Canadian al Qaeda

[chequita guevara]

I know you weren't. I just wanted to clarify my position.

[DanS]

OK, that's cool.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


He's a PoW, not a criminal. Different rules.

He's an unlawful combatant with no protections of PoW status.

He can't possibly have any intel value now, so try the son of a ***** and put him in front of a wall and be done with it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by DanS
I wasn't asking you, che. But your response is worthwhile.

However, in our system, during wartime, the president's "whim" rules the day. If it is his wish that the congress take up the question, I would support that.

In this case, his or Rummy's "whim" conflicts with the Geneva convention - not for the treatment of unlawful combatants, but for the manner of their designation, which according to the treaty must be by competent tribunal.

A blanket pronouncement by national command authorities doesn't meet that obligation by a long shot. We should long ago have had tribunals to establish unlawful combatant status, and then proceeded accordingly.

[DanS]

I would like to see the provisions for designation of unlawful combatants. As I recall, perhaps not well, there was some ambiguity about how the designation of unlawful combatant comes to be.

But I agree that a competent tribunal could hold status hearings and wonder why Rummy seems hesitant to do so. I can't imagine that status hearings are particularly burdonsome, but maybe I'm wrong on that.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
In this case, his or Rummy's "whim" conflicts with the Geneva convention - not for the treatment of unlawful combatants, but for the manner of their designation, which according to the treaty must be by competent tribunal.

A blanket pronouncement by national command authorities doesn't meet that obligation by a long shot. We should long ago have had tribunals to establish unlawful combatant status, and then proceeded accordingly.

This is exactly what I've been saying for the last 3 ****ing years.

Now people are starting to listen...

[MichaeltheGreat]

DanS:

Ask, and ye shall receive:

"Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


This is exactly what I've been saying for the last 3 ****ing years.

Now people are starting to listen...

No, we're still ignoring you. It's pretty damned clear that al Qaeda and non-Afghan native Taleban fighters are unlawful combatants, but the status tribunals should have been held.

[KrazyHorse]

Actually, Mike, I've made two separate points in the past. The one I am absolutely certain of is that these detainees have not been given a proper hearing to determine their status under the Geneva convention. The tribunal they did receive was not competent, as it had its major parameters set by an outside party: the Bush administration, who drew broad lines and said: "people who fall into this group are unlawful combatants, people who don't aren't". This is a section 5 issue.

You're bringing up the other issue, i.e. what exactly it means to be covered under the article in section 4 which mentions (IIRC) "inhabitants of a region who spontaneously take up arms on the approach of an invading force" or words to that effect...

[DinoDoc]

I think the problem here is that we should teach our soldiers to have better aim. Then we wouldn't have to deal with such petty stuff.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The GC doesn't micromanage or specify in any manner the nature of the tribunal to determine it's competence.

Basically, something like the field court-martials that were used to try prisoners from Skorzeny's Enheits-Stielau during the Ardennes offensive are plenty sufficient. All you really need is a general court-martial convening authority, defense representation from the defense side of the JAG corps, and a court-martial board of the appropriate rank and membership according to the Manual for Courts-Martial.

Legal opinions from national command authorities down to the JAG corps and convening authority are fine, so long as the members of the court-martial panel are not directed on how to rule.

The part of Article 4 you're referencing was designed to deal with locals who don't have time to fully and formally join a recognized combatant force, but who act as a part of one. Freelancers aren't covered.

To be considered in that category, they still have to meet the four-part conduct test in Article 4, by openly carrying arms, wearing a distinguishing mark visible at a distance, being part of a recognized chain of command, and conducting themselves in a manner consistent with the laws and customs of war.