[X-FID]

(9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces.

(10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an armed force in the field.

Ok, to me, (9) covers their behavior while in custody, and I am assuming (10)covers friendly persons accompanying the troops.

POW's are still covered under the Geneva convention, and putting them on trial may even be a war crime, at the very least it's not very productive, I mean what else can you do to them?

[Magnum44]

Since we are one of the few nations that subscribe and actually adhere to International Laws (read Geneva Convention) of Armed Conflict, I would be very surprised if wording in the UCMJ with regard to POW's ran contrary to that Law. As with most arguments on these issues, I respectfully request anyone who thinks we might me in the wrong to find the law we might be violating so we can examine it, rather than just speculating we are in violation.

No criticism intended, I've just spent too much time lately trying to convince people that their fears on various issues are founded in speculation, editorial spin, or lack of subject knowledge rather than in fact.

[Magnum44]

Actually, on additional thought, I beleive the argument that allows trial for these particular POW's may be based upon the fact that they themselves operated outside of the International Laws of Armed Conflict when they committed atrocities against unarmed civilians. This may make them 'not only POW's but war criminals (similar to the notorious NAZI war criminals), but I will research this.