text:
Amos 'n' Andy

Amos 'n' Andy was an American radio sitcom about black characters, initially set in Chicago then later in the Harlem section of New York City. While the show had a brief life on 1950s television with black actors, the 1928 to 1960 radio show was created, written and voiced by two white actors, Freeman Gosden and Charles Correll, who played Amos Jones (Gosden) and Andrew Hogg Brown (Correll), as well as incidental characters. On television, 1951–1953, black actors took over the majority of the roles; white characters were infrequent.

Amos 'n' Andy began as one of the first radio comedy series and originated from station WMAQ in Chicago. After the first broadcast in 1928, the show became a hugely popular series, first on NBC Radio and later on CBS Radio and Television. Later episodes were broadcast from the El Mirador Hotel in Palm Springs, California. The show ran as a nightly radio serial (1928–43), as a weekly situation comedy (1943–55) and as a nightly disc-jockey program (1954–60). A television adaptation ran on CBS (1951–53) and continued in syndicated reruns (1954–66). It was not shown to a nationwide audience again until 2012.

Origins

Gosden and Correll were white actors familiar with minstrel traditions. They met in Durham, North Carolina in 1920. Both men had some scattered experience in radio, but it was not until 1925 that the two appeared on Chicago's WQJ. Their appearances soon led to a regular schedule on another Chicago radio station, WEBH, where their only compensation was a free meal. The pair hoped that the radio exposure would lead to stage work; they were able to sell some of their scripts to local bandleader Paul Ash, which led to jobs at the Chicago Tribune's station WGN in 1925. This lucrative offer enabled them to become full-time broadcasters. The Victor Talking Machine Company also offered them a recording contract.

Since the Tribune syndicated Sidney Smith's popular comic strip The Gumps, which had successfully introduced the concept of daily continuity, WGN executive Ben McCanna thought a serialized version would work on radio. He suggested that Gosden and Correll adapt The Gumps for radio. The idea seemed to involve more risk than either Gosden or Correll was willing to take; neither was adept at imitating female voices, which would have been necessary for The Gumps. They were also conscious of having made names for themselves with their previous act. By playing the roles of characters using minstrel dialect, they would be able to conceal their identities enough to be able to return to their old pattern of entertaining if the radio show proved to be a failure.

Instead, they proposed a series about "a couple of colored characters" that borrowed certain elements from The Gumps. Their new show, Sam 'n' Henry, began on January 12, 1926 and fascinated radio listeners throughout the Midwestern United States. It became so popular that in 1927 Gosden and Correll requested that it be distributed to other stations on phonograph records in a "chainless chain" concept that would have been the first radio syndication. When WGN rejected the proposal, Gosden and Correll quit the show and the station; their last musical program for WGN was announced in the Chicago Daily Tribune on January 29, 1928. Episodes of Sam 'n' Henry continued to air until July 14, 1928. Correll's and Gosden's characters contractually belonged to WGN, so the pair was unable to use the characters' names when performing in personal appearances after leaving the station.

WMAQ, the Chicago Daily News station, hired Gosden and Correll and their former WGN announcer Bill Hay to create a series similar to Sam 'n' Henry. It offered higher salaries than WGN as well as the right to pursue the syndication idea. The creators later said that they named the characters Amos and Andy after hearing two elderly African-Americans greet each other by those names in a Chicago elevator. Amos 'n' Andy began on March 19, 1928 on WMAQ, and prior to airing each program, Gosden and Correll recorded their show on 78-rpm discs at Marsh Laboratories, operated by electrical recording pioneer Orlando R. Marsh. Early 1930s broadcasts of the show originated from the El Mirador Hotel in Palm Springs, California.

For the program's entire run as a nightly series in its first decade, Gosden and Correll provided over 170 male voice characterizations. With the episodic drama and suspense heightened by cliffhanger endings, Amos 'n' Andy reached an ever-expanding radio audience. It was the first radio program to be distributed by syndication in the United States, and by the end of the syndicated run in August 1929, at least 70 other stations carried recorded episodes.

Early storylines and characters
Amos Jones and Andy Brown worked on a farm near Atlanta, Georgia, and during the first week's episodes, they made plans to find a better life in Chicago, despite warnings from a friend. With four ham-and-cheese sandwiches and $24, they bought train tickets and headed for Chicago, where they lived in a rooming house on State Street and experienced some rough times before launching their own business, the Fresh Air Taxi Company. (The first car they acquired had no windshield; the pair turned it into a selling point.) By 1930, the noted toy maker Louis Marx and Company was offering a tin wind-up version of the auto, with Amos and Andy inside. The toy company produced a special autographed version of the toy as gifts for American leaders, including Herbert Hoover. There was also a book, All About Amos 'n' Andy and Their Creators, in 1929 by Correll and Gosden (reprinted in 2007 and 2008), and a comic strip in the Chicago Daily News.

Naïve but honest Amos was hardworking, and, after his marriage to Ruby Taylor in 1935, also a dedicated family man. Andy was a gullible dreamer with overinflated self-confidence who tended to let Amos do most of the work. Their Mystic Knights of the Sea lodge leader, George "Kingfish" Stevens, would often lure them into get-rich-quick schemes or trick them into some kind of trouble. Other characters included John Augustus "Brother" Crawford, an industrious but long-suffering family man; Henry Van Porter, a social-climbing real estate and insurance salesman; Frederick Montgomery Gwindell, a hard-charging newspaperman; Algonquin J. Calhoun, a somewhat crooked lawyer added to the series in 1949, six years after its conversion to a half-hour situation comedy; William Lewis Taylor, Ruby's well-spoken, college-educated father; and Willie "Lightning" Jefferson, a slow-moving Stepin Fetchit–type character. Kingfish's catchphrase, "Holy mackerel!", entered the American lexicon.

There were three central characters: Correll voiced Andy Brown while Gosden voiced both Amos and the Kingfish. The majority of the scenes were dialogues between either Andy and Amos or Andy and Kingfish. Amos and Kingfish rarely appeared together. Since Correll and Gosden voiced virtually all of the parts, the female characters, such as Ruby Taylor, Kingfish's wife Sapphire, and Andy's various girlfriends, did not initially appear as voiced characters, but entered plots through discussions among the male characters. Prior to 1931, when Madame Queen (then voiced by Gosden) took the witness stand in her breach-of-promise lawsuit against Andy, a feminine voice was heard only once. Beginning in 1935, actresses began voicing the female characters, and after the program converted to a weekly situation comedy in 1943, other actors were recruited for some of the supporting male roles. However, Correll and Gosden continued to voice the three central characters on radio until the series ended in 1960. Two black actresses continued their radio roles on the television series: Ernestine Wade, who played Sapphire, Kingfish's wife, and Amanda Randolph, who played her mother.

With the listening audience increasing in spring and summer 1928, the show's success prompted sponsor Pepsodent Company to bring it to the NBC Blue Network on August 19, 1929. With the Blue Network not heard on stations in the Western United States, many listeners complained to NBC that they wanted to hear the show but could not. Under a special arrangement, Amos 'n' Andy debuted coast-to-coast November 28, 1929, on NBC's Pacific Orange Network and continued on the Blue. WMAQ was then an affiliate of CBS and its general manager tried, to no avail, to interest that network in picking up the show. At the same time, the serial's central characters – Amos, Andy and Kingfish – relocated from Chicago to Harlem. The program was so popular by 1930 that NBC's orders were to only interrupt the broadcast for matters of national importance and SOS calls. Correll and Gosden were earning a combined salary of $100,000, which they split three ways to include announcer Bill Hay, who had been with them when they began in radio.

The story arc of Andy's romance (and subsequent problems) with Harlem beautician Madame Queen entranced some 40 million listeners during 1930 and 1931, becoming a national phenomenon. Many of the program's plotlines in this period leaned far more to straight drama than comedy, including the near-death of Amos's fiancée Ruby from pneumonia in the spring of 1931 and Amos's brutal interrogation by police following the murder of cheap hoodlum Jack Dixon that December. Following official protests by the National Association of Chiefs of Police, Correll and Gosden were forced to abandon that storyline, turning the entire sequence into a bad dream, from which Amos gratefully awoke on Christmas Eve.

The innovations introduced by Gosden and Correll made their creation a turning point for radio drama, as noted by broadcast historian Elizabeth McLeod:

As a result of its extraordinary popularity, Amos 'n' Andy profoundly influenced the development of dramatic radio. Working alone in a small studio, Correll and Gosden created an intimate, understated acting style that differed sharply from the broad manner of stage actors – a technique requiring careful voice modulation, especially in the portrayal of multiple characters. The performers pioneered the technique for varying both the distance from, and the angle of their approach to, the microphone to create the illusion of a group of characters. Listeners could easily imagine that they were in the taxicab office, listening to the conversation of close friends. The result was a uniquely absorbing experience for listeners, who, in radio's short history, had never heard anything quite like Amos 'n' Andy.

While minstrel-styled wordplay humor was common in the formative years of the program, it was used less often as the series developed, giving way to a more sophisticated approach to characterization. Correll and Gosden were fascinated by human nature, and their approach to both comedy and drama was drawn from their observations of the traits and motivations that drive the actions of all people. While their characters often overlapped popular African-American stereotypes, there was also a universality to their characters which transcended race; beneath the dialect and racial imagery, the series celebrated the virtues of friendship, persistence, hard work, and common sense, and as the years passed and the characterizations were refined, Amos 'n' Andy achieved an emotional depth rivaled by few other radio programs of the 1930s.

Above all, Gosden and Correll were gifted dramatists. Their plots flowed gradually from one to the other, with minor subplots building in importance until they overtook the narrative, before receding to give way to the next major sequence; in this manner, seeds for storylines were often planted months in advance. This complex method of story construction kept the program fresh and enabled Correll and Gosden to keep their audiences in constant suspense. The technique that they developed for radio from that of the narrative comic strip endures as the standard method of storytelling in serial drama.

Only a few dozen episodes of the original series have survived in recorded form. However, numerous scripts from the original episodes have been discovered and were used by McLeod when preparing her previously cited 2005 book.

Amos 'n' Andy was officially transferred by NBC from the Blue Network to the Red Network in 1935, although the vast majority of stations carrying the show remained the same. Several months later, Gosden and Correll moved production of the show from NBC's Merchandise Mart studios in Chicago to Hollywood. After a long and successful run with Pepsodent, the program changed sponsors in 1938 to Campbell's Soup; because of Campbell's closer relationship with CBS, the series switched to that network on April 3, 1939.

In 1943, after 4,091 episodes, the radio program transformed from a 15-minute CBS weekday dramatic serial to an NBC half-hour weekly comedy. While the five-a-week show often had a quiet, easygoing feeling, the new version was a full-fledged sitcom in the Hollywood sense, with a regular studio audience (for the first time in the show's history) and an orchestra. More outside actors, including many black comedy professionals, such as Eddie Green and James Baskett, were recruited for the cast. Many of the half-hour programs were written by Joe Connelly and Bob Mosher, later the writing team behind Leave It to Beaver and The Munsters. In the new version, the Amos character became peripheral to the duo of Andy and Kingfish, although Amos was still featured in the traditional Christmas show, which also became a part of the later television series. The later radio program and the TV version were advanced for the time, depicting blacks in a variety of roles, including those of successful business owners and managers, professionals and public officials, in addition to the comic characters at the show's core. It anticipated and informed many later comedies featuring working-class characters (both black and white), including The Honeymooners, All in the Family and Sanford and Son.

By the fall of 1948, the show was airing on CBS again. In that same year, Correll and Gosden sold all rights to Amos 'n' Andy to CBS for a reported $2.5 million.

Theme song
The theme song for both the radio and TV versions is "The Perfect Song" by Joseph Carl Breil, who had written the score from which the song is taken for the silent film The Birth of a Nation (1915).

Sponsors
Advertising pioneer Albert Lasker often took credit for having created the show as a promotional vehicle. After the associations with Pepsodent toothpaste (1929–37) and Campbell's Soup (1937–43), primary sponsors included Lever Brothers's Rinso detergent (1943–50); the Rexall drugstore chain (1950–54); and CBS's own Columbia brand of television sets (1954–55). President Calvin Coolidge was said to be among the show's most devoted listeners. Huey P. Long took his nickname, "Kingfish", from the show. At the peak of its popularity, many movie theaters stopped their featured films for the 15 minutes of the Amos 'n' Andy show, playing the program through the theater's sound system or from a radio on the stage before resuming their film. When some theaters began advertising this practice, NBC charged the theaters with copyright infringement, claiming that charging admission for a free broadcast was illegal.

Opposition and the Pittsburgh Courier protest
The first sustained protest against the program found its inspiration in the December 1930 issue of Abbott's Monthly, when Bishop W. J. Walls of the African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church wrote an article sharply denouncing Amos 'n' Andy for its lower-class characterizations and "crude, repetitious, and moronic" dialogue. The Pittsburgh Courier was the second largest African-American newspaper at the time, and publisher Robert L. Vann expanded Walls' criticism into a full-fledged protest during a six-month period in 1931. As part of Vann's campaign, more than 700,000 African-Americans petitioned the Federal Radio Commission to complain about the racist stereotyping on the show.

Historian James N. Gregory writes that the program "became the subject of heated conflict within African American communities" and that, while the Pittsburgh Courier campaigned against the program, "the Chicago Defender lauded the show's wholesome themes and good-natured humor," going "so far as to feature Gosden and Correll at its annual community parade and picnic in 1931."

Films
In 1930, RKO Radio Pictures brought Gosden and Correll to Hollywood to appear in an Amos 'n' Andy feature film, Check and Double Check (a catchphrase from the radio show). The cast included a mix of white and black performers (the latter including Duke Ellington and his orchestra) with Gosden and Correll playing Amos 'n' Andy in blackface. The film pleased neither critics nor Gosden and Correll, but briefly became RKO's biggest box-office hit before King Kong (1933).

Audiences were curious to see what their radio favorites looked like and were expecting to see African Americans instead of white men in blackface. RKO ruled out any plans for a sequel. Gosden and Correll did lend their voices to a pair of Amos 'n' Andy cartoon shorts produced by the Van Beuren Studios in 1934, The Rasslin' Match and The Lion Tamer. These were also not successful. Years later, Gosden was quoted as calling Check and Double Check "just about the worst movie ever." Gosden and Correll also posed for publicity pictures in blackface. They were also stars of The Big Broadcast of 1936 as Amos and Andy.

Television
Hoping to bring the show to television as early as 1946, Gosden and Correll searched for cast members for four years before filming began. CBS hired the duo as producers of the new television show. According to a 1950 newspaper story, Gosden and Correll had initial aspirations to voice the characters Amos, Andy and Kingfish for television while the actors hired for these roles performed and apparently were to lip-sync the story lines. A year later, both spoke about how they realized they were visually unsuited to play the television roles, citing difficulties with making the Check and Double Check film. No further mention was made about Gosden and Correll continuing to voice the key male roles in the television series. Correll and Gosden did record the lines of the main male characters to serve as a guideline for the television show dialogue at one point. In 1951, the men targeted 1953 for their retirement from broadcasting; there was speculation that their radio roles might be turned over to black actors at that time.

Adapted to television, The Amos 'n Andy Show was produced from June 1951 to April 1953 with 52 filmed episodes, sponsored by the Blatz Brewing Company. The television series used black actors in the main roles, although the actors were instructed to keep their voices and speech patterns close to those of Gosden and Correll, and was produced at the Hal Roach Studios for CBS. The series' theme song was based on the radio show's "The Perfect Song" but became Gaetano Braga's "Angel's Serenade", performed by The Jeff Alexander Chorus. The program debuted on June 28, 1951.

The main roles in the television series were played by the following black actors:

 * Amos Jones – Alvin Childress
 * Andrew Hogg Brown (Andy) – Spencer Williams
 * George "Kingfish" Stevens – Tim Moore
 * Sapphire Stevens – Ernestine Wade
 * Ramona Smith (Sapphire's Mama) – Amanda Randolph
 * Algonquin J. Calhoun – Johnny Lee
 * Lightnin' – Nick Stewart (billed as "Nick O'Demus")
 * Ruby Jones – Jane Adams

(2 episodes); Caroline's mother (1 episode)
 * Uncredited cast in various episodes
 * Ruby Dandridge in various roles
 * Dudley Dickerson in various roles
 * Roy Glenn as numerous authority figures
 * Jester Hairston in various roles, a number of times as Henry Van Porter
 * Theresa Harris as Gloretta
 * Jeni Le Gon in various roles
 * Sam McDaniel in various roles
 * Lillian Randolph as Madame Queen
 * Bill Walker in various roles

This time, the NAACP mounted a formal protest almost as soon as the television version began, describing the show as "a gross libel of the Negro and distortion of the truth". In 1951 it released a bulletin on "Why the Amos 'n' Andy TV Show Should Be Taken Off the Air." It stated that the show "tends to strengthen the conclusion among uninformed and prejudiced people that Negroes are inferior, lazy, dumb, and dishonest, ... Every character" is "either a clown or a crook"; "Negro doctors are shown as quacks and thieves"; "Negro lawyers are shown as slippery cowards"; "Negro women are shown as cackling, screaming shrews"; "All Negroes are shown as dodging work of any kind"; and "Millions of white Americans see this Amos 'n' Andy picture of Negroes and think the entire race is the same."

That pressure was considered a primary factor in the show's cancellation, even though it finished at #13 in the 1951–1952 Nielsen ratings and at #25 in 1952–1953 Blatz was targeted as well, finally discontinuing its advertising support in June 1953. It has been suggested that CBS erred in premiering the show at the same time as the 1951 NAACP national convention, perhaps increasing the objections to it. The show was widely repeated in syndicated reruns until 1966 when, in an unprecedented action for network television at that time, CBS finally gave in to pressure from the NAACP and the growing civil rights movement and withdrew the program. It was pulled from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's television network, which had been broadcasting it for almost a decade. The series would not be seen on American television regularly for 46 more years. The television show has been available in bootleg VHS and DVD sets, which generally include up to 71 of the 78 known TV episodes.

When the show was canceled, 65 episodes had been produced. The last 13 of these episodes were intended to be shown on CBS during the 1953–54 season but were released with the syndicated reruns instead. An additional 13 episodes were produced for 1954–55 to be added to the syndicated rerun package. These episodes were focused on Kingfish, with little participation from Amos or Andy, because these episodes were to be titled The Adventures of Kingfish (though they ultimately premiered under the Amos 'n' Andy title.) The additional episodes first aired on January 4, 1955. Plans were made for a vaudeville act based on the television program in August 1953, with Tim Moore, Alvin Childress and Spencer Williams playing the same roles. It is not known whether there were any performances. Still eager for television success, Gosden, Correll and CBS made initial efforts to give the series another try. The plan was to begin televising Amos 'n' Andy in the fall of 1956, with both of its creators appearing on television in a split screen with the proposed black cast.

A group of cast members began a "TV Stars of Amos 'n' Andy" cross-country tour in 1956, which was halted by CBS; the network considered it an infringement of their exclusive rights to the show and its characters. Following the threatened legal action that brought the 1956 tour to an end, Moore, Childress, Williams and Lee were able to perform in character for at least one night in 1957 in Windsor, Ontario.

Later commentary on television series
In the summer of 1968, the premiere episode of the CBS News documentary series Of Black America, narrated by Bill Cosby, showed brief film clips of Amos 'n' Andy in a segment on racial stereotypes in vintage motion pictures and television programing.

In 1983, a one-hour documentary film titled Amos 'n' Andy: Anatomy of a Controversy aired in television syndication (and in later years, on PBS and on the Internet). It told a brief history of the franchise from its radio days to the CBS series, and featured interviews with surviving cast members as well as popular black television stars such as Redd Foxx and Marla Gibbs, who reflected on the show's impact on their careers. Foxx and Gibbs emphasized the importance of the show featuring black actors in lead roles and expressed disagreement with the NAACP's objections that had contributed to the program's downfall. The film also contained highlights of a select episode of the classic TV series ("Kingfish Buys a Lot") that had not been seen since it was pulled from the air in 1966.

In Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.'s 2012 American Heritage article Growing Up Colored, he wrote: "And everybody loved Amos 'n Andy – I don't care what people say today....Nobody was likely to confuse them with the colored people we knew..."

Twenty-first century airing of series
In 2004, the now-defunct Trio network returned Amos 'n' Andy to television for one night in an effort to reintroduce the series to 21st century audiences. Its festival featured the Anatomy of a Controversy documentary followed by the 1930 Check and Double Check film.

In 2012, Rejoice TV, an independent television and Internet network in Houston, started airing the show weeknights on a regular, nationwide basis for the first time since CBS pulled the series from distribution in 1966. Six years later, Rejoice TV folded, and the series was again pulled from widespread distribution. There are no current official plans to rerelease the series to nationwide television.

Legal status
Although the characters of Amos and Andy themselves are in the public domain, as well as the show's trademarks, title, format, basic premise and all materials created prior to 1948 (Silverman vs CBS, 870 F.2d 40), the television series itself is protected by copyright. CBS bought out Gosden & Correll's ownership of the program and characters in 1948 and the courts decided in the Silverman ruling that all post-1948 Amos 'n' Andy material was protected. All Amos 'n' Andy material created prior to 1948, such as episodes of the old radio show, are in the public domain. The television series has never been officially released in home-video format, but many unlicensed bootleg compilations have been sold. In 1998, CBS initiated copyright infringement suits against three companies selling the videos and issued a cease-and-desist order to a national mail-order outfit that had offered episodes on videocassettes and advertised them in late-night television ads during the late 1990s. However, the unlicensed sets continue to be sold. No official, licensed DVD or Blu-ray compilations have been released.

Later years
In 1955, the format of the radio show was changed from a weekly to a daily early evening half-hour to include playing recorded music between sketches (with occasional guests appearing), and the series was renamed The Amos 'n' Andy Music Hall. The final Amos 'n' Andy radio show was broadcast on November 25, 1960. Although by the 1950s the popularity of the show was well below its peak of the 1930s, Gosden and Correll had managed to outlast most of the radio shows that came in their wake.

Cartoon
In 1961, Gosden and Correll attempted one last televised effort, albeit in a "disguised" version. They were the voices in a prime-time animated cartoon, Calvin and the Colonel, featuring anthropomorphic animals whose voices and situations were almost exactly those of Andy and the Kingfish (and adapting several of the original Amos 'n' Andy radio scripts). This effort at reviving the series in a way that was intended to be less racially offensive ended after one season on ABC, although it remained quite popular in syndicated reruns in Australia for several years. Connelly and Mosher returned to produce the series and also wrote several episodes.

Legacy
In 1988, the Amos 'n' Andy program was inducted into the Radio Hall of Fame. A pair of parallel, one-block streets in west Dallas, Texas are named Amos Street and Andy Street in honor of the characters.

The short-lived 1996 HBO sitcom The High Life was intended in part as an homage to Amos 'n' Andy, but with white characters.

Blues guitarist Christone "Kingfish" Ingram was given the nickname "Kingfish" after the sitcom by one of his guitar teachers, Bill "Howl -N- Mad" Perry.

The show was referenced by The Simpsons in "Duffless", the sixteenth episode of the fourth season, which premiered on February 18, 1993. While Homer is on a tour at the Duff brewery, an old ad for the brand is played, showing that Duff was a "proud sponsor" of Amos 'n' Andy back in the 50s.

In the 1994 film Pulp Fiction, Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) and Vincent Vega (John Travolta) visit a '50s-themed diner that offers on its menu an "Amos 'n' Andy" milkshake.

Later work by television cast members
Comedian Tim Moore made numerous public appearances and was a guest on television on shows such as Jack Paar's Tonight Show and the Paul Coates Show. In 1958, he headlined a standup comedy act at the Mocambo Night Club in Hollywood.

Ernestine Wade (Sapphire) and Lillian Randolph (Madame Queen) appeared together on an episode of That's My Mama called "Clifton's Sugar Mama" on October 2, 1974. They were friends of "Mama," played by Theresa Merritt, who wanted to see Clifton, played by Clifton Davis (later of the TV show Amen), at the beginning of the episode. Wade played Augusta and Randolph played Mrs. Birdie.

Jester Hairston (who played Henry Van Porter and Leroy Smith) was a regular on both That's My Mama as "Wildcat" and on Amen as "Rolly Forbes." He was also quite prominent in a brief role as a butler in the racially charged film In the Heat of the Night (1967).

Amanda Randolph (Sapphire's mother, Ramona Smith) had a recurring role as Louise the housekeeper on CBS's The Danny Thomas Show and appeared in the show's 1967 reunion program, which aired shortly after her death.

Nick Stewart (Lightnin') had a memorable cameo in It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World (1963) as a hapless driver run off the highway. Stewart and Johnny Lee (Calhoun) both provided voices in the Walt Disney film Song of the South in 1946. Johnny did the voice of Br'er Rabbit and Nick was heard as Br'er Bear. The film also starred black actor James Baskett, who had voiced the Gabby Gibson character in the radio series.

Audio

 * Amos 'n' Andy discuss the Presidential election
 * Amos & Andy Show on Way Back When
 * Archive.org Old Time Radio – Amos 'n' Andy
 * OTR Fans: Amos and Andy (23 episodes)
 * Amos 'n' Andy – OTR – Old Time Radio (108 episodes)
 * OTR Network Library: Amos 'n' Andy (219 episodes)
 * Tom Heathwood interviews broadcast historian Elizabeth McLeod
 * Zoot Radio, Free Amos 'n' Andy radio show downloads
 * Amos & Andy Show on Old Time Radio Outlaws

Video

 * Amos 'n' Andy: Anatomy of a Controversy Video by Hulu
 * 1934 Amos 'n' Andy Cartoon, The Lion Tamer, at Internet Archive
 * Also on Internet Archive, the second short Rassling Match

title: Amos 'n' Andy


text:
Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 1

Page 1
Those who support the use of this term seem to be in a minority even in the USA and Israel, and it has *no* support anywhere else in the world, it seems, so it is hard to make this article much more neutral than it is.

Can someone from the Texas Nazi Impire, or Jerusalem Post, add some kind of defense of this insanity? We wouldn't want to be accused of having a bias here. ;=(
 * Are you sure support for the existence of illegal combatants is that rare? Not in reference to Taliban-related specifics, but against the actual existence of illegal combatants?  The page was originally made by Lir, who can hardly be said to have had a pro-US and Israel bias... Tuf-Kat

The appended sentence from the article doesn't seem to make sense if you combine it with the fact that they are called illegal combatants. Ie: how can you both be an illegal combattant, and not a combatant at all. And there has to be a differentiation between the logical use of the word combatant and the legal use. (Anyone who engages in combat is a combatant in the logical sense, but not necessarily in the legal sense).
 * "Such a person is not considered a combatant and therefore is not accorded the rights of a prisoner of war (POW)."

WDYT? --snoyes 04:20 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * I clarified the sentence in question. I am the one who has made the recent edits.  I just forgot to log in.  I think the article is clearer now.  Chadloder 04:27 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

 * Thanks Chadloder. --snoyes 04:31 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

Does anyone have a reference to the Israeli legislation introduced in 2000? Chadloder 04:28 Mar 31, 2003 (UTC)

I have removed the following recent addition to the article. It is not factual, it is POV, and really does nothing to inform or educate the reader. Chadloder 01:36 Apr 9, 2003 (UTC)

 * In the 1942 context, the concept of an unlawful combatant is not controversial: the US was at war with Germany and the saboteurs did obviously not wear uniforms and openly bear arms as required for protection as prisoners of war. However, after the events of September 11, 2001, the U.S. applied illegal combatant status to its own citizens and to citizens of countries the US is not at war with. This effectively implies the US has given itself the right to call anyone in the world an illegal combatant and detain that person indefinately without trial. Those labelled illegal combatants are not told specifically what they are suspected of, nor given access to counsel. In addition, they are frequently held in isolation units and subjected to food and sleep deprivation.

I have also reverted Gretchen's edit which modifies a direct quote from the ex parte Quirin ruling. Take a look at the diff in the history and tell me if you agree that the edit of the direct quote was not valid.

I removed the recentj edition because it has the form of an argumentative editorial. While some of this material may have a place in the article, it must be presented as the opinion of a named competent party and not just presented as factual background. In fact it is highly contentious and in some aspects exceedingly doubtful. (I suspect copyvio too.) --Zero 12:04, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

POW, protected persons and geneva conventions
In excising David Newton's entire edit, the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater. The concept, if not the exact term "illegal combatant" goes way back in military law and practice and treaty obligations. Without this information, the article reads that the "illegal combatant" concept began unilaterally with the US Supreme Court in WWII--it did not. Much of the remaining article is a POV on behalf of those opposed to the concept.

I added citations and information, and cut most of David's arguably POV material.

I also removed this paragraph:

 * Under this Convention and other treaties, the established approach is that a person is either a civilian tried under civilian law or a combatant treated as a prisoner of war. Furthermore, it is generally accepted among some of these signatories and institutions that the detaining power does not have final authority over the PoW designation of detainees.

"Established approach" Citation? "generally accepted" By whom? Cecropia 00:46, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

 * I think the answers to this question are pretty clear. Firstly, the phrase "established approach"  does not require or lend itself to citation - it means that the approach has been used for a long time and has therefore become the de facto norm.  In regards to generally accepted, the author is clearly refering to the signatories and institutions. Kevin Baas 17:56, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe that's what the author intended, but it happens to be wrong. Read the talk at GW Bush and Illegal combatant. -- Cecropia 18:01, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't see this addressed anywhere in the GW Bush talk page.  There is mention of signatures and discussion of legal terms, but I don't see where authority over the PoW designation of detainees is discussed. Kevin Baas

Protest
I have removed the following section titled Protest until someone can prove that this actually took place. I cannot find any corroboration of it via Google. Chadloder 20:31, Mar 19, 2004 (UTC)

Protest
Some citizens have declared solidarity with prisoners accorded this status, especially by declaring their profession to be 'illegal combatant' on official forms, especially if arrested during anti-war protest or anti-globalization movement activities. This practice is most common among anarchists, situationists, and Marxists.

 * my first impression is that the "most common among..." should read "political activists" (a.k.a. citizens exercising their duty as citizens), and that this is a very hard statement to qualify - it sounds judgemental to me. Other than that, the solidarity part seems quite plausible.  I know there are many highly respected lawyers who have fought for the human rights of those deemed as unlawful combatants.  Where is this information from? Kevin Baas 17:46, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Sentence wording
''Those are, for example, not being deliberately targeted by military action and other traditional protections. '' I couldn't decipher the meaning of this sentence within its context. Does this sentence make sense to anybody? Mdchachi|Talk 18:22, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

some other points to consider
As the US Supreme Court ruling was in 1942 which was before the final draft of the 1949 GCIII, which is treaty ratified by the USA. Until the Supreme Court rules on a new case, with this ratified treaty taken into account (specifically Art.4.and Art 5) there will be contradictions in US law.

BTW GCIII Art 5 Second Paragraph states:
 * Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent
 * act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the
 * categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection
 * of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
 * determined by a competent tribunal.

This is not somthing that the US seems to be doing at the current time although they are treay bound to do so.

 * But the US would contend that there is "no doubt" as to the status of the detainees in question. Are you implying that some international tribunal is supposed to decide this? Where is this in either Geneva or Hague? -- Cecropia | Talk 11:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is doubt. The prisoners (and others) would define themselves as POWs. The the USA can hold a "competent tribunal" to decide this issue. But they have not done so.  Philip Tue May 11

The long held maritime practise of flying false colours is also accepted as a legitimate land war practise: See the Nuremberg TRIAL OF OTTO SKORZENY AND OTHERS http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/skorzeny.htm

Wing Commander Tommy Yeo-Thomas worked for SOE code name (White Rabbit) and was a major player in building up the Maquis. He was captured, tortured, and sent to Buchenwald from which he escaped. He testified at Nuremberg for prosecution against the guards at Buchenwald. He testified for the defence of Otto Skorzeny. http://www.anybook4less.com/detail/0753150492.html

His description of what the SOE did to kill Germans and destroy German bases left the court in a position that if they found Otto Skorzeny guilty then they would have to try many highly decorated Allies. The best source for this is "Commando Extraordinary Otto Skorzeny" by Charles Foley. http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/0261.html

Philip Mon May 10 23:22 NZST 2004

-
 * Citing a case precedent is interesting, but Hague requires that combatants, while in combat, be identifiable by a distinctive uniform or badge, if you are implying otherwise. There is no indication that the detainess in the Afghanistan case were attempting a legitinate ruse of war. -- Cecropia | Talk 11:39, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

This url points to an article which argues that Taliban combatants may indeed have been wearing what in Afghanistan is accepted as uniforms by the local combatants on both sides.

Even if they were not wearing uniforms, there are other sections of GCIII under which they might fall and so be POWs (eg:.GCII.4.4. "Persons who accompany the armed forces", 4.5, 4.6 "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces", 4.B.1, and for some of them 4.C/33(chaplains)). Until there is a legally constituted tribunal to decide the issue the US Administration is in breach of GCIII which is a treaty ratified by the USA.

There is also provisions about how people should be treated regardless of whether they are POWs or not. GCIII 3.1 "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,[snip change of status in armed forces], shall in all circumstances be treated humanely,[snip]". GCIII 3.1.c[ to this end] "Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment". 3.1.d "The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." I think current US Administration treatment of "unlawful combatants" in Guantanamo Bay, is in breach of this, because the USA defines its self as civilized but it is denying "GCIII" "persons" judicial guarantees which all but two of their own citizens enjoy.

When Napoleon came back from Elbe the Allies declared war on him, not France. So there is a precedence for states declaring war on individuals. The fact that the USA Executive says that they are at war with the al-Qaeda means that they can argue that the 2 US detainees held on the main land are "unlawful combatants", but in doing so they bind themselves with the treaties of the Geneva Conventions. This would not be true if they were to call it a police action. IMHO the sooner the US Supreme court rules on these cases (and considers how GCIII 1949 treaty obligations effect the rulings of 1942 Quinn Case) the better.

Philip Tue May 11 NZST

 * If you wish to "lawyer" the issue, you can always find excuses to support an point of view. You mention "persons who take no active part in the hostilities"--are you asserting that the detainees did not?; "persons who accompany the armed forces"--are you asserting these were such as press, chaplains and medical adjutants?; and I especially note you mention "spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces"--first this is a limited right, second it is said that a large number of the detainees are Saudis and many other are non-Afghan nationals--I doubt that they spontaneously took up arms. The paragraph you cite specifies (my emphasis): "The inhabitants of a territory which has not occupied, who, on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading troops without having had time to organize [...] shall be regarded as belligerents if they carry arms openly and if they respect the laws and customs of war. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:20, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW the GCIII 3.1 "persons who take no active part in the hostilities" does not mean that they did not take part it means that they are not doing so now.Philip
 * That has nothing to do with the qualifications of whether they were lawful or not when combatants. That is Hague.

I do not wish to argue the right and wrongs of whether a Mad Muller should or should not be treated as chaplain, or if a detainees had a gun etc. I just think that the US administration should follow the GCIII. which means that they should hold a "competent tribunal" to decide if these people are POWs and until such time they should hold them as if they are POWs. If they are found to be 'unlawful combatants' and they have committed a crime then they should be handed over to a competent court for trial, if they have not committed a crime then they should either be defined as POWs or be released. If the US Administration does not do this then they are in breach of their treaty obligation.

I would appreciate it if some of these points were added to the main page. Particularly one that points out that US domestic law was decided in 1942 which was before the Nuremberg trials and GCIII in 1949. Without that knowledge the concept of 'unlawful combatants' seems odd -- Philip Tue May 11 NZST (2)

 * I have no objection to a modification of the Supreme Court issue--in fact I feel it should be deleted, because it does not need to be relied on in the current case. As to the "competent tribunal" we do not know that such tribunals have not been held. Since only a fractions of the tens of thousands captured on the battlefield in Afghanistan have been detained as unlawful combatants, there evidently was some process to determine who was who. Such tribunals need not be public, and the fact that the ICRC has complained about conditions and open-ended detentions but has not challenged their detention suggests they are not challenging their designation.

 * Let me suggest this to you. Since this article is about illegals combatants and not about specific examples, perhaps you can link to and begin an article entitled something like "Illegal combatant status of Guantanamo detainees" where arguments on their status can be placed. I would happily remove that discussion from here, because it muddies an otherwise straightforward article. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:22, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

-
 * I don't really know what you guys are talking about here, but let me set the record straight for cecropia: The right to self-soveirgnity and political self-determination is inalienable, and takes precedence over all other law. - it supercedes legality, and any measure taken in regard to it should not be viewed in the guise of law, but rather should be considered from a sociological standpoint. - Kevin Baas 18:25, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * What did you just say, in terms of what it means to this article? You've just implied that noone can ever be put in jail, for any reason. -- Cecropia | Talk 20:29, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Wow, is this the only method of argument you know how to use: taking things to the extreme in order to reduce them to logical absurdity? You should really expand your repertoiry, because this is not very convincing. Kevin Baas 17:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I asked you a straightforward question: What do you mean by "inalienable self-sovereignty and political self-determination" that "takes precedendce over all other law" and how does it apply to this article? Refusing to answer a question about your own assertion by claiming the other person is over the top is another lame debating technique. -- Cecropia | Talk 18:07, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You did not ask me that question. You asked me a very vague question that did not give me any information at all about what you were having difficulty understanding.  This was followed by rhetoric, so I wasn't even sure if that question was rhetorical or real.  I think this is all very clear to anyone reading this.  Thus, the criticism in your last comment is null and void.  You did not ask me the question that you claim you did.
 * Furthermore, you misquoted me, and in no arbitrary way: your misquote changes the meaning of what I said. I refered to an inalienable right, you refer to "inalienable self-sovereignty".  I am refering to the innate and inherent right of a populace to govern themselves.  Insofar as poeple are governed by people, by way of laws, one can not have laws made by the same people that they are for without the right of self-sovereignty. Kevin Baas 21:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)~
 * Taking what you said at face value, please relate that to this article about the legal status of belligerents and protected persons during combat, which is what this article is about. -- Cecropia | Talk 21:12, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to take law as a prima causa and a priori object-in-itself; you propund "pure law" as one would propound "pure mathematics" - yet everything pertinent to law is everything that is not the law itself. The "meaning" of a law is not codified purely and completely by it's legalistic description, but is manifested in its social, epistemic, and political setting.  What I gave you above was an example of how non-legalistic matters can take primacy over legalistic matters when defining law, and why that relationship holds, insofar as the human body and the power struggle for soveirgnty is the constituent substance which lies underneath the surface of law.  It is in this light that the term "unlawfull combatant" has a meaning which deserves discussion in this article.  I mentioned the example to "set the record straight" because it seems that you fail to take this relationship into account and give these considerations commensurate authority. Kevin Baas 18:55, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Has Hague 1899 been superceded by the Geneva conventions?
In the area of who should be considered a POW, hasn't The Second Hague Convention of 1899 has been superceded by GCIII and GCIV? If so shouldn't the section in which Hague is used be replaced with reference to the Geneva Conventions? Philip Baird Shearer 03:59, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The short answer is no. The slightly longer answer is that conventions are treaties that remain perpetually in force unless abrogated by the signatories. Codicils or amendments are sometimes adopted which are binding only on the signatories of thsoe amendments. Which provisions of Geneva III and IV do you have in mind? -- Cecropia | Talk 04:16, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

As an exmple GCIII Art 4.. Philip Baird Shearer 05:25, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, that article essentially reiterates Hague II in supplying definition for the present article--I don't see any point of conflict. The major thing not reiterated is the discussion of the basic qualification of a belligerent, from which the entire concept of belligerent (entitled to POW status) and protected person is derived. I highly recommend you read US Army Field Manual 27-10 (Law of Land Warfare), which is referred to by ICRC author. It is kept up-to-date and is available here. It was my first point of reference when I taught the subject. The second point of reference was, of course, the treaties themselves. -- Cecropia | Talk 05:36, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

 * The treaties themselves say that a "protected person", which is anyone detained by a foreign body, regardless of whether they are "legal" or "illegal" combatants are what have you, retains all human rights and must be treated decently. Geneva does not reiterate Hague.  Geneva states what Geneva states.  Kevin Baas 16:28, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

 * If we're going to get anywhere with this article, we have to have accurate base definitions. A "protected person" has nothing whatever to do with being detained by a foreign body. It is a person (usually called a "civilian") who is not a member of a valid belligerent force. Every person who is not a member of a valid belligerent force. They are protected (inter alia) from detention as combatants, and from various arbitrary rules of an occupying power. When a protected person engages in combat anyway, except in specific circumstances, they become unlawful combatants. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:49, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Kevin Baas 16:46, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)" Kevin Baas 16:53, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)
 * We're going around too much with this. Yes, a protected person is any civilian in the hands of an Occupying Power, but that doesn't shield them from the deficits of becoming an unlawful combatant. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:11, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It grants them certain inalienable rights and protections. Kevin Baas 19:10, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

"Illegal" and "unlawful" combatant
Although the term unlawfull may be mapped, legally, to the term "illegal combatant", I think a large number of people, including contributors to this page, and I know for certain myself, ares sensitive to the different connotations of the word, but relectant to discuss this in the article. Perhaps we should bring this issue to the surface here? I understand the connotations to differ in this respect: "illegal" is an explicit and objective adjective, saying the act that has been done is not legal; that it is contrary to one or more laws. "unlawful", on the other hand, refers to an individual rather than an act or phenomena, and is a judgement of that person, rather than a logical statement concerning law. An unlawfull person is a person who is not law-faring, as an unpious person is a person who is not god-faring. I believe that these differences are quite significant. the word "unlawfull" is a judgement of a person that cannot be substantiated, and dehumanizes the person that it refers to, yet makes no specific claims of illegal acts. Illegal does not charaterize a peson or dehumanize them in any way, rather it makes an objective statement about an act or phenomena. What do dictionaries say about the two terms? Kevin Baas 01:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Another term used is "unprivileged combatant" (i.e., not having the privileges of the Laws of War, including freedom from civilian law prosecution and POW status). This is probably both the most accurate and NPOV. HOWEVER, I think hardly anyone who hasn't studied this stuff has heard the term, even it has been around for a century or so. I am personally agnostic as to which term should be used, since none of them appear in Geneva or Hague, but maybe you want to run a poll? -- Cecropia | Talk 01:39, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Poll: Illegal, Unlawful, or Unprivileged?
Please see the discussion immediately above. Since there is no "official" term, we could use any. "Illegal" and "Unlawful" are most common, known to most of the general public; "Unprivileged" probably most accurate and neutral, but least known. All the others could, of course, be redirects.

All terms describe an individual who engages in combat but is not eligible in treaty law or tradition for the designation of a belligerent, and therefore the special legal protections of that designation. Terms are in alphabetical order. -- Cecropia | Talk 02:40, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Illegal combatant

Unlawful combatant

 * 1) Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Kevin Baas 22:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Unprivileged combatant

Comments or second choices

Since the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, The US Government started to use the term "unlawful combatant" because that term has a meaning under US domestic law (ex parte Quirin). Most of the literature about the issue uses the term "unlawful combatant" (even if it is only to criticise the term). So given that this is an on-line facility, I think the best name to use is "unlawful combatant". It would probably be a good idea though to add a paragraph explaining that this is perceived by some people to be a pejorative term. Philip Baird Shearer 07:16, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Also there should be a brief mention and description of the other terms. Kevin Baas 22:57, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not voting (since I declared myself agnostic--whatever everyone else decides is fine by me) but I do want to make a comment. If we don't use "unprivileged" (since noone seems to know it except those who have had to work with it or are repositories of recondite knowledge) I would probably prefer "unlawful" since it has the sense of being "outside law." "Illegal" sort of suggests that a cop comes and arrests you--it's not like that. An unprivileged combatant who manages to survive the war without capture and ends up on the winning side (or sometimes doesn't even end up on the winning side) is not going to prosecuted. I'm just trying to deal with the symantics of the thing. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Given the lack of information, there is some question in some cases as to whether they are combatants of any sort. - `Hephaestos|§

 * If you're referring to the people at Guantanamo, I really think we should have a separate article covering that situation. The illegal/unlawful/unprivileged combatant has existed at least since the Laws of Warfare began to be codified (i.e., more than a century). That is the pupose of this article. Editors would then do well to use these points to argue who, specifically, is in that undesirable situation. I'm going to add more history and citation to this at some point as soon I get a chance. If noone else begins a separate article on Gitmo by then, I guess I'll try to start it myself. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:29, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Too late, The Cunctator already created Camp X-Ray. Should I move the Guantanamo-specific discussion there ? -- DavidCary 03:27, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Seems reasonable to me. -- Cecropia | Talk 03:34, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Title Change
Since the only people interested seem to think Unlawful is best and no one seems to like Illegal, I will change the title. -- Cecropia | Talk 13:46, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Added material on law
The material recently added needs some vetting, some coherence and some background. I don't have the time to go over right now, but among its problems are the fact that it puts the cart before the horse, defining lawful and unlawful combatants backwards, i.e., if you're a POW you're lawful, if you're not a POW, you're unlawful. Rather it is the other way around, your status (lawful, unlawful, protected person) is specified by Hague (not Geneva), after that determination is made, then the issue of POW status comes up. -- Cecropia | Talk 23:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * Leave Hague to Hague and Geneva to Geneva. Geneva has it's own definition for "protected persons", specifically stated, and it refers to this definition in the Geneva.  You can go ahead and state that if you cross-wire hague and geneva, then...  But this is not the way the law is, as anyone can see.  Kevin Baas 23:34, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

 * For one thing, Geneva IV has less ratification than earlier treaties, so some of its provisions (esp. as refers to irregulars not in uniform, not mentioned here) are not in effect. Further, the mentions of qualifications of belligerents is repeated in Geneva, but is sourced from Hague. As to the line about what the U.S. military has or has not done, that was recently inserted. Not only is it outside the scope of NPOV (it's the equivalent of stating that "I've read the law and this man has committed murder". Wikipedia is not a court, and this is also outside the scope of this article. The article is about unlawful combatants, not whether or not a belligerent has violated the Geneva Conventions.

 * If you wish to wrangle this out, I propose we do what has been done with other articles such as Terrorism. Remove the new section with notation, protect (or not) the article page, and create a page Unlawful combatant/temp where all the arguing and editing can be done. When we've agreed, it goes back in the article. Agreed? -- Cecropia | Talk 23:56, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, except I want to do all the arguing on *this* talk page. That's what it's for, right ?

 * That's fine--except--you're weren't logged in. Was that you, KB? -- Cecropia | Talk 03:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * It was me. -- DavidCary 03:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I assume the paragraph we're talking about is:

Articles 27 and 32 of GC4 have been violated recently by U.S. armed forces, in following orders from high-ranking U.S. military officers, specifically in abusing prisoners in Iraq. On June 21, 2004, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Anon warned U.N. Security Council members not to grant the United States another exemption from prosecution by the International Criminal Court, stating that it was wrong, especially after the abuse of prisoners in Iraq.'''

There's also some major changes recorded at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Unlawful_combatant&diff=4376392&oldid=4375657 -- it seems well-intentioned, but someone more familiar than I with treaty law should check it. -- DavidCary 03:47, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, I would fault that entire long section placed in the article by Jwrolf. S/he said the former wording was "politically motivated" but I'll have to source that out. I believe it is a military or academic interpretion. There are problems when someone selects out sections of law without context. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:33, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I am reminded of the book "Animal Farm". Kevin Baas 16:30, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

Wrolf speaks.
Yes, it was a pretty big edit.

The main point for me is that GCIII 4 and 5 are controlling now for eligibility for POW status, and therefore by implication lawful combatant status. Use of the more limited Hague II Article 1 definition is equivalent to GCIII 4. A 1 & 2, excluding all of the others, especially GCIII 4. A 6 and GCIII 5. To use the superceded definitions reads like a political act.

My paragraph:

 * Articles 27 and 32 of GC4 have been violated recently by U.S. armed forces. On the other hand, since the forces opposing the U.S. have routinely and systematically violated these conventions, one can argue that they have no applicability whatsoever, (GC4 Art. 4 etc.) and that the modern battlefield has no rules, and total war now means everywhere, any time, any means, and for any or even no justification.

is part analysis, and part factual. While I feel strongly about the analysis, I also agree with Kevin Baas editing it out, at least until a more balanced analysis can be done.

The point I am trying to get to is that if we do not hold ourselves accountable for our actions, if we do not try to limit the impact of war, then we ourselves are guilty and we ourselves will pay a moral price, if we have any fond hopes of retaining or regaining any status as the good guys.

 * Analysis must be reasonable, and must adhere to No original research andNeutral point of view. The fact that you consider it important for high-minded reason, even if your analysis were correct, does not empower one to violate those rules. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * Which is why I agree with Kevin Baas editing it out. Of course, the U.S. Government seems to have adopted my POV (courts martial, at least for direct participants, disavowal of internal documents...).Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with Cecropia eliminating the factual portion of that paragraph. I believe it to be factually true and extremely relevant, given that the term "unlawful combatant" basically relates to one case of Nazi saboteurs in the U.S. and the current detainees from Afghanistan and Iraq. A wider discussion or a note with a link to a page with a wider discussion, I could certainly agree with. But it is a fact proven at court martial and in movie theaters across the country, and since there are so few detainees with unlawful combatant status, it is relevant that so many (relatively) have been subject to this treatment.

 * "Proven in movie theaters across the country"??? I assume you're referring to Farenheit 9/11. You're using a very bad example in Michael Moore. Even impartial reviewers who want Bush out are criticizing the selectiveness and maniuplation of the piece. You're being honest, but you're certainly impeaching any expressions of writing in a neutral fashion. Cecropia | Talk 16:37, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the Talk:Unlawful combatant page. For the humor impaired, adducing Fahrenheit 9/11 as comparable evidence to a U.S. court martial is a joke.  You may now laugh.Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * I would also suggest that reading the text of treaties is good, but is not always sufficient. For one thing, you are outright mistaken that the notion of "unlawful combatant" relates to the WWII Nazi saboteurs. The reason for the confusion is that the terms unlawful/illegal/unprivilged combatant are not in the treaties as such. The treaties describe what qualifies a person to be regarded as a belligerent. The concept of unlawfulness covers those who do not qualify, but engage in combat anyway. -- Cecropia | Talk 16:41, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

 * "Article 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Kevin Baas 16:46, 2004 Jul 1 (UTC)

 * I do not understand how the notion of [unlawful combatant] does not relate to the WWII Nazi saboteurs - ex parte Quinn explicitly discusses "examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war", i.e. unlawful combatants.Wrolf 19:30, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

on the Criticism section
I am changing the wording The treatment of unlawful combatants back to The legal status of unlawful combatants

For precisely the reason given by Cecropia when he made his change the legal definition of unlawful combatant is specified in international law...

This section is here because the US has not followed its international treaty obligations (as mentioned in this document) in GCIII Art5. [A]s their status has [not] been determined by a competent tribunal (GCIII Art 5), so they are not being held legally as unlawful combatants. If I am wrong and they have been in front of a competent tribunal, then they should be held under the condition specified in GCIV Art 5 until tried and found guilty of a crime when they should be processed throught the US penal system (no unusual punishment). Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

US Specific Section
Before the recent US court cases, the US supreme court had not visited this since before GCIII, it would seem to me that the most recent US supreme court cases rulings should be mentioned in passing along, with the original case and they all should all be moved down to near the end of the article into a US specific section.Philip Baird Shearer 14:39, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

 * The peculiar legal status of Guantanamo Bay is a factor in the use of Guantanamo as a detention center. Because sovereignty of Guantanamo Bay ultimately resides with Cuba, the U.S. government has argued (and one circuit court has agreed) that people detained at Guantanamo are legally outside of the U.S. and do not have the Constitutional rights that they would have if they were held on U.S. territory (see Cuban American Bar Ass'n, Inc. v. Christopher, 43 F.3d 1412 (11th Cir. 1995)).  However, in 2004, the Supreme Court rejected this argument in the case Rasul v. Bush with the majority decision and ruled that prisoners in Guantanamo have access to American courts, citing the fact that the U.S. has exclusive control over Guantanamo Bay.

This was taken from the GB page it holds the information with the stuff already on the page to update the US S.Court view of an unlawful combatant with consideration of the 1949 GC treaty obligations. Any one want to write a US specific section and place it just before the Criticism section? Philip Baird Shearer 04:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Treatment
"such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."

So, as I understand the interpretaion of "unlawful combatant", and why that abridges the human rights of the prisoner, is that the State has a right to beat the prisoners because not beating them would endanger the State? Kevin Baas | talk 19:57, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Depends if you think that beating someone is consistent with the later clause in the same article (GVIV art 5): In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity

Also there is the point that for many states they have their own domestic laws and international treaty commitments which forbids beating prisoners under any circumstances.

For example the official US methods of interrogation were developed by the British in the early 1970s to "question" people suspected of having information useful to the security of the State, in Northern Ireland. These (very effective) methods known as "sensory deprivation techniques" (and in court as "the five techniques") -- wall-standing, hooding, loud white noise, deprivation of sleep, deprivation of food and drink -- were designed not to meet the UK legal definition of tourture. Ireland took Britain to European Court of Human Rights and in a landmark judgement "Ireland v. the United Kingdom" January 18, 1978, the court ruled
 * ''167. ... Although the five techniques, as applied in combination, undoubtedly amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, although their object was the extraction of confessions, the naming of others and/or information and although they were used systematically, they did not occasion suffering of the particular intensity and cruelty implied by the word torture as so understood. ...
 * ''168. The Court concludes that recourse to the five techniques amounted to a practice of inhuman and degrading treatment, which practice was in breach of Article 3 (art. 3).

On March 2, 1972, in response to the "Parker report" the UK government had abandoned the use of the techniques and issued directives to the the UK Security forces which to this day prohibit the use of the five techniques. Philip Baird Shearer 11:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Enemy combatant
The phrase repeatedly used by the Bush regime is "enemy combatant." I am confused as to why "unlawful combatant" has replaced it in this article. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think they're different. I've fixed the redirect with a stub at Enemy combatant. To me, an "unlawful combatant" would be a civilian who attacks military (rather than military vs. military). So in that case, civilians in Iraq would be "Unlawful Combatants" during the Iraq war and at the time Saddam Hussein was President. They would be Iraqi citizens fighting the invading US/UK army. Vietnamese citizens fighting the US army during the Vietnam war would also be "unlawful combatants" in that sense.

Currently, rebels in Fallujah are murderers, terrorists, seditious conspirators etc. according to whatever Iraqi law they are breaking. In that case it is civilian vs. civilian, as the US has succeeded in "regime change" and are now not fighting Iraq, nor occupying Iraq, but helping the Iraqi government (such as it is).

"Enemy combatants" as defined by the US, are not civilian vs. military, but civilian vs. civilian (incl. government). Of course, civilian vs. civilian (should) fall under the normal rule of law, but the US government seems to have an arbitrary method of determining who is an "Enemy combatant"--as far as I know, it is simply an executive order with no judicial oversight. I think that is the distinction, and I think it's a very important distinction.--Ben 10:50, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surely an enemy combatant is a combatant fighting for the other side in an armed conflict? So in the Falklands War enemy combatants were for the British members of the Argentinian armed forces. Unlawful combatants are not civilians. It includes people who have breached the laws of war: fighting under a flag of truce, or mercenaries, or a member of a militia fighting out of uniform, (unless the parties have signed Protocol I), or a person fighting without a command structure etc. Philip Baird Shearer 13:55, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

THIS IS AN ARCHIVE. PLEASE DO NOT POST HERE. GO TO Talk:Unlawful combatant INSTEAD.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Unlawful combatant/Archive 1


text:
Talk:The Silver Chalice

NPOV
The following text was moved from the article for npoving... KJ

I'm not certain what the purpose of this page is entirely, so I will adapt it to my own purpose which is to offer a review of this masterpiece of modern literature that I have just now finished reading.

This is truly one of the most inspiring works I have ever read. Numerous times throughout the reading I became convinced that this book was in my hands at this time for a specific purpose. I was thrilled to discover early on that my very favorite of the Apostles, Luke, was a central character in the story. I don't know anything as of now about the author, Mr. Costain, though I intend to make a study of this. It is my sense that he was a man not only gifted by God, but one to whom God himself has revealed certain aspects of this remarkable story.

Respectfully submitted, David B. Jaques

title: Talk:The Silver Chalice


text:
Steve Winwood

Stephen Lawrence Winwood (born 12 May 1948) is an English musician and songwriter whose genres include blue-eyed soul, rhythm and blues, blues rock and pop rock. Though primarily a guitarist, keyboard player and vocalist, prominent for his distinctive soulful high tenor voice, Winwood plays other instruments proficiently, including drums, mandolin, bass and saxophone.

Winwood achieved fame during the 1960s and 1970s as an integral member of three major bands: the Spencer Davis Group (1964–1967), Traffic (1967–1969 and 1970–1974) and Blind Faith (1969). During the 1980s, his solo career flourished and he had a number of hit singles, including "While You See a Chance" (1980) from the album Arc of a Diver and "Valerie" (1982) from Talking Back to the Night ("Valerie" became a hit when it was re-released with a remix from Winwood's 1987 compilation album Chronicles). His 1986 album Back in the High Life marked his career zenith, with hit singles including "Back in the High Life Again", "The Finer Things", and the US Billboard Hot 100 number one hit "Higher Love". He found the top of the Hot 100 again with "Roll with It" (1988) from the album of the same name, with "Holding On" also charting highly the same year. Although his hit singles ceased after the 1980s, he continued to release new albums up to 2008, when Nine Lives, his latest album, was released.

In 2004, Winwood was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Traffic. He has won two Grammy Awards and an Ivor Novello Award, and has been honored as BMI Icon. In 2008, Rolling Stone ranked Winwood number 33 on its list of 100 Greatest Singers of All Time.

Early life
Winwood was born on 12 May 1948 in Handsworth, Birmingham. His father Lawrence, a foundryman by trade, was a semi-professional musician, playing mainly the saxophone and clarinet. Steve Winwood began playing piano at the age of four while interested in swing and Dixieland jazz, and soon started playing drums and guitar. He was also a choirboy at St. John's Church of England, Perry Barr. The family moved from Handsworth to Atlantic Road, Kingstanding Birmingham, where Winwood attended the Great Barr School, one of the first comprehensive schools. He also attended the Birmingham and Midland Institute of Music to develop his skills as a pianist, but did not complete his course. During this time, he befriended future Fleetwood Mac member Christine McVie.

At eight years of age, Winwood first performed with his father and elder brother Muff in the Ron Atkinson band. Muff Winwood later recalled that when Steve began playing regularly with him and his father in licensed pubs and clubs, the piano had to be turned with its back to the audience to try to hide him because he was so obviously underage.

Early years
While still a pupil at Great Barr School, Winwood was a part of the Birmingham blues rock scene, playing the Hammond C-3 organ and guitar, backing blues and rock legends such as Muddy Waters, John Lee Hooker, Howlin' Wolf, B. B. King, Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley on their United Kingdom tours, the custom at that time being for US singers to travel solo and be backed by pick-up bands. At this time, Winwood was living on Atlantic Road in Great Barr, close to the Birmingham music halls where he played. Winwood modelled his singing after Ray Charles.

The Spencer Davis Group
At age 14, Winwood (then known as "Stevie" Winwood) became singer and keyboardist of the Spencer Davis Group, with his older brother Muff Winwood on bass, Spencer Davis on guitar and Pete York on drums. Davis had been impressed by the Winwood brothers after he saw them performing as the Muffy Wood Jazz Band at the Golden Eagle in Birmingham. The Spencer Davis Group made their debut at the Eagle and subsequently had a Monday-night residency there. Winwood's distinctive high tenor singing voice and vocal style drew comparisons to Ray Charles.

In 1964, the Spencer Davis Group signed their first recording contract with Island Records. Producer and founder Chris Blackwell later said of Winwood, "He was really the cornerstone of Island Records. He's a musical genius and because he was with Island all the other talent really wanted to be with Island." The group's first single "Dimples" was released 10 days after Winwood's 16th birthday. The group had two UK No. 1 singles in late 1965 and early 1966 with "Keep on Running" and "Somebody Help Me"; the money from this success allowed Winwood to buy his own Hammond organ. Winwood co-wrote the band's breakthrough hits in America, "Gimme Some Lovin'" and "I'm a Man", both of which went Top 10 in the US and UK in late 1966 and early 1967. Winwood left the Spencer Davis Group in April 1967.

Traffic and Blind Faith
Winwood met drummer Jim Capaldi, guitarist Dave Mason, and multi-instrumentalist Chris Wood when they jammed together at The Elbow Room, a club in Aston, Birmingham. After Winwood left the Spencer Davis Group in April 1967, the quartet formed Traffic. Soon thereafter, they rented a cottage near the rural village of Aston Tirrold, Berkshire (now Oxfordshire), to write and rehearse new music. This allowed them to escape the city and develop their music.

Early in Traffic's formation, Winwood and Capaldi formed a songwriting partnership, with Winwood writing music to match Capaldi's lyrics. This partnership was the source of most of Traffic's material, including popular songs such as "Paper Sun", "No Face, No Name, No Number", "Dear Mr. Fantasy" and "The Low Spark of High-Heeled Boys", and outlived the band, producing several songs for Winwood and Capaldi's solo albums. Over the band's history, Winwood performed the majority of their lead vocals, keyboard instruments, and guitars (the latter more so after Mason's departure in 1968). Traffic disbanded in early 1969 after two albums, Mr. Fantasy (1967) and Traffic (1968), with a third album, Last Exit, being issued later that year.

Following Traffic's split, Winwood formed the supergroup Blind Faith, along with former Cream members Eric Clapton (guitar) and Ginger Baker (drums), and former Family member Ric Grech (bass). The band produced only one album, which reached No. 1 in both the UK and US, and included "Can't Find My Way Home". The band was short-lived owing to Clapton's greater interest in Blind Faith's opening act on tour, Delaney & Bonnie & Friends; Clapton left the band at the tour's completion, bringing Blind Faith to an end.

In 1970, Winwood went into the studio to begin work on a solo album, tentatively titled Mad Shadows. However, Winwood ended up calling in his former Traffic bandmates Jim Capaldi and Chris Wood to help, with the recording resulting in a Traffic reunion album John Barleycorn Must Die. Traffic would continue for another five albums, Welcome to the Canteen (1971), The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (1971), Shoot Out at the Fantasy Factory (1973), On the Road (1973) and When the Eagle Flies (1974). Weariness with the grind of touring and recording prompted Winwood to break up Traffic in 1974 and retire to session work for several years.

Other 1960s and 1970s work
In 1966, three years before Blind Faith, Winwood guested with Eric Clapton as part of the temporary group Eric Clapton and the Powerhouse. Three tracks were recorded and released on the 1966 various artists compilation album, What's Shakin'. In 1968, Winwood was recruited by Jimi Hendrix to play organ for "Voodoo Chile" on the Electric Ladyland album.

Following the end of Blind Faith, Winwood and Ric Grech continued working with Ginger Baker, as part of Ginger Baker's Air Force, who also featured Winwood's Traffic bandmate Chris Wood. Winwood played on their self-titled first album, released in 1970.

In 1972, Winwood recorded the part of Captain Walker in the highly successful orchestral version of the Who's Tommy. He recorded a 1973 album with Remi Kabaka and Abdul Lasisi Amao, as Third World, Aiye-Keta. Later, after the unrelated reggae group Third World had formed, the album was re-released and identified by the band members' names. In 1976, Winwood provided vocals and keyboards on Go, a concept album by Japanese composer Stomu Yamashta. That same year, Winwood also played guitar on the Fania All Stars' Delicate and Jumpy record and performed as a guest with the band in their only UK appearance, a sold-out concert at the Lyceum Theatre, London.

Under pressure from Island Records, Winwood released his self-titled first solo album in 1977. In 1979 he played keyboards on the Marianne Faithfull album Broken English, including synthesizer on the tracks "The Ballad of Lucy Jordan" and "Broken English" which were taken as singles from the album.

Solo career success
In 1980, Winwood released his second solo album Arc of a Diver, which included his first solo hit, "While You See a Chance". This was followed by Talking Back to the Night in 1982, which featured the song "Valerie", which would eventually become a hit single upon re-release in 1987. Both Arc of a Diver and Talking Back to the Night were recorded at his home in Gloucestershire with Winwood playing all instruments.

In 1986, Winwood travelled to New York City for his next album project. There, he enlisted the help of a coterie of stars to record Back in the High Life. The album went triple platinum in the US, with its first single "Higher Love" reaching number 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and earning Winwood Grammy Awards for Record of the Year and Best Male Pop Vocal Performance. He embarked on an extensive tour of North America in support of the album, and at the end of the tour, he divorced Nicole Weir in England then settled in the Nashville area with his new American wife, Eugenia Crafton.

With the exception of 1969's Blind Faith, Winwood had been with Island Records since the Spencer Davis Group's first single in 1964. However, at the peak of his commercial success, Winwood moved to Virgin Records and released the albums Roll with It (1988) and Refugees of the Heart (1990). Roll with It and its title track hit No. 1 on the US album and singles charts in the summer of 1988.

Traffic reunion and subsequent work
In 1994, Winwood and Jim Capaldi reformed as Traffic for the album Far from Home. Despite lacking a significant hit, it broke the top 40 in both the UK and US. The band toured that year, which included a performance at the Woodstock '94 Festival. That same year, Winwood appeared on the A Tribute To Curtis Mayfield CD, recording Mayfield's "It's All Right".

In 1995, Winwood released "Reach for the Light" for the animated film Balto. Winwood's final Virgin album, Junction Seven, was released in 1997, reaching the UK top 40. Later that year, he toured the US, and sang with Chaka Khan at the VH-1 Honors.

In 1998, Winwood joined Tito Puente, Arturo Sandoval, Ed Calle, and other musicians to form the band "Latin Crossings" for a European tour, after which they split without making any recordings. Winwood also appeared in the film Blues Brothers 2000, as a member of the Louisiana Gator Boys, appearing on stage with Isaac Hayes, Eric Clapton, and KoKo Taylor at the battle of the bands competition.

In 2003, Winwood released a new studio album, About Time, on his new record label, Wincraft Music. In 2004, Eric Prydz sampled Winwood's 1982 song "Valerie" for the song "Call on Me". After hearing an early version, Winwood not only gave permission to use his song, he re-recorded the samples for Prydz to use. The remix spent five weeks at No. 1 on the UK Singles Chart.

In 2005, Winwood's Soundstage Performances DVD was released. That same year, he appeared on Grammy Award winner Ashley Cleveland's album Men and Angels Say, a mix of rock, blues, and country arrangements of well-known hymns, including "I Need Thee Every Hour", which featured a vocal duet and organ performance. On her 2006 record Back to Basics, Christina Aguilera featured Winwood (using the piano and organ instrumentation from the John Barleycorn Must Die track "Glad") on her song "Makes Me Wanna Pray".

In May 2007, Winwood performed in support of the Countryside Alliance, an organisation opposed to the Hunting Act 2004, in a concert at Highclere Castle, joining fellow rock artists Eric Clapton, Bryan Ferry, Steve Harley, and Kenney Jones. In July 2007, Winwood performed with Clapton in the latter's Crossroads Guitar Festival. Among the songs they played were "Presence of the Lord" and "Can't Find My Way Home" from their Blind Faith days, with Winwood playing several guitar leads during a six-song set. The two continued their collaboration with three sold-out nights at Madison Square Garden in New York City in February 2008.

Winwood's next studio album Nine Lives was released in 2008. Nine Lives opened at No. 12 on the Billboard 200 album chart, his highest US debut ever. On 19 February 2008, Winwood and Clapton released a collaborative EP through iTunes titled Dirty City. Clapton and Winwood released a CD and DVD of their Madison Square Garden shows and then toured together in the summer of 2009. On 19 February 2008, Winwood and Clapton released a collaborative EP through iTunes titled Dirty City. Clapton and Winwood released an album and DVD of their Madison Square Garden shows and then toured together in the summer of 2009.

In 2008, Winwood was awarded an honorary doctorate from the Berklee College of Music to add to his honorary degree from Aston University, Birmingham.

Recent activity
On 28 March 2012, Winwood was one of Roger Daltrey's special guest stars for "An Evening with Roger Daltrey and Friends" gig, in aid of the Teenage Cancer Trust at the Royal Albert Hall.

In 2013, Winwood toured North America with Rod Stewart as part of the "Live the Life" tour. In 2014, Winwood toured North America with Tom Petty & the Heartbreakers.

On 17 February 2020, Winwood participated in "A Tribute to Ginger Baker", which took place at Eventim Apollo Hammersmith in London. Other participants were Ron Wood, Roger Waters, and Eric Clapton. The concert was held in honour of Ginger Baker, his former band member in Blind Faith, who had died the previous year.

On 7 May 2023, Winwood performed as part of the Coronation Concert at Windsor Castle, where he sang "Higher Love" backed by virtual choirs from the Commonwealth realms.

Song writing
Winwood has spoken publicly very little about the origin or meaning of the songs he has written. He has said that "When I write a song, I don't like to have to explain it afterwards. To me, it's like telling a joke, then having to explain it. The explanation doesn't add to the song at all."

Legacy
Winwood was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame as a member of Traffic in 2004. In 2005, Winwood was honoured as a BMI Icon at the annual BMI London Awards for his "enduring influence on generations of music makers." In 2008, Rolling Stone ranked Winwood No. 33 on its list of 100 Greatest Singers of All Time. Winwood has won two Grammy Awards. He was nominated twice for a Brit Award for Best British Male Artist: 1988 and 1989. In 2011, he received the Ivor Novello Award from the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors for Outstanding Song Collection.

Personal life
Between 1978 and 1986, Winwood was married to Nicole Weir (d. 2005), who had contributed background vocals to some of his early solo work. The two married at Cheltenham Register Office.

Winwood's primary residence is a 300-year-old manor house in the Cotswolds, England, where he also has a recording studio. Winwood also has a home in Nashville, Tennessee, with his wife, Eugenia Crafton, a Trenton, Tennessee, native whom he married in 1987. They have four children.

In 2011, one of Winwood's daughters, Mary Clare, married businessman Ben Elliot, later Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party between July 2019 and September 2022. The couple have two sons. Another daughter, Lilly, is a singer; she was featured with Winwood performing a duet of his song "Higher Love" in a Hershey commercial. She was the opening act and was backing singer for her father's 2018 Greatest Hits Live tour.

Solo

 * Steve Winwood (1977)
 * Arc of a Diver (1980)
 * Talking Back to the Night (1982)
 * Back in the High Life (1986)
 * Roll with It (1988)
 * Refugees of the Heart (1990)
 * Junction Seven (1997)
 * About Time (2003)
 * Nine Lives (2008)
 * Greatest Hits Live (2017)

Spencer Davis Group

 * Their First LP (1965)
 * The Second Album (1966)
 * Autumn '66 (1966)

Traffic

 * Mr. Fantasy (1967)
 * Traffic (1968)
 * Last Exit (1969)
 * John Barleycorn Must Die (1970)
 * Welcome to the Canteen (1971)
 * The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys (1971)
 * Shoot Out at the Fantasy Factory (1973)
 * On the Road (1973)
 * When the Eagle Flies (1974)
 * Far from Home (1994)

Blind Faith

 * Blind Faith (1969)

Eric Clapton/Steve Winwood

 * Live from Madison Square Garden (2009)

Ginger Baker's Air Force

 * Ginger Baker's Air Force (1970)

Third World

 * Aiye-Keta (1973)

Go

 * Go (1976)
 * Go Live from Paris (1976)

Session work

 * The Jimi Hendrix Experience – Electric Ladyland, 1968
 * Joe Cocker – "With a Little Help from My Friends", 1968
 * B. B. King – B.B. King in London, 1971
 * McDonald and Giles – McDonald and Giles, 1971 – organ, and piano solo on "Turnham Green"
 * Jimi Hendrix – The Cry of Love, 1971
 * Howlin' Wolf – The London Howlin' Wolf Sessions, 1971 – organ and piano
 * Reg King – Reg King, 1971 – Piano on "Down The Drain", credited as Mystery Man
 * Shawn Phillips – Faces, 1972 – Organ on Parisien Plight II
 * London Symphony Orchestra – Tommy – As Performed by the London Symphony Orchestra & Chamber Choir, 1972
 * Jim Capaldi – Oh How We Danced, 1972
 * Eddie Harris – E.H. in the U.K. (Atlantic), 1973 With Chris Squire, Alan White and Tony Kaye
 * Lou Reed – Berlin, 1973
 * John Martyn – Inside Out, 1973
 * Jim Capaldi – Whale Meat Again, 1974
 * Robert Palmer – Sneakin' Sally Through the Alley, 1974
 * Vivian Stanshall – Men Opening Umbrellas Ahead, 1974
 * Jim Capaldi – Short Cut Draw Blood, 1975
 * Jade Warrior – Waves, 1975
 * Toots & the Maytals – Reggae Got Soul, 1976
 * Sandy Denny – Rendezvous, 1977
 * John Martyn – One World, 1977
 * Pierre Moerlen's Gong – Downwind, 1978
 * Vivian Stanshall – Sir Henry at Rawlinson End, 1978
 * Jim Capaldi – Daughter of the Night, 1978
 * George Harrison – George Harrison, 1979
 * Marianne Faithfull – Broken English, 1979
 * Jim Capaldi – The Sweet Smell of... Success, 1980
 * Jim Capaldi – Let the Thunder Cry, 1981
 * Marianne Faithfull – Dangerous Acquaintances, 1981
 * Jim Capaldi – Fierce Heart, 1983
 * David Gilmour – About Face, 1984
 * Christine McVie – Christine McVie, 1984
 * Billy Joel – The Bridge, 1986
 * Dave Mason – Two Hearts, 1987
 * Talk Talk – The Colour of Spring, 1986
 * Jim Capaldi – Some Come Running, 1988
 * Jimmy Buffett – "My Barracuda", 1988
 * Phil Collins – ...But Seriously, 1989
 * Soulsister – Heat, 1990
 * Davy Spillane – A Place Among the Stones, 1994
 * Paul Weller – Stanley Road, 1995
 * Kathy Troccoli – Corner of Eden, 1998
 * Eric Clapton – Back Home, 2005
 * Eric Clapton – Clapton, 2010
 * Slash – Hey Joe Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame, 2010
 * Miranda Lambert – Four the Record, 2011
 * Eric Clapton – Old Sock, 2013
 * Gov't Mule – Shout!, 2013
 * Bettye LaVette – LaVette!, 2023

title: Steve Winwood