Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 1

Those who support the use of this term seem to be in a minority even in the USA and Israel, and it has *no* support anywhere else in the world, it seems, so it is hard to make this article much more neutral than it is.

Can someone from the Texas Nazi Impire, or Jerusalem Post, add some kind of defense of this insanity? We wouldn't want to be accused of having a bias here. ;=(

Are you sure support for the existence of illegal combatants is that rare? Not in reference to Taliban-related specifics, but against the actual existence of illegal combatants? The page was originally made by Lir, who can hardly be said to have had a pro-US and Israel bias... Tuf-Kat

The appended sentence from the article doesn't seem to make sense if you combine it with the fact that they are called illegal combatants. Ie: how can you both be an illegal combattant, and not a combatant at all. And there has to be a differentiation between the logical use of the word combatant and the legal use. (Anyone who engages in combat is a combatant in the logical sense, but not necessarily in the legal sense).

"Such a person is not considered a combatant and therefore is not accorded the rights of a prisoner of war (POW)."

WDYT? --snoyes 04:20 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I clarified the sentence in question. I am the one who has made the recent edits. I just forgot to log in. I think the article is clearer now. Chadloder 04:27 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

---

Does anyone have a reference to the Israeli legislation introduced in 2000? Chadloder 04:28 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)