[Defiant]

GrandEagle is wayyyyy wrong. I've read the Geneva Convention. They are not covered; I haven't yet read today's decision, but from what I have read the court did not claim that the terrorists are covered under the convention, either. They used an "international law" argument to extend the Geneva Convention's rights to all military prisoners. Of course, this is a violation of our own constitution in many ways, as well as a breach of the intent of the Convention, which was made to protect civilians from the horrors of war by giving combatants obligations to wear uniforms and stay away from civilians. Do those things, and be part of a national military, and you get protections.

[GrandEagle]

as well as a breach of the intent of the Convention, which was made to protect civilians from the horrors of war by giving combatants obligations to wear uniforms and stay away from civilians. Do those things, and be part of a national military, and you get protections.
You have apparently not read it. It was not solely designed for civilians, a MAJOR part was in dealing with those who are captured. In seeing that they were no instantly executed, much like the way the Germans frequently did in WWII.
I would be cautious, our other FRiend has a tendacy to take things way out of context.
I never suggested that all were covered. What I did state, is that those rounded up in police type stings, who were not taken captive while in combat, caught in a hostile act, or in uniform, are covered.
We may suspect them, but we surely don't know.
Anyone taking up arms against us, not having some sort of command structure, and not having something recognizable at a distance as being a hostile force of some type is not covered.

I request that you read my posts before forming an opinion of my views.

Cordially,
GE