Replies

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

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.

Any members of Saddam's armed forces should have the Geneva Convention protections......if Iraq was a signatory. And if they wore uniforms etc. etc. etc.

Are you claiming that Iraqis who place IEDs are lawful combatants? Interesting viewpoint.

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.

And how's that working out? Are American soldiers gaining weight while in Iraqi captivity?

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,

We disagree about their belonging to these categories.

They could actually be considered civilian, and therefore covered by agreement #4.

If you violated the Convention, I don't think you can be considered a civilian.