Yes. Only members of the military, militias or other groups meeting that four-part test qualify for protections as POWs. But, check out Common Article III:
Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Those are pretty basic requirements, designed for near-universal applicability. All a Haji needs to do to be protected under Common Article III is put down his AK-47. Then, you can't kill him without due process.
All a Haji needs to do to be protected under Common Article III is put down his AK-47.
I understand. However, I can see some ambiguity in a fire fight. Seems to me that for such protections to apply, the Haji would need to make a clear declaration of intent - tossing the weapon far away and taking a surrender position - prone with hands behind the head. If there is an active firefight and the Haji has been firing all along, I tend to give our troops on the ground more latitude. People do not speak of the 'fog of war' for no reason. When there is ambiguity, the preservation of our troops' lives is more important than those of enemy combatants.
It is very easy to make pronouncements from the safety of an easy chair with a fast Internet connection. When the bullets are flying, your buddy's been shot, and you are a 19 yr old who has to make a split second decision where the wrong one can cost you your life, I think we need to give the soldier the benefit of the doubt. There is a big difference in making a questionable call on the spur of the moment, and say, planning to go in and wipe out a whole household with suspected connections to combatants when no shots have been fired.
In this case the 15 yr old Haji had been actively associated with these folks and appeared to be involved. I have zero compassion for him. He knew the risks (or should have) and participated anyway. I would, without reservation, trade his life for that of any of our troops who came home in body bags. I would chock it up to 'suicide by soldier.'