Merkel to become German chancellor

[Matt W]

Nono, you should know better than this. AND you started the thread.

*wags finger in disapproval*

Stay on-topic, gents.

[Nono]

You can split it off into a new topic then. It's too bloody late now. (*I* wanted to talk about Angie Baby, but everyone else seems to prefer opportunistic derailment.) So, back to the chain gang:

Good for you, shield. I couldn't find it online. It says that this provision "was based on the view that decisions which might have the gravest consequences should not be left to a single person, who might often be of subordinate rank. The matter should be taken to a court". That is clear. The decision should be made by a court, not by Donald Rumsfeld.

I am unable to find anything in any of the Geneva Conventions anything that says how long they can be held or that while being held they have to be given trials ...

I'll help you then. The GC say that POWs may be held until "the cessation of active hostilities" (Art. 118). What Article 5 says is that a court has to decide their status if anyone disputes it. Nobody's talking about trials here. Clear?

[rmnunez]

Article 5 says is that a court has to decide their status if anyone disputes it.

Yes, but only when there is some dispute as to their status as POWs. The US armed forces is quite certain they are not POWs, they call them "battlefield detainees". The captives held in Guantanamo, to the best of our knowledge, are not members of any recognized armed force and often not even citizens of the country they were caught fighting in.

Being a citizen of a different country than the fought in wouldn't disqualify members of a recognized military from POW status, but it would non-militaries. The bottom line is that Guantanamo is filled with mostly non-Afghan and non-Iraqi people found armed and opposing resistance on the battlefield to a recognized armed force. They were captured (taken prisoner) in combat (war) but that is where the similarity with POWs ends.

[shield772]

I believe we are extending to them all of the protections of the GC though. With exceptions to prison abuses that have already been tried and are under investigation. And have we reached a cessation to active hostilities?

[Nono]

Quote by: rmnunez The US armed forces is quite certain they are not POWs, they call them "battlefield detainees".

Wow. They're "quite certain". That's impressive.
rum, if the US (which was quite certain about the presence of WMDs in Iraq too) disputes, in its wisdom, that they're POWs, then there's automatically doubt enough to justify a court ruling.
Just what are you afraid of?

If someone is captured during an international conflict, he's either a combatant -- and therefore a POW (Third GC) -- or he isn't. If he isn't, he's a civilian and therefore protected by the Fourth GC. There are no cracks between the two statuses, so you can't fall through.

So if you're a civilian -- as you claim these guys are -- and you take part in the hostilities, you're protected by the Fourth GC if captured. And Art. 76 of the Fourth Convention says that "protected persons accused of offences shall be detained in the occupied country, and if convicted they shall serve their sentences therein."

So by your lights the US is already guilty of violating the GC by removing them from Afghanistan.