Perhaps the troll will see this, anyway there is NO category in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) for 'enemy combatant'. There is only 'legal' 'illegal' and 'non-combatant'. Non-combatant should be self explanatory. So we are left with 'legal' and 'illegal'. Legal combatants have state sanction, illegal don't. Everyone engaged in hostilities who doesn't have a state ready to affirm their actions is an illegal combatant. Doesn't matter their origin or national status, no state sponsorship and the accoutrements thereof are participating 'ILLEGALLY'. They can be killed in battle captured and dealt with as the victor sees fit.
Note: The website for LOAC provided by me and in the lexicon has been altered to obscure this fact. The DoDD Inst linked in the 'new' site says nothing. I will look at the refs from that and get back. Apparently the derps have decided that due to the best efforts of the man of soi to assist him in the lie that USCs cannot be tried by tribunals. Not so. FDR had USCs hanged in WWII after their plot unraveled.
I keep screwing this op, the definitions are ‘lawful’ and ‘unlawful’ combatants.
thanks. where should i be looking for this LOAC web site ?
Most things i find show the first principle as: 1) Fight only Enemy Combatants
Here’s one document:
https://www.peterson.af.mil/Portals/15/documents/Units/JudgeAdvocate/AFD-160210-019.pdf
I seem to be missing something...
Thank you for explaining that.
Based on other postings here today, I’d say we can now label the soi as a ROLCON.