Assertion: combatant's status | /r/HasProperty | lawful
Facets:
Source sentences:
text: Note again, the CSRTs did not confirm the classification of the captives as "illegal combatants", they confirmed their classificaiton as "enemy combatants" -- not even addressing whether their combatant status was lawful or unlawful.
text: Note again, the CSRTs did not confirm the classification of the captives as "illegal combatants", they confirmed their classificaiton as "enemy combatants" -- not even addressing whether their combatant status was lawful or unlawful.
text: So this document agrees that the status "unlawful combatant" exists, primarily in US law, but it does not argue against the SC Ex parte Quirin interpretation of the laws of war on this issue.
text: Quinn explicitly discusses "examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war", i.e. unlawful combatants.
text: ", this statement is ambiguous because it implies a "lawful combatant" who breaks the laws of war is striped of his lawful status and thrown into the same category of those without priveldge, whereas the article seems to state they are subject to prosecution under International Humanitarian Law.