Republicans

[Tread]

Originally Posted by TheAngryPostman

And Tal, The Geneva Conventions specifically states what the defining marks of an enemy combatant are and who may be covered by the Geneva Convention.

As I stated in my earlier post, that as terrorists and not soldiers, they are not afforded Geneva Convention Rights. No uniforms, no insignia, no overt state endorsement, and no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

If they were identified as soldiers with the Iraqi Republican Guard or something, it would be entirely different.

The Geneva Convention

The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war.

One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed.

Originally Posted by The Geneva Convention Article 4 regarding status of who may be protected under The Geneva Convention as a POW(prisoner of war)

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.

Point (1) to become POW under the Geneva Convention is achieved. No need to have uniforms, insignia, or overt state endorsement. There are no conditions to lose this status by violate law and making no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them.

[The Conquistador]

Originally Posted by Tread

The Geneva Convention

The US is involved in a conflict that they call War on Terrorism. Prisoners of that war are prisoners of war.

One party of the conflict are the imprisoned Terrorists (if someone confirms the element of terrorism on them). The Terrorists are armed.



Point (1) to become POW under the Geneva Convention is achieved. No need to have uniforms, insignia, or overt state endorsement. There are no conditions to lose this status by violate law and making no differentiation between civilian & military targets.

The legal position is not difficult. No matter what we personal might think what should happen to them.

1) They are unlawful combatants and are not recognized by the occupying forces.

2) A militia in times of war would have state endorsment and would supplement regular forces. See:

Main Entry: mi?li?tia
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈli-shə\
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
Date: 1625
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

The whole "military service" part would include them since that counts as state endorsment, but since the Iraqi government or the occupying forces do not recognize them as a supplemental force, they are unlawful combatants and are therefore not covered by The Geneva Conventions.