View Single Post
  #7   Report Post  
Cliff
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 15:26:29 GMT, Gunner
wrote:

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:32:23 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:13:15 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

We screwed up several things, but I don't know enough about the law to

judge
if we screwed up in our handling of the Taliban captives. I would have
thought they were subject to treatment as POWs, and I'd feel better if

they
were, but, again, I don't know the details of international law regarding
prisoners taken in various types of combat.

Non uniformed combatants are not covered under the Rules of War as
enemy soldiers, and are not covered by the Geneva Conventions (Hague
Accords). In fact, they are said to be terrorists and may be summarily
executed after a drum head tribunal with no regards to any other
international law, or any protections under the Rules of War.
Particularly mentioned are non uniformed combatants with no TOC or
national identifier.


Assuming that's correct under the conventions you've cited, are you sure
that's the way it works out for the detainees in question under the broader
scope of international law?

My limited experience with international law is that it's a minefield for
the unwary.



Yes, and yes. Which is why the various lawyers had a hayday
researching the subject, and why Gitmo was used to avoid the only laws
that might apply..US criminal and civil laws that would be in effect
if the prisoners were held in CONUS.

It was very smart using the loopholes in the law to our advantage.

Gunner

"Gunner, you are the same ridiculous liberal f--k you ever where."
Scipio


US law applies to all US actions and the US has claimed that
it applies OUTSIDE the US as well.
See the recent "homeland insecurity" & "patriot act" arrests
for things like porn & sex outside the US or arrests in places
like Panama.

In addition, such acts as these, knowingly trying to evade
the laws, are in themselves illegal.
--
Cliff