Question is in three parts about enemy combatants:
First an enemy combatant is Definition link: Council on Foreign Relations:
An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with Al-Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of Al-Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”
“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).
The President has determined that Al-Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President’s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.
Historically, what due process rights are afforded enemy combatants under military tribunals? Please explore the reasons why enemy combatants are differently categorized and treated than United States domestic criminals in the answer.
Second, has the War on Terror expanded or diluted those due process rights? Relatively recent changes to the case law, military code of conduct or other source material can be explored.
Have the terrorist enemy combatants at GITMO been afforded these due process rights? Who's left at GITMO?