What Makes People Civilians

We have seen that many forces are organized for war. When do they become "enemy combatants"? At what point do they lose thier civilian status? Does the taliban fighter become a civilian the moment he puts down his rifle? Just as in Vietnam, the US has no clear enemy to kill. Where is the line between civilian and soldier? This is a question that will cause you to think. Once you begin thinking you may debate.

The moment they pick up a weapon and have intent to fire upon one side or the other, or do engage in the conflict, they are combatants and are no longer civilians. Dropping that weapon doesn't mean they are automatically reduced to citizen status again, they are still combatants. What makes it difficult is when they don't wear anything identifying them as a member of an army, militia, fighter group, whatever you want to call it, and do their best to blend in with the civilians. Then innocent people get hurt, and doing so is cowardly and intentional endangerment of civilians at best.

Excellent point, but I think it matters who they intend to shoot. An American defending his home does not become an enemy until he threatens law enforcement, and this never makes him a soldier. If he claims membership in some sort of militia, then I think he is an enemy soldier.
If an Afghani civilian becomes Taliban does this make his whole family Taliban, the ones he uses for a shield? At what age do we call Taliban soldiers?

Thank you for bringing this up. Just like the label "terrorist", enemy combatant is a blanket term that can truly be used on anyone. It has nothing to do with picking up a gun-many people and groups are labeled enemy combatants without ever having engaged in any type of violent action.

It is purely semantical, and is nothing other than propaganda to perpetuate fear towards those that are different.

So, excersizing your second amendment rights, which states:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

means you are an enemy combatant?

Some are not even armed with weapons.

They can be spies, or supply food and shelter etc. So not all of them will be carrying a Kalashnikov. Some could be hiding explosives under their garb. Worse yet have their females carry supplies and travel separately from the men only to hook up at the next location to blow something up.

Not carrying an Ak-47 does not mean they are not combatants.

Once a gun is raised at an agent of the US govement or a civilian, yes then he is an enemy soldier. Can we lose the "enemy combatant" thing? It was a product of deception and I am sorry I used it.

I would say enemy of the state, rather than enemy combatant

If he calls himself a soldier and fights America then he should be considered an enemy soldier and subject to the rules of the Geneva convention. This is just my opinion and I don't really know how the law stands on this. He gets the lable domestic terrorist. More fear mongering.

Well, the term "soldier" doesnt fit this definition either.
Soldiers is defined as:
1. One who serves in an army.
2. An enlisted person or a noncommissioned officer.
3. An active, loyal, or militant follower of an organization.

So just picking up a gun does not make you a soldier.

Also, let me ask you this: If a civilian points a gun at a police officer who is illegally abusing his power, is he still an "enemy combatant" or whatever rhetorical propaganda you'd like to use?

truth be told, these words are nothing other than propaganda to strike fear into a certain group, and to scare others into conforming.

One persons enemy combatant is another's person simply defending his home.

Terms such as "terrorist" "enemy combatant" "enemy soldier" ets are the most dangerous thing facing this country today, as most are too ignorant to realize that they rea NOTHING MORE THAN MENTAL WARFARE ON YOU, AND EVERYONE AROUND YOU.

reply to post by cautiouslypessimistic

---

That is why elect to call them enemy of the state. It is appropriate all around

Not really, he would still be seen as a combatant by the other side. We might not see him as such though the possibility exists, but the other side definitely would.

edit: fixed formatting error

[edit on 11-5-2009 by Jenna]

Enemy combatant, or enemy of the state is no different than the others. They are purely a way to label one group to perpetuate fear in another.

the minute you use these blanket terms, its already lost.

[edit on 5/11/2009 by cautiouslypessimistic]

I would be so happy to find a reporter who said "There were 100 killed and it is not known how many were civilians or how we would classify them as civilians. " Then I would have found a real news source. When will we be able to cast off the blinders of these blanket terms?