Again, got a cite?
"12.7 FALSE CLAIMS OF NONCOMBATANT STATUS
It is a violation of the law of armed conflict to kill, injure, or capture the enemy by false indication of an intent to surrender or by feigning shipwreck, sickness, wounds, or civilian status (but see paragraph 12.3.1). A surprise attack by a person feigning shipwreck, sickness, or wounds undermines the protected status of those rendered incapable of combat. Similarly, attacking enemy forces while posing as a civilian puts all civilians at hazard. Such acts of perfidy are punishable as war crimes.
12.7.1 Illegal Combatants. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by feigning civilian, non-combatant status. If determined by a competent tribunal of the captor nation to be illegal combatants, such persons may be denied prisoner-of-war status and be tried and punished. It is the policy of the United States, however, to accord illegal combatants prisoner-of-war protection if they were carrying arms openly at the time of capture."
cpf.navy.mil
Also see
cpf.navy.mil
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com
wikipedia.org
For an opinion about it (not a cite just some blogers opinion but fairly well argued and it does quote the Geneva Convention) -
"Illegal Combatants
Amidst the hand-wringing of the chattering classes about the fate of the Al Qaeda members now enjoying an extended break at Club Fed in Cuba, it may be useful to examine the claim that they are prisoner of war and, therefore, should be treated in accordance with the provisions of the Geneva Convention.
The Convention they are referring to is Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and the defintion of 'Prisoners of War', contained in Article 4, includes '...militias and volunteer corps'. However, important provisos are set out in Subsection A (2):
"(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";
In order to be classified as 'Prisoners of War' militias or volunteer corps must satisfy all of the above conditions.
It is my view that Al-Qaeda fails to satisfy any.
(a) Al-Qaeda operates by means of an autonomous or, at least, semi-autonomous, cell structure. They are therefore not commanded by any identifiable person.
(b) Anybody seen the Al-Qaeda flag/symbol/pennant/banner? No, neither have I.
(c) Whilst the combatants in Aghanistan most likely did bear arms openly, other Al-Qaeda operatives moving and living undercover in up to 60 different countries around the world cannot possibly be carrying any arms openly.
(d) The attacks in which Al-Qaeda is implicated have, in most cases, been against civilian targets and devoid of any obvious or identifiable tactical or strategic purpose other than to cause terror and widespread fear. It is my view that is not within the laws or customs of war.
Therefore, it is my view that the US government has a very good case that the Al-Qaeda members do not qualify as 'Prisoners of War' and are, therefore, not entitled to the protection of the provision of the Geneva Convention.
Of course, this does beg the question of the status of the US actions. Do they constitute 'war'? Well, possibly not but call it a 'military action' or a 'police action' if you will. For that matter, call it a 'Ballroom Dancing Competition'; the point is to prevail."
samizdata.net
BUT: I thought the conventions required that the enemy power be notified that a specific person had been captured and was being help POW. Since the administration won't even name these prisoners, how can that be being met?
Desire for secrecy is one of the reasons we haven't given them full POW rights, another is the right to demand that they give more information then "name rank and seriel number". I think in every other way they have been treated as if the Geneva Conventions' POW status did apply
Also, I thought the International Red Cross had right of inspection. I've yet to hear of that.
I thought the Red Cross had inspected or had been invited to inspect but I have no evidence at this time.
Tim |
