“I noted the original Geneva Convention term “unlawful combatant” without going to any lengths to explain the difference between it and “enemy combatant” because I frankly didn’t see any.”
Angkor is correct and there is a huge and critical difference. Under international law, enemy combatants are legitimate soldiers and have a right to be treated as such if captured. Unlawful combatants have no such rights and are subject to execution.
- - - - - -
You MIGHT be right, but I think that the technical term is “lawful combatant,” as opposed to the other two terms: unlawful combatant and noncombatant (or civilian). And that there are only these three terms in the Geneva language.
If I’m right on the three terms above, then “enemy combatant” is merely another way of saying “unlawful combatant.” And in my discussion with Angkor, we both wonder if there’s a conspiracy on the part of the media to disassociate “enemy combatant” from it’s historic/Geneva Convention root [aka “unlawful combatant].
I know for a fact that the Geneva Convention uses those three terms: lawful combatant, noncombatant, and unlawful combatant. If it uses the term “enemy combatant” as a FOURTH term to mean something different from the other three terms, it is news to me.