forces” [emphasis added].49 The United States District Court for the District of Columbia later determined that this definition was broader than the Supreme Court definition as it permitted the “indefinite detention of individuals who never committed a belligerent act or who never directly supported hostilities against the U.S. or its allies”.50 In this case the government had said that it had the authority to detain (1) ‘‘[a] little old lady in Switzerland who writes checks to what she thinks is a charity that helps orphans in Afghanistan but really is a front to finance al Qaeda activities”; (2) “a person who teaches English to the son of an al Qaeda member”; and (3) “a journalist who knows the location of Osama Bin Laden but refuses to disclose it to protect her source”.51 The US government has now created various definitions of “unlawful enemy combatants” and “unprivileged enemy belligerents” (the term used by the Obama administration), that are applicable to detention52 or to military commissions.53 All of the definitions of “unlawful enemy combatants” and “unprivileged enemy belligerents”, however, appear to go beyond the law of war as being “part of”, “purposefully and materially supporting hostilities” or 49 United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, “Memorandum for the Secretary of the Navy: Order Establishing Combatant Status Review Tribunal”, 7 July 2004, <http://www.defense.gov/news/jul2004/d20040707review.pdf>. 50 As will be discussed in Part 1-A of this report, international humanitarian law does authorize the internment of civilians, including those that have not directly participated in an armed conflict, in the context of an international armed conflict, but only in exceptional circumstances, whereby it is “absolutely necessary” for the detaining country’s security or for “imperative reasons of security”. The individual must be released once the exceptional circumstances cease to exist even if the relevant armed conflict has not ended. 51 This case was vacated on other grounds in Boumediene v. Bush. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, In re Guantánamo Detainee Cases, Nos. CIV.A.02–CV–0299CKK, 31 January 2005, <www.legislationline.org/documents/id/7453>. 52 For instance: Department of Defense Directive 2310.01E, op. cit., note 14, Part II: unprivileged belligerent refers to “an individual who is not entitled to the distinct privileges of combatant status (e.g. combatant immunity), but who by engaging in hostilities has incurred the corresponding liabilities of combatant status. Examples of “unprivileged belligerents” are: [i]ndividuals who have forfeited the protections of civilian status by joining or substantially supporting an enemy non-state armed group in the conduct of hostilities. Combatants who have forfeited the privileges of combatant status by engaging in spying, sabotage, or other similar acts behind enemy lines”; United States District Court for the District of Columbia, In Re: Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation, “Respondents’ Memorandum regarding the Government’s detention authority relative to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay”, Case Nos. 08-442, 05-0763, 05-1646, 05-2378,13 March 2009, <http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/legacy/2009/03/13/memo-re-det-auth.pdf>: the United States position on the Authorization for Use of Military Force’s (AUMF) detention authority is that: “[t]he President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks. The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in aid of such enemy armed forces”; National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, 31 December 2011, § 1021, <http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-112publ81/pdf/PLAW-112publ81.pdf>: this provision aimed to codify the AUMF’s detention authority. It included “[a] covered person under this section is any person as follows: (1) A person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for those attacks. (2) A person who was a part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed a belligerent act or has directly supported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces.” 53 For instance: Military Commissions Act (MCA) of 2006, 17 October 2006, § 948a, <http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf>: (1) (A) “The term ‘unlawful enemy combatant’ means – (i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or (ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense”; MCA of 2009, 28 October 2009, § 948a(7), <http://www.mc.mil/Portals/0/MCA20Pub20Law200920.pdf>: “The term ‘unprivileged enemy belligerent’ means an individual (other than a privileged belligerent) who (A) has engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; (B) has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners; or (C) was a part of al Qaeda at the time of the alleged offense under this chapter”. 43