I've done some rewriting here which I think makes the article better. Since there is an article on enemy combatants I wonder if we should consider a merger? JodyB _talk 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it should be merged but into unlawful combatant--Philip Baird Shearer 08:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is best that this conversation takes place in one place so I am moving it to Talk:Unlawful combatant#Unlawful enemy combatant be merged into this article as that is where the current merge template links to --Philip Baird Shearer

IMO this new wording expresses a biased POV.

An unlawful enemy combatant is a person detained by United States in its war on terror.

• The rewrite implies that the phrase has been accepted by all elements of the US government -- that there is no controversy. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the MCA. It might still be struck down.
• The rewrite implies that these captives are combatants -- that is a POV. The Bush administration claims that the captives had a fair chance to challenge that they were combatants during their Combatant Status Review Tribunal. But, prior to Rasul v. Bush the Bush administrations position was that providing any kind of chance to challenge the evidence against them was unnecessary.

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's extremely biased but I don't see how MCA's validity is the problem. Even if MCA fails at the Supreme Court, there will still be a definition for unlawful enemy combatant. It is impossible to support the Geneva Conventions and not support the concept of some people being ruled as "unlawful enemy combatant" in their tribunals.

I think the big problem here is that the article is American-centric. That can't be helped to some extent (e.g. no one ever really expected communists to abide by the GCs), but it would be better if we could find more examples to provide context.

If it were up to me, I'd dump this and redirect it to unlawful combatant. The only real difference between the two is who would oppose them.

-- Randy2063 17:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]