Unlawful Combatant.

This is coolbert:

Many people have heard the statement, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Well, how valid is this statement?

It seems that a whole lot of terms are used by the media to characterize practitioners of unconventional warfare. They are sometimes called "terrorists", "fighters", "guerrillas", "partisans", etc.

So what is the status of these "combatants" under international law, the laws of land warfare, and the common practices of war, even if unwritten?

Very clearly defined criteria is generally applied to legally determine who is a legal combatant and who is not. Who is entitled to fair and humane treatment under the common practices of warfare and who is not.

Usually, there are criteria that are applied to determine who is a terrorist and who is a guerilla. The former is considered to be illegal, the latter is not. These criteria includes:

(1) Wearing a uniform or displaying a badge of rank identifiable at a distance.

(2) Carrying a weapon openly.

(3) Obeying the laws of land warfare.

If you are a combatant and you follow with consistency any of the three above criteria, you are a legal combatant and should be recognized as such.

Consider the Afghan fighters in the war between the Afghans and the Soviets. These Afghans did not have uniforms. But for the most part they did carry their weapons openly, and did engage Soviet troops in typical guerilla style combat. The Afghan fighters under prevailing international law and common customs of war were entitled to treatment as legal combatants.

The forces of Al Qaeda are an entirely different story altogether.

Al Qaeda combatants do not carry weapons openly. They do not wear uniforms. And they attack with deliberate malice and forethought civilians. With the intention of killing as many unarmed defenseless civilians as possible.

Al Qaeda combatants therefore do not qualify in any way, shape, or form as legal combatants under prevailing international law and the customary practices of warfare. These are illegal combatants not entitled to the normal fair and humane treatment normally accorded legal combatants.

Chechens, however, are a contradiction.

When in combat with Russian army forces, the Chechens are legal combatants and entitled to fair and humane treatment as legal combatants. Those persons [Chechens] attacking a school or a theatre with the intention of harming as many unarmed and defenseless civilians a possible are not legal and condemn themselves with their illegal actions.

As has been mentioned in previous blog entries, terrorists [illegal combatants], are in the same category as slavers, genociders, war criminals, torturers, pirates, and perpetrators of crimes against humanity. By their very actions, terrorists, as have been pirates, are said to have committed crimes outside the pale of reasonable human experience and are not considered to be entitled to the normal protections and safeguards that are granted accused criminals.

IF YOU TAKE HOSTAGES, USE HUMAN SHIELDS, CUT OFF THE HEADS OF PRISONERS, AND ATTACK WITH PRE-MEDITATION AND MALICE UNARMED CIVILIANS AND DO SO IN A STEALTHY AND SURREPTITIOUS WAY WITH FORETHOUGHT, YOU ARE A TERRORIST AND HAVE PUT YOURSELF BEYOND THE NORMAL PROTECTIONS GUARANTEED THE COMMON CRIMINAL. YOU ARE FAIR GAME FOR THE FORCES OF GOVERNMENTS ALL OVER THE WORLD, WHOEVER IS FORTUNATE TO GET THEIR HANDS ON YOU!!

[This situation is analogous to the bail bond recovery agent and the bail jumper. The latter is said to have committed a crime so egregious that the former may use any and all means necessary to apprehend and return the bail jumper to custody. Normal rules do not apply in the chase and hunt for the bail jumper].

It seems that when deciding if one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, there are reasonable criteria that can be applied.

coolbert.