Quote:
Originally Posted by DieselAddict
There's no such legal term as an "illegal enemy combatant". That was an invented term of the Bush administration that was used as a loophole to engage in things that were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has spoken against it. There are only prisoners of war and common criminals. Stateless terrorists fall in the latter category, like it or not.
|
It's a useful and accurate term to describe a certain class of combatant. You prefer "criminal", but I believe that is less accurate. In my estimation, criminals are not ideologically or religiously motivated. However, as with a criminal, their activities are illegal under the definition of a combatant in the Conventions signed and ratified by the USA.
Criminals (or my preferred term, illegal combatants) are NOT subject to the same treatment as legal combatants. They have lesser protections under the treaty.
Finally, would you say that the Nuremberg Trials were fair or unfair?
Here's an argument concerning the applicability of the conventions. Agree or disagree, fine with me.
http://useu.usmission.gov/Dossiers/Detainee_Issues/Dec1007_Bellinger_PrisonersOfWar.asp