Source: http://lincolnplawg.blogspot.com/2003/03/iraqi-tribesman-unlawful-combatant-or.html
Timestamp: 2013-05-24 16:02:58
Document Index: 221620609

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 44', 'Art 44', 'Art 45', 'Arts 81', 'Art 4', 'Art 44', 'Art 44']

under the Geneva Conventions and international law generally; and under US military law?
From an initial scan of the Conventions [1], the provisions dealing with guerillas and other non-conventional fighters are in Article 43-47 of Protocol 1. The upshot seems to be irregular forces (something like Tito's Partisans in World War 2, I'm reckoning) get treated, if caught, as POWs under Geneva III (Art 44 - combatants is the term used) [2]; and even a member of a rabble or DIY guerilla unit, who does not fall into the Art 44 definition of combatant, is (by Art 45) to be presumed to qualify as a POW until his status is determined by a competent tribunal..
The gang were tried for offences against Arts 81 and 82 of the Articles of War (a document whose legal status I'm unclear [3]). The Articles gave jurisdiction to the tribunal, and I'm not, from a first read (in a while), quite clear on what precise grounds they were expecting habeas to issue. But the court does make the notorious distinction between lawful and unlawful combatants (at p31); traces the source in General Order 100 April 24 1863 to the 1940 Rules of Law Warfare [4]; and mentions that definition of lawful belligerents by Paragraph 9 is that adopted by Article 1, Annex to Hague Convention No. IV of October 18, 1907, to which the United States was a signatory and which was ratified by the Senate in 1909. 36 Stat. 2279, 2295. A translation of the 1907 Convention is here. The definition of lawful belligerents has been carried forward into Art 4 of Geneva III.
Geneva III and Protocol 1 are the relevant ones, I think. Art 44(3) says that combatants are obliged to wearing distinguishing emblems during battle. Art 44(4) says that, if caught while not so doing, he forfeits POW status - but is still entitled to be treated as if he were a POW! However, it leaves open the possibility of trying him for his actions. Quirin places the Articles at 10 USC 1471-1593 - they're not there any longer! How this was coordinated with the Articles of War is on the list of things to look at. posted by John at 6:29 pm