Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (17551)	1/29/2002 10:51:25 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

As near as I can tell, the administration line isn't (just) that they're not, by fiat, POWs, but that the Geneva Convention is , by fiat, inapplicable. Well, as "near as I CAN TELL", Bush's policy is that for the moment they are considered illegal combatants under the Geneva convention, pending final determination of their status under the Geneva convention. And the Geneva convention defines the status of combatants as follows: icrc.org ARTICLE 13 The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories: (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements,belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (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. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war." Now since Al-Quaida had NO REGARD for the Geneva convention, were not signatories to it, nor claimed any adherence to its principles, or the laws and customs of war against targeting non-combatants and engaging in genocide (wanton killing of any American solely based upon their nationality), it's rather hard to retroactively claim that their members somehow deserve status as POWs. They are detainees, and currently considered illegal combatants since they neither adhered to the laws and customs of war. In fact, they spit in its face by deliberately targeting civilians and using civilian aircraft as weapons of war. And because they had no discernible uniform, unless one wishes to consider those black turbans as one, they also violate an additional condition for receiving status as a combatant. The bottom line is that a final dispositional status has not been determined. And until such time, they are detainees. But I believe the argument, based upon Article 13 of the Geneva convention above, states that these jokers do not fall under that convention, and thus, are not deserving of POW status. But if they are, they should be tried individually as war criminals for targeting civilians (if personally found to be guilty of such activity). And even if they never pulled the trigger on an civilian, there is certainly considerable precedent for charging them as part of a organization that espoused such unlawful beliefs. One only has to look at the "special scrutiny" provided to members of the SS after WWII, given the atrocites which some members of it engaged in, both in the camps, and on the battlefield. As far as following the Geneva convention... these guys are being given 3 hots and a cot, time to pray, and a nice tropical environmement which must be far superior to the cold, dank, accomodations their buddies at Mazar-I-Sharif are currently enjoying. Why are you railing against the Northern Alliance and Karzid to follow the Geneva convention? Hawk