Where'd it come from?

[torchthebitch]

This subject cropped up in another thread and it got me thinking. Where did the concept of "illegal combatants" come from? I didn't want to hijack the other thread and I'm quite sure it has been discussed here before. If so I'm happy enough to be directed to them.

Here's the thing. During the Spanish Civil War, volunteers fought on both sides. American volunteers fought for the British in WWII before the U.S. entered the war. Likewise American volunteers were fighting for the (Nationalist) Chinese before Pearl Harbour. People of many nations have joined the Foreign Legions of various European states. No one who fought was ever detained as an illegal combatant.

How come the people who volunteer to fight with the Taliban are treated differently? Is it because they are not white?

 

[Jackotheshadows]

At the risk of being toasted, here it is...

It has nothing to do with being white or non-white. It's about how they are categorized under the Geneva Conventions:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Since terrorists in general are not considered combatants per the Conventions, they can be held without the rights accorded a prisoner of war. The Taliban is a little different, as there debate that it was not the formal, recognized government of Afghanistan, so anyone captured while fighting for them wouldn't be covered by the Conventions.

The long and the short of it is, the issue is a huge grey area for international law and the Geneva Conventions, so hence the mess we have now.

 

[torchthebitch]

At the risk of being toasted, here it is...

It has nothing to do with being white or non-white. It's about how they are categorized under the Geneva Conventions:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

Since terrorists in general are not considered combatants per the Conventions, they can be held without the rights accorded a prisoner of war. The Taliban is a little different, as there debate that it was not the formal, recognized government of Afghanistan, so anyone captured while fighting for them wouldn't be covered by the Conventions.

The long and the short of it is, the issue is a huge grey area for international law and the Geneva Conventions, so hence the mess we have now.

Yes I rather feel that is the case. I think the Bush administration grabbed them and made a big media presentation of it, then discovered they had crewed up. They started re-writing international law to cover their own asses and the U.S. judiciary aquiesed and rendered judgements that only made the whole thing look more and more like a cover-up.

I just feel it is all of a piece with the invasion-lite concept.

Now here's another thought. If terrorists are outwith the Geneva convention why did Americans complain about the treatment accorded IRA prisoners. Next time Irish terrorists start up, can British soldiers detain people and water board them?

I think ther is a great big can of worms opened here that needs to be addressed pretty damn quick.