, yes, those not taking part in hostilities are indeed protected. Also protected are members of an opposing nations armed forces. Those that are neither have no protection.

Read section A.2 of Article 4 at your link there. Basically says our enemies aren't prisoners of war.
 
  • #34


We're not going to have the 'did Bin Laden have anything to do with 9/11' discussion. It is conspiracy theory. Moving on.
 
  • #35


Choronzon said:
Well, yes, those not taking part in hostilities are indeed protected. Also protected are members of an opposing nations armed forces. Those that are neither have no protection.

Read section A.2 of Article 4 at your link there. Basically says our enemies aren't prisoners of war.

I suggest you read the whole document.

edit: Sorry, I thought this was on the same page I linked. See also the Fourth Convention.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y4gcpcp.htm
 
Last edited:
  • #36


Nebula815 said:
Non-state, illegal, enemy combatants are not entitled to Geneva Convention rights, international law, or the U.S. Constitution. You capture them and then try them via military tribunals.
Um, that is not true. By the laws of war that the US has ratified, everyone is entitled to certain protections under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and can be generally divided into three categories.

Noncombatants: Cannot be deliberately targeted for violence and must be tried by local laws and local tribunals if possible if accused of committing a crime. If imprisoned by an occupying force, they are guaranteed to be treated humanely and given a fair trial by the beligerent military (if local trial is impossible).

Legal Combatants: Are entitled to be treated humanely and not required to give more than basic information and otherwise cannot be interrogated. They can only be tried and punished for war crimes that violate international law, and only after the end of hostilities, otherwise they must be freed. This group is classified as prisoners of war.

Unlawful Combatants: Are entitled to be treated humanely and to receive a fair trial under the laws of the occupying military force. If found guilty, they can be punished or executed. This group is not protected as POW's, but still receive these basic protections.

The major distinction between legal and unlawful combatants is that legal combatants bear their arms openly. They do not have to be an organized professional army. They can, in fact, be a ragtag milita. They key distinction is that, when the enemy approaches, they do not hide their guns and pretend to be civilians. Conversely, civilians who pick up arms and fight an approaching enemy are legal combatants and afforded full Geneva convention rights as prisoners of war.

Now, unlawful combatants (those that do not bear arms openly, but hide their status as combatants to avoid capture) can be executed as saboteurs, but they still have rights. They have the right to be treated with humanity, they have the right to challenge their classification as unlawful combatants before a competent tribunal, and they have the right to a fair and impartial trial just like soldiers of the belligerent force they were captured by would receive.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 384 ·
13
Replies
384
Views
42K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 109 ·
4
Replies
109
Views
64K