Both are wrong. Both are so damn wrong that I am tempted to hold it up as proof of the failure of the public school system to teach people how to look simple facts up.
Unlawful combatant is a term in international law first outline formally in the Hague convention convened in 1899.
Translation: To be a lawful combatant, you mustSection I On Belligerents
Chapter I On the Qualifications of Belligerents
Article I
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps, fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Article 2
The population of a territory which has not been occupied who, on the enemy's approach, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having time to organize themselves in accordance with Article 1, shall be regarded a belligerent, if they respect the laws and customs of war.
A: Have a organized chain of command that can be held responsible for your actions.
B: Have a uniform or armband or hat or something that let's us tell you apart from the people who don't want to be involved in the impending firefight.
C: Carry arms openly. Don't hide the fact you got guns and are about to use them.
D: Follow the laws of war. No torture, no rape, no drug dealing, no targeting the noncombatants just to cause pain and terror. You must punish the members of your group that do not follow the laws of war.
People resisting an immediate invasion (I.E the invaders are just over the hill) are covered. Or in other words the Marshal's Posse is covered.
Found here
This was upheld by the US Supreme Court in 1942
Found hereFrom the very beginning of its history this Court has recognized and applied the law of war as including that part of the law of nations which prescribes, for the conduct of war, the status, rights and duties of enemy nations as well as of enemy individuals. By the Articles of War, and especially Article 15, Congress has explicitly provided, so far as it may constitutionally do so, that military tribunals shall have jurisdiction to try offenders or offenses against the law of war in appropriate cases. Congress, in addition to making rules for the government of our Armed Forces, has thus exercised its authority to define and punish offenses against the law of nations by sanctioning, within constitutional limitations, the jurisdiction of military commissions to try persons for offenses which, according to the rules and precepts of the law of nations, and more particularly the law of war, are cognizable by such tribunals. And the President, as Commander in Chief, by his Proclamation in time of war his invoked that law. By his Order creating the present Commission he has undertaken to exercise the authority conferred upon him by Congress, and also such authority as the Constitution itself gives the Commander in Chief, to direct the performance of those functions which may constitutionally be performed by the military arm of the nation in time of war.
