SNIP

Who says they are "unlawful enemy combatants"? Regardless, they are entitled

The U.S. government asserts this because they: a) Engaged in combat upon
our civilians and our military troops, and b) Did so with meeting any of
the GC qualifications to be considered a protected class of military POW:
They didn't wear identifiable uniforms being the most obvious breach.

to judicial process under the Geneva Convention, which covers all persons in an
occupied country or combat zone, just solely combatants. You're right, it does


Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. The only element of the GC that
applies to them is that there has to be a formal finding of their
status. Once they have been identified as not being a member of any of
the classes protected by the GCs that we've signed (civilian refugees,
uniformed military, POWs, etc.) we have NO legal obligation to them
under the GCs nor do they have any right or claims upon us under the
GCs. You might actually try reading the GCs to see how this works. As
a point of interest, Reagan properly refused to sign additional later
GCs that *would* have protected non-uniformed, non-identifiable
combatants.

This is a prime example of why its impossible to have a reasoned discussion
with the Bush-haters. They invent rights that never existed, fabricate
spurious legal obligations, and generally make it up as they go along - much
like they do when interpreting the US Constitution. In actual fact, there
are a number of good arguments to be made for extending some level of civil
rights to unlawful combatants, but legality is one of them.


not have to be the same process as US citizens. Except for a few, we have
failed to provide them any judicial process.


Wrong, wrong, wrong, and more wrong. There have been formal military tribunals
in GTMO with counsel present to act exclusively in defense of the accused.
This is not something your arch-nemesis W invented. Military tribunals in
such circumstances have a long and studied history in the United States.
Again, a history book might be in order. Note that I'm not saying I love this
as a way to handle the problem, merely that it is lawful and has precedent.


No, they no longer can be summarily executed. They need at least a drumhead
court martial.

-- Doug


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/