[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

[Defiant]

I've read it, read your posts, read your stream of consciousness profile, and it seems like you are a nice guy with an unusual set of beliefs. Your analysis of the Geneva Convention is wayyyyyyyy wrong. I've read it and written legal briefs about it, with historical footnotes and all that jazz.

I did not say that the sole purpose of the Geneva Convention was to protect civilians, but the provisions regarding uniforms and not using civilians as shields and so on were, and these terrorists are not covered.