Argumentative Essay: Holding Enemy Combatants In Court

Introduction.
I disagree with the statement “Holding enemy combatants in custody without an attorney and without judicial review is justified by our war on terror.” In my opinion, the U.S. government violates basic Human Rights, as well as, a number of international and U.S. laws when detaining so-called enemy combatants and holding them in custody for an indefinite period of time without access to the court system. By doing that, the government violates several prime laws, such as the Third Geneva Convention, Constitution of the United States, as well as, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Deprivation of Prisoner of War status (POW) violates the Third Geneva Convention.
First, we need to define such categories as lawful and unlawful combatants, and to determine who and under what circumstances can be granted a prisoner of war status.
The Third Geneva Convention states that “lawful enemy combatant” is a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States, or a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State

According to the Lieber Code of 1867: “A prisoner of war is a public enemy armed or attached to the hostile army for active aid, who has fallen into the hands of the captor, either fighting or wounded, on the field or in hospital, by individual surrender or by capitulation.” “All soldiers, of whatever species of arms; all men who belong to the rising en masse of the hostile country; all those who are attached to the Army for its efficiency and promote directly the object of the war, except such as are hereinafter provided for; all disabled men or officers on the field or elsewhere, if captured; all enemies who have thrown away their arms and ask for quarter, are prisoners of war, and such exposed to the inconveniences as well as entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of