Remember: military bases are US soil and subject to the Constitution. Except for when they’re not.
Unlawful combatants, by contrast, are not entitled to a trial, and can even be executed on the spot if it seems advisable.
Being a lawful combatant requires, among other things, that the combatant wear a uniform or other insignia recognizable at a distance.
No uniform -> no POW rights has been the rule for a very, very long time.
When you write these things, imagine how they work when your simply replace names of countries involved.
You are saying it's right and proper when a Russian soldier executes a Ukrainian civilian putting up resistance? Or a civilian that looks like the guy that was putting up resistance?
Either you are a combatant, or you are a criminal. If you are a combatant, Geneva convention applies. If you are a criminal, system of justice applies. There isn't some sort of third subhuman category you can just execute willy-nilly.
Civilians can and do take up arms to defend their homes. They do not have uniforms just for such an occasion and Geneva convention recongises that.
Only if you are wearing a uniform and otherwise abiding by the laws of war.
Look it up.
Edit: Read it yourself.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xs...
Note that even resistance forces are required to wear insignia.
It doesn't have to be a fancy uniform, even an armband of a specific color will work.
What you cannot do is engage in hostilities while hiding among the civilian population.
Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Truth is, in many cases, those people weren't combatants at all. But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
> Oh, right, the United States government told us. How convenient.
Yes, the United States government has kept them prisoner for 20 years, at great inconvenience and expense, because they just want to be meanies. You bet.
> But when you're denied due process because of the presumption of being an "illegal combatant", it's kinda hard to prove otherwise.
"Due process" is a feature of United States civilian law.
Not international martial law.
Well, no, they took them prisoner and held them there initially for a variety of bad reasons, and then they were kept there subsequently largely because of intrabranch squabbles, radicalization because of long unjust confinement, and foreign reluctance to help resolve the problem (in large part due to the preceding point) making it difficult to find a resolution to the problem created by the initial bad decisions.
(Anthropomorphizing the US government as if it were an individual with general consistence of interest is... not consistent with political reality, often, or on this point in particular.)
Sorry, you are not arguing this point in good faith.
Your "prisoners aren't entitled to due process" point doesn't matter - even if true, if we are the good guys, we should embrace the process that conclusively establishes guilt or innocence for everyone to see, not lock people up in special you-have-no-rights prisons.
So there are no political prisoners in China?
It's fine to say you wouldn't but let's not go projecting.
[1] https://nypost.com/2021/08/18/uk-student-miles-routledge-fli...
If "Miles Routledge" is on a "shooting trip with the Taliban", he deserves anything he gets.
And if you make a habit of visiting "spicy jurisdictions", you deserve anything you get.
I say this not out of animus for you or Routledge, but if you knowingly and intentionally engage in risky behavior, you don't get to whine when something goes wrong.
Edit: I smoke cigarettes, which I know to be risky behavior. If I get lung cancer, I won't be whining about it.
Similarly, if Routledge's Taliban buddies decide they don't like him any more, and take a notion to saw off his head on video (a rather more likely risk than him accidentally being sent to Gitmo, IMO), that's on him.
Being buddies with the Taliban exposes you to the risk of them sawing off your head, or being taken prisoner as an unlawful combatant.
And no, imprisoning unlawful combatants indefinitely is not "illegal", neither under United States law nor under the international laws of war.
If you claim otherwise, I'm going to have to ask for a citation.
And it gets a downmod, rather than a citation. Hint: that means you lose.
And for very good reason. The states power should always be checked, at home or abroad.
This is especially important as these days wars don't end.
So far what I've got is a broader perspective so thank you.
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial.
It is a grievous error to assume that civilian law applies in a military context.
As stated, a large number were delivered to the US in exchange for bounty and were alleged to be working with terrorists, allegations that were taken at face value, not looked into for years, if ever, and often lacking evidence.
Attempting to slide out of this via a false binary (ie. either lawful or unlawful combantants) is simply sleazy.
You can't have it both ways.
Unlawful combatants are not entitled to a trial. That doesn't mean you can't give them one if you feel like it.
You can basically do anything you want with them, including giving them a trial or even simply shooting them on the spot.
Unless "you" accidentally transport them to the United States like any other prisoner of the US government, in which case they are entitled to legal due process. It's a very principled system that we should all feel great about.
They haven't been. Legally speaking, the remaining detainees at Guantanamo are basically victims of indefinite government kidnapping, as the US government has specifically refused to actually put them on trial because there isn't enough admissible evidence to do so.