Can A US citizen be held as an Enemy Combatant?

Question

I have been trying to find, unsuccessfully, the full definition of an "Enemy Combatant" or what criteria must be met for an individual to be characterized as an "Enemy Combatant." Unfortunately, all I keep finding are bits and pieces of definitions like the following:

"An individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

Can anyone please provide a link to the definition of an Enemy Combatant or the criteria that must be met before an individual can be charged as such?

Thanks

Answer 1

Enemy Combatant

An "enemy combatant" is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict.

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

This link has the information that you are looking for.

http://www.cfr.org/publication/5312/enemy_combatants.html

American citizens can be held as enemy combatants but are allowed their day in court by being granted a writ of habeas corpus.

http://www.google.com/search?q=define+habeas+corpus&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS210US210&aq=t

Answer 2

I'm not looking for the link but I'll give you some search terms
Patriot act
Homeland security

A US citizen CAN be held as an enemy combatant but unlike those held in club gitmo they can not be held without being charged and have access to the legal system. The Supreme Court just ruled on a case like that here recently and told the government they must bring charges on the US citizen being held.

Answer 3

Check US Code. I believe what you are looking for is there concerning US citizens.

You will not find the term in The Geneva Conventions. Mercenary is as close as that gets. These guys did not meet the rules for treatment as a POW, or a mercenary. A mercenary would have to be paid.

They did violate the rules of war (non citizens involved in conflict)so they used the "combatant" term.

You will find the treatment for both mercenaries and non citizen combatants in The Conventions. If memory serves me there is no mention of having to repatriate those categories and that there were no time limits for confinement.

I'm working from memory of reading these docs several years ago.

Answer 4

In the war that I served in (Vietnam 4 tours), the words were similar and any changes that occuried are in name only, but have the same meaning, like Criminals get applied instead of Warriors. Sometimes called a violator of Hunan rights, war criminal, pow's, or crimes against humanity, and Insergents, etc.

When they held a Pilot, from our US Navy (Admiral Stockdale) who's behavior in the Hanoi Hilton Prison got attention, (he was the only man to receive the Medial of Honor), not for one action on the battlefield, but for what that is usually the reason someone gets the Medal Of Honor (behavior on the battlefield), but for his actions courage for resisting the North Vietnamese Government charges he was a common criminal that committed crimes against the people of North Vietnam.

When you fight in war, modern rules of engagement are in a document called the Geneva Convention. The nations from the west felt the actions against the Jews was a war crime because they were not in a regognized battlefield uniforms.

They were the innocent thrid party that was persecuted for their faith. In war trials the powers to be said, a soldier can be held as perosn that went beyond the scope of following the orders of a senior ranking person. That it takes also "Common Sense" to know in advance that everyone on the battlefied is not the enemy.

In the case of Iraq, the proof is the average age of all lost in war. When it goes below 18 years of age, like Iraq, then the proof of burden goes on the individual not the soldier who tries to claim they were following the orders.

In your spare time, look at the average age of all being killed in Iraq, and you may find like I do, that the insergents are killing babies and children and not recoqnized enemy forces.

Do your own proof, find the average age of all ofl Iraq people, then you will find out like I have, that the average age of all Iraq's people, are under the age of 18 years old. When your common sense tells you that the average Iraq's are about 60 % under the age of 16, it won't take you long to realize that a bunch of kids are not comming home for dinner tonight.

Most combat veterans like myself already know, the first casuality war is the truth, then the second is somone's mother, father, son, daughter,...will not be home for dinner.

Cut all the B.S,. out of the question, and ask yourself what is a enemy soldier, was it like when our founding father were hiding behind trees to shoot British troops or were they using the only tools that were available to them. I don't have that ansewer...

Love
CombatVeteran

Answer 5

John Walker is a perfect example of traitorship. Look up his name on the web & you will get what your'e looking for.

Answer 6

John Walker got a trial, and had all his rights as a criminal defendant respected.

Answer 7

Well according to that new law anyone who the President deems an enemy combatant is one. Welcome to 1984

Answer 8

yes
Take a look benadict arould in the history.