Reply #185: OBL was not a non-combatant by any definition

[hack89]

being unarmed does not make him a non-combatant. By that logic, we couldn't shoot enemy soldiers if they weren't carrying weapons.

Here is the definition of non-combatant.

Non-combatant is a term in the law of war describing civilians not taking a direct part in hostilities,<1> as well as (under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, adopted in June 1977) persons such as medical personnel and military chaplains who are regular soldiers but are protected because of their function as well as soldiers who are hors de combat ("outside the fight"); that is, sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-combatant

Don't you think his active leadership of a group involving the killing of Americans gives him "a direct part in hostilities"?


Your articles 45, 46, 50 and 51 don't match up with what is found in the Fourth Geneva convention. Can you show me where you got them from?

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument