Investigate 911 and the New World Order

[Minor Axis]

Now, would you say Al Qaeda and other groups have treated their prisoners according to the Geneva Convention? The answer is obviously no, as public beheading is rather forbidden by the Convention. Therefore we are NOT required to obey the Geneva Convention with their prisoners.

I read through your post. Thanks for the info. I don't think your assertion has been proven by any means and there has been quite the controversy about it, because if they are not prisoners of war, then they can't be held indefinitely without legal representation or limited representation of the authorities choosing. The Bush Administrations wants their cake and to eat it to which falls in line with there general position of "we can do whatever we want in the name of security."

Despite the U.S. incredibly strong history of habeas corpus, here we have an Administration that if they could, would lock people up and throw away the key just like 3rd world dictators, just like Saddam Hussein might do. Using this rational, the next guy who walks into a mall and shoots the place up, would be a terrorist or an enemy combatant, your choice and conceivably be locked away indefinitely without a trial. We are better than that.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

Anyone caught with a gun shooting at U.S. forces in civilian clothing ...My first impression is the above seems to apply to your average "terrorist" and places them under Geneva Conventions, no?

 

[dt3]

I read through your post. Thanks for the info. I don't think your assertion has been proven by any means and there has been quite the controversy about it, because if they are not prisoners of war, then they can't be held indefinitely without legal representation or limited representation of the authorities choosing. The Bush Administrations wants their cake and to eat it to which falls in line with there general position of "we can do whatever we want in the name of security."

Despite the U.S. incredibly strong history of habeas corpus, here we have an Administration that if they could, would lock people up and throw away the key just like 3rd world dictators, just like Saddam Hussein might do. Using this rational, the next guy who walks into a mall and shoots the place up, would be a terrorist or an enemy combatant, your choice and conceivably be locked away indefinitely without a trial. We are better than that.

I see your point, to a degree. I don't agree with holding them indefinitely without trial, BUT I see absolutely no legal basis REQUIRING us to give them rights afforded to us under our Constitution. Which is why I'm fine with the military tribunals that are held.

Your example of a mall shooter isn't applicable, presuming he is an American citizen. Being an American citizen, he would have a right to a speedy trial by a jury of his peers, etc.

Anyone caught with a gun shooting at U.S. forces in civilian clothing ...My first impression is the above seems to apply to your average "terrorist" and places them under Geneva Conventions, no?

Ah, but you're missing the qualifying statements beneath it:

...provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](c) That of carrying arms openly;[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica](d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.[/FONT]

They definitely do not have a "distinctive sign" such as a uniform or other way of identifying themselves, and they certainly do not conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (some of which include giving aid to wounded enemies and not intentionally targeting civilians). Which is precisely why they are disqualified from the Geneva Convention.

 

[Alien Allen]

They definitely do not have a "distinctive sign" such as a uniform or other way of identifying themselves, and they certainly do not conduct operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war (some of which include giving aid to wounded enemies and not intentionally targeting civilians). Which is precisely why they are disqualified from the Geneva Convention.

I gather each of the conditions (a-d) have to be met and not just any single one?

also many times these people are not openly armed.

if one has to fit each and every criterion then they are clearly not prisoners of war.

perhaps the GC should reconvene to address these types of people. although still they would not fit the bill if they have to treat their own prisoners under Geneva accords.

 

[dt3]

I gather each of the conditions (a-d) have to be met and not just any single one?

also many times these people are not openly armed.

if one has to fit each and every criterion then they are clearly not prisoners of war.

perhaps the GC should reconvene to address these types of people. although still they would not fit the bill if they have to treat their own prisoners under Geneva accords.

That's how I read it. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't say "fulfill one of the following conditions". :dunno