[Toddsterpatriot]

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(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:[
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization, from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Don't be so blinded by the Republican party being in power right now, that you loose your respect for the law itself.

I respect the Geneva Convention. I also know it doesn't apply to terrorists. It wouldn't apply to them even if the Democrats were in power.

[GrandEagle]

also know it doesn't apply to terrorists.
Clearly Terrorist are those who planned and flew the aircraft in 9/11. If we arrested them inside the the 50 states, then the Constitution is very clear on how they are to be tried.

By declaring all combatants in Iraq, we are no different that our enemy, and the treaty would never have any meaning to any nation for any reason. You just declare them terrorists and be done with it.

Personally, I think that known terrorists should just "disappear" in battle. However, if we do "arrest" them we have guidelines that we have agreed to.
When we have to apply them to our enemy, no one likes it; however, we certainly want them applied to our service men and women.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. 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.

As I understand it, most of these folks were rounded up and arrested, not being caught while in actual combat with our forces.
Clearly, those who engage in combat, without a "fixed distinctive sign..." would not be considered POW's, and if caught while in combat, would not be a "covered person".
As I understand it, that is not the case with most of these folks.

We may "know" that they were involved, but "knowing" that they participated at some past time does not release them from their legal status. They could actually be considered civilian, and therefore covered by agreement #4.

Not saying I like it, but that is the law. There was some dispute on the issue between the Executive department and the Judicial department so it sent to the Constitutionally authorized place for a decision. I can see how they came to this decision.

I also would not expect it to apply to those who were captured in battle while fighting in civilian clothes.

Cordially,
GE