What is the difference between POW and Enemy Combatant? Further questions...

[uppityperson]

Civilians fighting occupiers in past wars, like, say WWII in France (for example). What were they classified as?

I think POW means Official Military captured, but not sure what civilian captured would be. If that is what bushco means by "enemy combatant", why should they have less protections than Official Military of The Enemy have?

[Occam Bandage]

1. A prisoner of war meets one the following conditions:

1. A member of the military of a party understood to be part of the conflict.
2. A member of a militia that has a command structure, a recognizable insignia visible at a distance, openly carries arms, and conducts their activities according to the laws of war.
3. Are members of a regular armed forces that claim allegiance to a government/authority/whatever not recognized as legitimate by the detaining country (so that countries can't get around #1 by refusing to recognize a foreign nation).
4. Are inhabitants of an invaded (but not yet occupied) territory spontaneously taking up arms, as long as they have not yet had time to form into regular units, and as long as they carry arms openly and obey the laws of war.

An "enemy combatant" is anyone we find on the battlefield that does not fall under this. This is fairly common, as most of the fighters we find in Afghanistan are not part of a regular militia of any sort. The reason they have fewer protections is that the Geneva Convention, to which the US is signatory, does not apply to non-POWs. The rationale that would be given is that persons who are not part of a regular milita or military endanger all civilians in the area by making it impossible to tell between innocents and enemies.

[uppityperson]

4. So people in French Underground, again for example, would be EC's

Thank you, that is what I was thinking.

"obey the laws of war". That phrase is so odd.

[Occam Bandage]

7. They certainly would, unless they were to begin wearing uniforms and flying flags.

Which wouldn't have worked for obvious reasons, yeah. And laws of war do seem a strange concept, but even in war, there is restraint. Nobody murders POWs as official policy, because nobody wants their own POWs to be murdered.

[MrSlayer]

2. POWs are covered by the Geneva Convention, ECs are not.

I believe that was one of the earlier justifications given for the torture.

[uppityperson]

3. They have less protection because they aren't covered by GC, thanks.

I know why they are classified as EC's, to get around having to treat them humanely, but wasn't sure why they have less protection. Not being covered under Geneva Convention makes sense. Thank you.

[Occam Bandage]

6. It's not only "to get around having to treat them humanely."

Were that the case, there would be international movements to expand the Geneva Convention to cover persons we currently call "enemy combatants." There is no such movement because doing so would encourage nations fighting defensive wars to field armies of soldiers that do not remain uniformed and do not always carry weapons openly; doing so would result in massive civilian deaths, as the invading power would have little choice* but to either retreat or engage in a brutal campaign of complete eradication, and history has shown they usually prefer #2.

What we do to people we call "enemy combatants" is categorically wrong, but there is a very good reason that Geneva Convention protections are not given to them.

*unless they are highly versed in counterinsurgency warfare and have an overwhelming advantage in resources, but those nations number only a handful.

[uppityperson]

9. Civilians always get caught up.

I had several discussions with my kid when kid used to play some video war game, that war isn't just between 2 opposing armies, but often between people who aren't "official military" of a country. Just people fighting. And even if it is between "just official military" of 2 opposing countries, civilians get caught up in it.

Perhaps another time we would have the discussion of how much, how often, "war" is just between officially designated military of 2 opposing countries, but that is for another time.

I was listening to news today, talking about Gitmo, and started thinking about the definitions, designations. Which gets back to at what point is someone "official military" of a country, need to uniform, strict structure within group, way orders go down, etc.

[EFerrari]

10. Are you sure? Because when BushCo first floated that idea

I went and read the Geneva Conventions , and there are provisions in there for the treatment of civilians of any status. Article 4 of #3, I think, covers a bunch of different situations that civilians or un-uniformed combatants can be caught up in.

BushCo was making it up as they went along knowing full well that no one was going to challenge them or prosecute them later.

ETA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention

[Occam Bandage]

16. ECs are not covered by Article 4.

"Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support?" Not even close. "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions?" No fixed distinctive sign visible from a distance, and often no command hierarchy. "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?" Wrong on most every phrase there.

The best bet for Geneva coverage of ECs is in #4, but that specifically limits itself to noncombatants and a host of exemptions for combatants who are out of combat for various reasons. Instead, you have to use a sort of penumbra argument, in which you declare that the Geneva conventions are not meant to leave any person of any sort uncovered, and so you have to shoehorn a captured person into either "protected civilian" or "privileged combatant" status. I don't really think that's an appropriate reading; it seems pretty clear to me that a civilian taking up arms would be a non-privileged combatant, and would only be protected under the domestic law of the detaining power.

That doesn't let Bush/Cheney off the hook by any means; US law does not allow for torture of detainees.

[PerfectSage]

5. I'm no sure but my grand parents told me they were in the dutch resistance

My definition of "enemy combatant" is "fuck you NWO I won't do what'cha tell me"

Who cares about puerile definitions. What really matters is how many neo cons can dance on the head of a pin. :rofl:

[PerfectSage]

14. Fuck synchronicity or what:: I just remembered the dream about Grampa Schouwink I had last nite.

I gave him a frickin' heart attack because I hugged him too hard in his old age.

Jesus frickin' Christ I murdered by too much love. Weird dream. :rofl:

Here's to You Johann. God I'm proud of being a dutch bastard like you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqKofbyWv1A&feature=related

[okiru109]

8. Cheney : Unlawfull Combatants - Last time I heard that justification was the wwII Imperial Japanese

in NANKING and other parts of asia when they tried to justify their kangaroo court's handling of aisian POW's in their custody and their policies in justifying aggressive pursuit of them (sound familiar)

hope the prosecutor caught that on teeVoo

BTW: POW typically = enemy combatant
ILLEGAL/UNLAWFULL COMBATANT is the real wrinkle... however geneva covers them, too... and it was reinforced after wwII considering how it was unclear still to some.

[EFerrari]

12. Welcome to DU, okiru109.

:)

[FedUpWithIt All]

11. Unlawful/enemy combatants are to be provided all POW protections until they are determined "illegal"

by a military tribunal review.

Aside from ILLEGAL INVASION, this is where the US gets into trouble. We acted counter to the Geneva Convention on this point.

Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

Gonzales took the stance the the President determines who is a legal and illegal combatant. But the Geneva Convention is CLEAR on the fact that doubt about a detainees status must be clarified by a military tribunal. We denied people their rights by first denying them a tribunal to determine status and by refusing them their POW rights in the meantime.

Article 4

1. 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:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
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.
2. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:
1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.
2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.
3. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

[EFerrari]

13. That's right. The conventions' default is to protect prisoners,

the opposite of what our torture president claims.

[provis99]

15. an unlawful combatant is anyone fighting but not in uniform

When the US caught such people in WWII, they were routinely shot after a quick trial, whether they they were saboteurs in the US, civilians helping enemy military forces, or even soldiers caught out of uniform. The Allies didn't prosecute German commanders who slaughtered large numbers of partisans they had taken prisoner, because the US recognized partisans were not entitled to Geneva convention rights.

Realistically, if the Guantanamo prisoners were caught on the battlefield out of uniform, there's no international legal reason why they couldn't all be executed.