The Enemy Combatant -- The What?

Why do we need this new term, "the enemy combatant?"  I do understand that when one wants to deviate from accepted legal practice, it can be helpful to find a unique exception such as the description of the perpetrator.  And, maybe that's the reason we now have "enemy combatant."  So what is an "enemy combatant?"  Is he (or she) the soldier of a nation with whom we're at war?  Weren't such people always called simply "the enemy?"  Don't we have a military code for dealing with such combatants without finding it necessary to coin this new term,?

We've had a number of individuals who, with greater or lesser success, attempted to assassinate one, or more, of our presidents. These perps were never called enemy combatants.  If we caught them, and we generally did, they were put on trial as a part of our justice system.

We now face a new phenomena; namely, enemies of the American people, not connected with a specific foreign country.  Such people will set up a base of operations in a country incapable of governing, let alone bring to justice individuals operating within its borders.  We have no expectation of extraditing terrorists from such countries for the simple reason that such countries lack the means for doing so.  Also, we generally can't send in a sheriff because of the dangers that would face the sheriff and his deputies.  That being the case, why not simply eliminate such terrorists with a drone?  Now, of course, if the party that's taken refuge cries out, "I'm innocent.  I didn't do it."  That's one situation.  But, if he goes on YouTube, and proclaims, "I did it and I'm proud of it," it becomes an entirely different situation.  Such a person would obviously be an international terrorist -- but enemy combatant?

Let's consider motivation.  If getting money is the object of terrorist behavior, the perp is little more than a robber.  The legal means of addressing that sort of crime have been well established.  Other motivations include personal revenge for perceived wrongs done the perp, psychotic behavior and other manifestations of mental illness, jealousy, and on and on.

Another motivation for terrorism is religious and cultural intolerance.  It's clearly the motivations for many of the attacks on American citizens.  It is not, of course, the only motivation for such behavior.  McVeigh felt that the government's raid on a religious compound where young girls were being abused was an abuse by the government of its powers.  Blowing up a building and the consequent death of many innocent citizens was, in his warped mind, an appropriate way of addressing the government's bad behavior

But today. the attacks on the U.S. are largely motivated by disgust with American culture as seen through the eyes of an Islamist, a Muslim who is in the process of devoting his life to Mohammad's teachings as they are understood by extremist imams (Salafists).  The religious component of terrorism is nothing new.  Hundreds of thousands died horrible deaths when Pakistan separated from India,  the Hindus and Muslims having failed to resolve their differences.  And, indeed, Pakistan still seeks to inflict terror on India.  Technically, their dispute now centers on Kashmir, but in the absence of their religious differences this dispute could have been resolved years ago.

Religious wars are nothing new.  What is new is that they can now be engaged in across great distances.  If we are to deal with the mayhem resulting from religious intolerance, we must begin to deal with the problem as it is.  We desperately need secular Muslims to lend us a hand.  No, that's not correct.  We need them to lead the assault on Islamic terrorism.  Our use of  a term like "enemy combatant" is unproductive and gets us nowhere.