When it comes to Department of Defense doctrine on military treatment of detained persons, “unlawful enemy combatants” are a thing of the past. That term has been retired and replaced by “unprivileged enemy belligerents” in a new revision of Joint Publication 3-13 on Detainee Operations, dated November 13, 2014.
“unprivileged enemy belligerents”
Well that covers everyone who is not black, gay, or mentally ill for the Obola/ Sharpton administration.
I betcha those lawyers embedded in combat units really feel that big-bulls eye on their backs now.
The most ridiculous thing I ever heard. It’s never the enemies fault anymore. Isn’t Leftism grand?
The Last Tradition
How about ‘odious, rag-headed, bastard murderers’. I think it’s more accurate.
Did a double take, I thought it said underprivileged enemy belligerents….guess that comes in the next revision.
Still rather harsh. “Undocumented grievanced” is a lot more current and edgy.
It wasn’t that long ago that belligerants in civilian clothes were summarily executed. Now civilian clothes appear to be the norm.
“undocumented shoppers” in Ferguson agree! (or they would if they knew how to read)
“unlawful enemy combatants”= not protected by the Geneva Conventions and other treaties signed by the U.S.
“unprivileged enemy belligerents”= not entitled to the privileges that lawful Prisoners of War are entitled to. i.e. Red Cross packages, etc.
I don’t see a problem. Signatories of the Geneva Conventions(etc.) often already treat unlawful enemy combatants as POWs mostly, and “unprivileging”(is that really a word?) them seems OK with me.
I think the Geneva Conventions say these unlawful enemy combatants can be summarily executed on the battlefield.
Let’s not get bogged down in easily changeable jargon when Obola has been arming al-Qaeda with sophisticated weaponry for 6 years and the U.S. has basically been treating unlawful enemy combatants as lawful POWs since 2001.
Yeah well, I recall, during Gulf I, a bit of flak about the policy that helicopters would give no quarter (take no prisoners). The logic being that it was difficult and possibly impossible to surrender to aircraft…..
The usual suspects, the JAG rejects in the field, who more or less tried to act like Soviet commissars….that all field commands required their authorization…. held that this policy was counter to the Geneva protocols…..
Technically, helicopters aren’t on the battlefield unless they land or are shot down.
I do remember some reports of journalist teams who did have Iraqi Guard units try to surrender to them…
That famous ‘Highway of Death’ must have given those JAGoffs hissy fits.
Lastly, the Iraqi Republican Guard were lawful combatants, so apples/oranges, and War is Hell or at least ought to be for our enemies, not for our own soldiers.
As were pirates. Now the US Navy gives them a shower and a meal.
The Hague and Geneva Conventions lay out four criteria defining prisoners of war.
This is a direct quote.
a.that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates.
b. that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance. (uniforms/armbands)
c.that of carrying arms openly.
d.that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Mercenaries are officially frowned on by the UN, although frequently contracted by the UN….everything from Private Military Companys such as Haliburton or Blackwater to local individuals with “technicals” (armed pickup trucks) in Somalia….
the world is changing and not for the better. America has had it’s couple of hundred years and are now busy getting rid of everything that made them great.
“That famous ‘Highway of Death’ must have given those JAGoffs hissy fits.”
“jAGoffs”…you musta been there…..
You have no idea….guilty yanks but ecstatic coalition arabs….
Yanks putting a priority on burial parties (to bury the evidence) and the arab’s notion of leaving them for the crows (as an example)…..