>>>>>>"Battlefield" has become a somewhat murky concept - especially in asymetric warfare. If I am a soldier in Iraq and I catch a guy planting an IED are we on a battlefield? Is he a "criminal" Does he have rights under US law?
>>>>>
>>>>>If the US law somehow applies to a citizen of a foreign country, then that country is de facto a colony. The US then have all the obligations as an occupying force, as per Geneva convention - they need to provide a lot. Which they have failed for five years, and keep failing. So why not give up if not up to the task?
>>>>
>>>>So the US should go ahead and shoot 'enemy combatants' or whatever the popular phase is since they are not covered under the Geneva accords since they are not fighting in a distinct uniform of their country (to differentiate from civilians). Spy is the closest term at that point.
>>>>
>>>>Works for me.
>>>
>>>OK, so a force from, say, Bananaguay has all the rights to send an expedition to Langley, because a CIA funded and trained terrorist group just attempted a coup and maintains a few camps the Stalk province, because that's new territory for the legal system of Bananaguay, and these guys have been killing their soldiers and policemen, and didn't bother to wear an uniform. Actually wore camouflage. But that's OK, they aren't any kind of army, they are just enemy combatants.
>>
>>
>>Not likely. More likely those guys were training others to kill and providing logistical support... If they were there actually killing, it would be a small team and no one would know about it... oh yeah, camouflage is a uniform...
>
>Websters: 2 a: concealment by means of disguise b: behavior or artifice designed to deceive or hide
>
>So; civilian dress is also camouflage and therefore a uniform. No?

But that also makes them combatants and therefore legitimate targets.
(that's some catch, that Catch-22)