Federal Court Rules on Lawful Combatant Status of Colombian Terrorist

A federal district court in Washington D.C. last week ruled that an alleged Colombian terrorist is not a lawful combatant within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions. The case involved a criminal indictment filed against Junvenal Pineda (a.k.a. Simon Trinidad) for conspiracy to commit hostage taking, hostage taking, aiding and abetting and causing an act to be done, and material support of terrorists. The indictment in United States v. Pineda, 2006 WL 785287 (not yet available online), arose in connection with the death of U.S. nationals in Colombia committed for the purpose of compelling the Colombian government to exchange prisoners with an insurgent group known as Fuerzas Armadas Revolucion Arias De Colombia (“FARC”).

Trinidad argued that he was entitled to lawful combatant immunity as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions. The federal court ruled that Trinidad is not entitled to combatant immunity. Here are key aspects of the decision:

• The Geneva Conventions only to apply to international armed conflicts between nations. Because FARC is not involved in an armed conflict with the United States, Trinidad has not fallen into the power of the enemy within the meaning of the Convention.

• Even if this is deemed a real war for purposes of the Geneva Conventions, the defendant does not qualify as a prisoner of war because FARC members do not meet the definition of a lawful combatant. Trinidad is not a member of a militia, does not have a fixed and distinctive sign, does not carry arms openly and does not conduct its operations in accordance with the laws of war.

• Terrorist activities targeting civilians violate the law of war and therefore even if Trinidad were a lawful combatant, he would not qualify for combatant immunity because FARC is engaged in unlawful acts that violate the laws of war.

• The question of whether Trinidad enjoys combatant immunity is a political question for the President, not the courts.

• The motion to suppress evidence should be denied where it is established that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his Miranda rights.

Note that the first holding of the court could be read to mean that the war on terrorism is not a real war for purposes of the Geneva Conventions. Thus, any terrorist committing acts against the United States does not enjoy combatant immunity. But if this is true, does it also call into question the Administration’s assertion that the war on terror is a real war that entitles the government to detain enemies for the duration of the war?



The other holdings of the court are clear wins for the Administration in the ongoing fight against terrorism. The upshot is that terrorists committing acts that violate the laws of war are not lawful combatants, and therefore do not enjoy the immunity guaranteed under the Geneva Conventions. Unlike the average soldier in an international armed conflict who commits lawful acts of armed aggression, a terrorist may be indicted, tried, convicted and punished for his unlawful acts of aggression.