One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists. Bush used the term "enemy combatant" to detain the (accused) members of alqaida re: 911. The fact that Bush redefined the term might give us pause as to whether in fact it was justified. (Because we can trust G Bush and his clique about as far as we can throw them).
https://www.britannica.com/topic/enemy-combatant
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.
Addendum
See, for example, 4.3 under Section IV of the LoW manual:
4.3 LAWFUL COMBATANTS AND UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTS
In addition to distinguishing between the armed forces and the civilian population, the law of war also distinguishes between “privileged” and “unprivileged,” or “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants. As the Supreme Court has explained:
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
“Unlawful combatants” or “unprivileged belligerents” are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status)
I don't know if members of a coup would qualify as 'enemy combatants'. I think a coup would more likely be seen as an insurrection than as an armed hostility by another state.
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-june-2015.pdf
One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists. Bush used the term "enemy combatant" to detain the (accused) members of alqaida re: 911. The fact that Bush redefined the term might give us pause as to whether in fact it was justified. (Because we can trust G Bush and his clique about as far as we can throw them).
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.
Addendum
See, for example, 4.3 under Section IV of the LoW manual:
4.3 LAWFUL COMBATANTS AND UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTS
In addition to distinguishing between the armed forces and the civilian population, the law of war also distinguishes between “privileged” and “unprivileged,” or “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants. As the Supreme Court has explained:
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
“Unlawful combatants” or “unprivileged belligerents” are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status)
I don't know if members of a coup would qualify as 'enemy combatants'. I think a coup would more likely be seen as an insurrection than as an armed hostility by another state.
https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-june-2015.pdf
One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists. Bush used the term "enemy combatant" to detain the (accused) members of alqaida re: 911. The fact that Bush redefined the term might give us pause as to whether in fact it was justified. (Because we can trust G Bush and his clique about as far as we can throw them).
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.
Addendum
See, for example, 4.3 under Section IV of the LoW manual:
4.3 LAWFUL COMBATANTS AND UNPRIVILEGED BELLIGERENTS
In addition to distinguishing between the armed forces and the civilian population, the law of war also distinguishes between “privileged” and “unprivileged,” or “lawful” and “unlawful” combatants. As the Supreme Court has explained:
Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.
“Unlawful combatants” or “unprivileged belligerents” are persons who, by engaging in hostilities, have incurred one or more of the corresponding liabilities of combatant status (e.g., being made the object of attack and subject to detention), but who are not entitled to any of the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g., combatant immunity and POW status)
I don't know if members of a coup would qualify as 'enemy combatants'. I think a coup would more likely be seen as an insurrection than as an armed hostility by another state.
One can get a good introduction to the relevant concepts of enemy combatant in the Law of War Manual.
AFAIK, a person can only be an enemy combatant if there is a state of war between the country and a foreign power. Then, there are different categories of enemy combatant, such as those in uniform and those not in uniform. Certain rights are assigned to these various actors under the Geneva Conventions.
Terrorism, I think, would not necessarily qualify someone as an enemy combatant. Treason, too, does not require that a state of war exists.
There are very clear definitions for all these things, and they are not just vague concepts or indiscriminate ideas. For that reason, discussion requires a factual basis and not simply opinion. The definitions don't depend on what you or I think, but rather are defined under law, including both criminal law and military law.