Combatant

partnership because many nations are aware of how alliances and coalitions become important to achieve their security interest. Therefore, this open world is advantageous to combatant commanders in forming alliance and coalition based on their common interest. So, this situation allows to share some burdens of the U.S. combatant commanders and JTC to other multinational partner nations. The area of burden sharing could include share cost of in building infrastructure like military bases, human resource

We did not classify them as POWs though, but as ‘unlawful enemy combatant’. This was a term that President George W. Bush’s legal team came up with, so he did not have to give them rights, as stated under this treaty. We used this term, but it essentially was a play of words, to not having to give them POW status. We argued

and navy, with the Spanish military, and alongside Native American during the conflict. While the factors that motivated these combatants to choose sides remain unclear, evidence indicates that some joined certain forces to secure their freedom, while others tried to better their material conditions, and still others fought for causes in which they believed. Black combatants provided notable U.S. service with Oliver Hazard Perry an estimated 10 to 20 percent of his sailing force at the battle of Lake

treated any differently because he was suspected of being a terrorist or suspected of such. The process that I chose to discuss is the enemy combatant. An enemy combatant is individuals arrested in the United States as terrorism suspects and held for an unspecified amount of time incommunicado without charges, trial or even access to counsel. Enemy combatants are also rendered bureaucratic rights by the courts (Article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention). Their due process and the right to a fair trial

For the term unlawful combatant, it can be defined as a person who was not entitled to combatant immunity in violation of the laws and customs of war during armed conflict. For unlawful combatant, they will not receive the protection under the Geneva Convention III. The unlawful combatant can be categorized as a person that engaged in armed conflict but with the violation of laws of war. The unlawful combatant was usually being detained or will be prosecuted under the domestic law of the State.

1.The general differences between a geographic combatant command (GCC) and a functional command start with the titles, and is codified in what is called the Unified Command Plan establishing joint commands. A geographic combatant is responsible for a specific geographic portion of the world called an Area of Responsibility. The world is divided into 6 geographic areas, and respectively the commands that are responsible for all military operations in those regions are as follows: 1. AFRICOM- The continent

Some geographic COCOMs and Combatant Commanders significantly influence U.S. foreign policy in their region which offsets the effectiveness of other instruments of power and sets the perception of military first. Combatant Commanders reported spending “a significant amount of time” on political issues and meeting with political leadership. (Feickert, p. 60) The responsibilities of the geographic combatant commanders include “provide US military representation to international and US national agencies

Enhanced Interrogation Techniques, were used in previous administrations. The techniques were considered at the very least to be cruel and inhuman. Among these are attention strikes and stress positions. The techniques violate human rights as well as detainee rights. There are few serious arguments for the retention of enhanced interrogation. The most compelling is the "ticking time bomb theory." This theory is in fact based on logical fallacy. An executive order has banned the use of enhanced interrogation

Suspension of Habeas Corpus: Historical Background The government has often engaged in the suspension of habeas corpus in times of wars and insurrections. This practice is by no means new, and goes back as far as the Civil War. An analysis of this practice shows that it is, at best, a short term measure. In the recent past, the US Supreme Court took up this topic in the context of the war on terrorism, and their findings-and the analysis that support those findings-reinforces this position. Habeas

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases. Padilla v. Rumsfeld American citizen, Jose Padilla was arrested in