" 

  
 They must be kept separate. The two of us are not going to find a resolution. When separate the argument will be separate. Your preference that they be together is causing conflict. My preference that they be separate reduces conflict, and you are free to edit that page as much as you wish. The only possible conflict would be ""let's move the page"". Now, you have introduce a myriad of conflicts such as the definition of ""combatant,"" the definition of ""unlawful,"" the relation between International law and domestic law, the legitimacy of the """"war"" on terrorism"" and the nature and perspectives of those involved, differences between legal and conceptual definition, article style and flow, arguments over POV regarding implied comparisons and perspectives of concepts, etc. etc. Your PREFERENCE CAUSES conflict. It does NOT help anything. SEPARATE ARTICLES REDUCES CONFLICT.  

 Furthermore, whenever you say ""Show me an international treaty which..."" makes me want to punch the screen. If you are too stupid to understand what the words ""unlawful"" mean, you are too stupid to edit this article. It is a legal definition the same way as ""illegal driving"" would be a legal definitionit would mean driving in a manner opposed to the written law. A little more complicated, is that ""combatant"" would combatting in a manner opposed to the written law. To combat one must have a conflict, and as such that conflict must ALSO be defined by law otherwise participants in ANY conflict in which combat occurs (like say, an illegal street fight) could be considered ""unlawful combatants"". Either you are trying to start a fight with me (probably) or you need to brush up on your parsing of simple phrases. 

 I can't write like someone in the Supreme Court, but if your whole argument is based on me not being able to argue my side because you keep missing my points and not be able to weave around all your red herrings and bullshit (like all that crap about the British, that crap about how the lawyer is ""right,"" the point about the opening paragraph going straight over your head somehow, meaning you must have had to duck otherwise it should have hit you square in the face) then maybe you should consider the possibility that your argument to put them together is completely ridiculous, which is my position. "