>Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has

>Likewise, from the very same two paragraphs you reference you would find that the Bush-definition of enemy combatant describes an "unlawful combatant" who has no right to POW status under Geneva or the LOAC. no. Under Geneva, "unlawful combatants", like everybody else, are to be treated like protected POW until transferred to criminal or military justice system (lawful combatants are protected from such transfer). The "enemy combatant" status in the US is "unlawful combatant to whom both are intentionally and systematically denied - transfer to criminal or military justice system as well as POW status". That isn't "unlawful combatant" of Geneva, it is a violation of Geneva. >they "ordered the Bush administration to either charge Padilla or release him.". exactly. > In fact the term 'enemy combatant' was dropped in 2009 coincident to a certain regime change in the U.S. words change. People are still being held in Gitmo in violation of Geneva.