"HeyBub" wrote:

Douglas Johnson wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote:

BTW,enemy combatants do not get Geneva protections,nor ordinary civil
criminal treatment.For GOOD reason.

The 4th Geneva Convention defines the protections that must be given
to ALL persons that come into the hands of a signatory to the
convention.

Not so. The 4th is silent on unlawful enemy combatants.

You and I plowed this ground pretty thoroughly over in rec.woodworking about 3
weeks ago. None of the four conventions use the term "Enemy Combatant" legal or
otherwise.

From the 4th Convention:

"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment
and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or
occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which
they are not nationals."

As I originally said, the 4th Convention provides protections to ALL persons who
fall into the hands of a signatory to the Convention.

Even POWs are HELD until the war is over,without charges or trials.
Ununiformed enemy combatants CAN be executed at any time.

The 3rd Geneva convention defines the term "prisoner of war" and the
protections that must be provided to same. A uniform is NOT required.

Not so. The 3rd actually defines "lawful enemy combatant" as possesing the
four following characteristics:

* Appears in uniform or wears a distinctive emblem
* Carries weapons openly
* Adheres to a specific chain of command
* Follows the customary rules of war

Anyone engaged in combat NOT possesing ALL FOUR of the above is NOT a
"lawful enemy combatant" (with some well-defined exceptions such as a
hastily organized militia) and are not entitled to the protections of POW
status.


I'll stand by my comment that a uniform is NOT required.. In fact, the term
"uniform" does not appear in any of the six criteria for being a POW.

From the 3rd Geneva Convention that specifically addresses prisoners of war:
Notice that the four items you mention are only contained in part (2). The
soldier does not even have to wear a distinctive emblem. They could be marching
with a flag or sign.

"Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons
belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of
the enemy:
(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.

[...]

(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. "

Many of the Gitmo residents probably fall under (2) or (6). Notice no uniform
is required under (2), just a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
distance". Perhaps "Taliban Local Chapter 135"?

No identification of any kind is required under (6) or (1), much less a uniform,
although dog tags, ID, or equivalent would probably help prove status under (1).

The "customary rules of war" allow a belligerant to treat those who are not
"lawful enemy combatants" in any way they see fit.

The conventions changed the "customary rules of war" considerably. References
to what happened in WWII are not relevant since the conventions were signed in
1949.

Also from the 4th Convention:

"To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and
in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons
[...]

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial
guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

So if you are going to shoot them, you've got to, at least, give them a drumhead
court martial.

-- Doug