Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com, wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article .com,
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:
In article ,

wrote:
...

Once you throw out the Geneva convention, you have lost any
moral authority and you are no better than the scum you're combating. If
you
cease to remain civilized, the terrorists have won.

Terrorists aren't covered by the Geneva Convention, which sets forth
specific
conditions that must be met in order to be covered. Armed men captured on
the
field of battle while wearing neither military uniform nor insignia don't
meet
those conditions.

That's a damn lie.

No, Fred, it's the truth.

Someone who has been captured by persons
other than his own countrymen becomes a protected person.
That a protected person can be tried and punished for crimes
comitted prior to capture, such as fighting in civilian disguise,
does not change the fact that the person is protected.

Wrong. Fighting in civilian disguise changes everything.

Citation?

The Geneva Conventions. You don't seem to have read them very carefully.

You do not cite anything in the GCs themselves to support your
assertion.

"Changes everything", and "changes nothing" are both incorrect.
What does not change, and the GCs address this directly is that
a captive is a protected person regardless of the accusation against
him.


I refer you to Tim Daneliuk's posts in this thread, in which he has already
pointed out your errors in detail, with greater eloquence than I am capable
of.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc....9fd31cb197fd79
or
http://groups.google.com/group/misc....e=source&hl=en

I do not consider name-calling and using made-up words to be
eloquence.

I repeat the statement by the ICRC, from near the end of their
discussion
of the definition of "protected persons."

"There is no ' intermediate status'; nobody in enemy hands
can be outside the law. "

I agree with them.

--

FF