I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
And these self-proclaimed bad boys are not POWs to anyone who counts - they're in that verminous range between mercenaries and terrorists

Until you can prove it to an unbiased panel, the assumption is supposed to be that those captured in battle are POWs. Given how broadly the Convention defines POWs (it doesn't make any exceptions for "mercenaries", BTW), I doubt you'll be able to do this.

The status of the prisoners as POWs does not, of course, protect them from having to stand trial (either in a civilian or military court; in this case it seems the US has a choice of either) for actions they as individuals took which make them criminally liable for terrorist attacks against the US.

[SlowwHand]

Maybe this would be better?

Gone.

[DinoDoc]

Sloww, you'd better get rid of the picture before one of the mods sees it.

[KrazyHorse]

Dammit, it was funny.

Pornographic, but funny.

[SlowwHand]

I just couldn't risk another trip to Mingapulco.
My last stay was almost the end of me.


(damned paitkis, stealing my cornbread)


Well, this isn't forcing anyone to look, so should be ok.

http://www.jokes2000.com/jokes/files/joke9233.htm

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Given how broadly the Convention defines POWs (it doesn't make any exceptions for "mercenaries", BTW), I doubt you'll be able to do this.

According to the Convention, in order to the criteria of a POW, the person must meet two conditions. The first is that he must be a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. This includes the Taliban fighters only, not members of Al-Qaeda. The second category includes "members of other militias or volunteer corps “belonging to a party to the conflict” so long as they fulfill certain additional conditions, including having a distinct sign, carrying arms openly, and complying with the law of war." Given what we know about Al Qaeda the second criterion seems to exclude them as well.

[KrazyHorse]

First off, there are something like 6 categories of POW under Article 4 of the Convention.

Second, weren't many of those Al Qaeda fellas captured under arms?

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


That's ALLEGED terrorists you moron. Nothing has been proven against these prisoners whose human rights are being violated.

Uncle Sam's reputation is dragged through the mud by a lynch mob of rednecks and military knuckleheads once again

Moron?


They were caught taking arms against US and Northern Alliance soldiers. Being part of Al Qaida automatically makes you a terrorist. Taliban people, the leadership and those that fought against US forces should be taken, the rest should be dealt with by the new government.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Where the hell is Dino? Got a hot date or something on a Saturday night?
I'm not really here, in fact, I'm just about gone. 91 hours this week.

You need to spend more time with LTEC. I can, without reservation, tell you that quality time loes some of its quality for every year you get older.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
First off, there are something like 6 categories of POW under Article 4 of the Convention.

I fail to see how conditions three through six apply here as well.

weren't many of those Al Qaeda fellas captured under arms?

That doesn't necessarially qualify one for POW status, AFAIK.

[faded glory]

Hey AH

These Terrorists are trying everything to bring planes down. Soap bombs, Shoe Bombs, plastic knives, Knawing through the hydrolics. Anything they can do to inflict damage...

Wether or not they took up arms against us and resisted, they should be tried if they belon to Taliban or Al-Queda. And not an expensive civilian court, where they will get free defendants and get to make a media circus out of things! (at our expense!), but rather in a tribunal. Cheaper, and secret.


As for what I think should happento them......[IMG]"http://community.theunderdogs.org/smiley/armed/behead.gif.gif"[/IMG]



LARS-E. Europe Civilized?

*laughing his bad american ass off*

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by faded glory
LARS-E. Europe Civilized?

*laughing his bad american ass off*

Yeah, we got fed up of being the cultural and political centre of human civilization for 1000 years, so we're taking a break and dropping back into barbarism. Its working out quite well.

[faded glory]

Oh yes...and what. LARS assumes where not Civilized because we what? Shaved there heads to prevent lice!? Explain why lars...

Ya. The Nazi's used to shave the peoples heads too. They used the hair to make a mattress

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Until you can prove it to an unbiased panel, the assumption is supposed to be that those captured in battle are POWs. Given how broadly the Convention defines POWs (it doesn't make any exceptions for "mercenaries", BTW), I doubt you'll be able to do this.

I suggest you read, or reread, the relevant language. The term "mercenaries" does not exist, because to include it, one would have to create a legal definition accepted by all the signatory parties.

The convention does define the criteria for those who are lawful combatants, and if you read the language, foreign al Qaeda fighters do not meet the criteria. The criteria are not nearly as broad as you seem to think.

So far, there is no violation of the convention in their terms of treatment, and the only requirement (which Rumsfeld running his mouth does not meet) is that a military tribunal of the country holding the prisoners is required for a final adjudication of status. Since we're not executing any of them, no final adjudication of their status is necessary at this time.

For your reference:

Article 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.

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 civilian 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, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

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 of 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.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Members of al Qaeda do not fall under the criteria for 4A(3), 4a(4), 4A(5), 4A(6), 4B(1), 4B(2) or 4C.

They're screwed under 4A(1) because they were not an integrated part of the Taleban, had autonomous command structures, bore no recognizable marks or disctinctions, etc.

The only place left for them would be under 4A(2), but it's arguable if they meet the necessary criteria under 4A(2)(a), and they clearly do not meet the necessary criteria under either 4A(2)(b) or 4A(2)(d).

So, sorry, they're not POW's under the Geneva Convention. We just have to formalize that determination before we can dispose of them, or whatever the ultimate plan is. (probably life on Gitmo, because these bastards are too dangerous to repatriate)

[Immortal Wombat]

So, sorry, they're not POW's under the Geneva Convention. We just have to formalize that determination before we can dispose of them, or whatever the ultimate plan is. (probably life on Gitmo, because these bastards are too dangerous to repatriate)

So they are not PoWs, so they are what? And does this what deserve a free trial? If not, I would be interested to know why.

So much for a war on terrorism...

Um... If they aren't soldiers by any definition, wouldn't killing them be homicide?