Perhaps where you come from that is the case.
Unlawful enemy combatants are those who are not fighting for a nation and who do not wear the nation's uniform. In other words they are nothing more than terrorists who flood into a country based on their love of an ideology rather than love of country. Such as the terrorists from many nations rushing into Iraq to fight the Great Satan, not to help the Iraqis.
“Unlawful enemy combatants are those who are not fighting for a nation and who do not wear the nation’s uniform... Such as the terrorists from many nations rushing into Iraq to fight the Great Satan, not to help the Iraqis.”
And the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War (fighting against Franco).
Problem with your definition of an “unlawful combatant” is that it totally hinges upon what the arresting party decides constitutes a “lawful combatant”. Islamists regard all opposition to Islam, as unlawful. See how that works? You try telling a Jihadi that a doctor is a non-combatant, if the doctor is a Christian in a Muslim country.
We see the Islamists exploit that all the time to attack journalists, aid workers and other people who aren’t in uniform. Sentenced to death simply for being foreigners who aren’t there on a pro-Jihad ticket.
That’s why I disagree with you. Their barbarity is TOTALLY supported by your definition of what an unlawful combatant is.
History’s pretty clear on this.
If you encounter mercenaries or spies or other “unlawful combatants” on the battlefield then there are only two reasons to declare them to be “unlawful combatants”... you plan to interrogate them without all the niceties accorded to enlisted men and uniformed soldiers... or you want to make an example of them (or maybe summarily execute them).
That’s how Britain has played the game, that’s how America has played the game, and everyone used to know where they stood.
The Nazis and Commies twisted that principle. They didn’t bother to ask if the “enemy combatants” were “fighting for a nation” or fighting for “freedom” or fighting for revenge. If you got caught out of uniform and were a combatant of any kind, or you were a Jew, then you were dead.
The Jihadis go beyond the pale even of the Nazis - anyone who’s not actively fighting on their side is, to them, an unlawful enemy combatant or a traitor.
That is why they’ll kill journalists, aid workers, Red Cross / MSF personnel, priests, wedding parties and the like.
A final thought for you:
Ask yourself why it was ever deemed neccesary to ship even one Islamist bleeder to Gitmo (at considerable expense to the USA) if America knew all along the detainees were “unlawful combatants” who presented a threat to America or to the missions in the Middle East and were therefore outside the remit of the Geneva Convention.
In the good old days if we found ourselves in the luxury of having a big loophole to exploit in the rules of engagement, we’d exploit it IN THE BATTLEFIELD.
At what point was it ever necessary to ship even one of those sons of bitches over to Gitmo? Didn’t they have any good tin sheds in the Middle East?
I’ll give you the answer I think applies: DRAMA. Why bother treating these beggars harshly in rag-land when you can make a huge show for the cameras by shipping them to Gitmo.