Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
I think that unlawful combatant status was defined during the Nuremberg trials, I also believe that it was re-affirmed by the US Supreme Court in and I might be reaching 2001.
Basically its still defined as such and why people that run around disguised as civilians, shooting up other people in the simplest terms aren't protected by the Geneva Convention.
And the one's man unlawful combatant is another man's freedom fighter to me has the horrifying implication that you could suddenly define terrorists as freedom fighters. Or in a stretch legit miltiary.
|
Not sure about when the idea of "unlawful combatant" started to appear. But its certainly an interesting question.
Another curious (maybe even ironic) wrinkle in the Khadr case is that the deceased soldier (and his colleagues) was wearing traditional Afghan clothing at the time he was killed. Indeed, one wonders whether the grenade fragment that killed him would have had such catastrophic consequences had he been wearing his military helmet rather than said traditional clothes (no idea what the answer to that question is)?
With respect to your last point, I don't think that is a real concrern. Terrorists explicitly target non-combatants. That is the key distinction.