Baldimo wrote:parados:
Quote:even if that Party is represented by a government or an authority not recognized by an adverse Party
The party in question wasn't recognized by any one.
It says nothing about having to be recognized by anyone. It only says that if it is NOT recognized by the adverse party. There is NO requirement that they must be recognized by any govt anywhere. That is a made up part on your part.
Quote:
Quote:2. Members of the armed forces of a Party to a conflict (other than medical personnel and chaplains covered by Article 33 of the Third Convention) are combatants, that is to say, they have the right to participate directly in hostilities.
Once again you are claiming that terrorists are part of an armed service instead of terrorists.
Oh? Where they carrying signs that read "terrorist"? How did you determine that someone captured in Afghanistan was a terrorist and not a Taliban soldier? The Taliban obviously had soldiers. They were conducting an ongoing war against the Northern part of Afghanistan.
Quote:
Quote:Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
As you can see terrorists do not fall under Article 43. So they cannot be POW's.
You have failed to show anyone captured was a terrorist. Rather hard to declare they were not covered by Article 43 without a competent tribunal.
Quote:
Quote:violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4
Seeing as how these are terrorists I guess the Bush Admin hasn't violated any of the GC.
The GC has no rule allowing anyone to simple declare a person a terrorist without a competent tribunal.
Quote:
Quote:A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war
The phrase "shall be" does not say, "will be". It allows for an interpretation of the wording.
In legal parlance "shall be" is a REQUIREMENT. There is no wiggle room at all. Legal phrase is "shall be" or "may be". "Shall be" requires that it be done. "May be" gives option to do or not do.
Quote:
Quote:Should any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and, therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
There are many of us who do not doubt whether these people are entitled to GC protections. If we were in doubt then we would question, but we do not doubt so therefore they are not treated as we would treat soldiers from other nations. If we were to fight China and caught some of their troops, then we would treat them as POW's according the GC. Terrorists don't fall under the GC because they don't belong to a country or a military.
Your beliefs don't matter much when it comes to the GC. The language in GC is the controlling factor. Simply claiming terrorists don't fall under GC does not make it so. Simply claiming that people captured are terrorists without following the GC requirements does not absolve you from the GC.
Quote:Quote:2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have that question adjudicated
The people in Gitmo are not going to be tried of any crimes. They are being held till we know they are no longer a threat to US forces in battle. The President of the US has this ability due to the US Constitution. It is a part of his duties when fighting a war to keep the US safe and our soldiers safe. We have already run into people that have been released. They went right back to terrorism. These people should not be released till we know they won't go back.
The people in Gitmo were held for 2 years without any tribunals until the US courts said they were required to due process. The same due process the GC says they are supposed to have in determining their status. There is a difference between holding trials and holding people indefinately without any recourse. The GC states that people held must be given due process to determine if they are not to be treated as POWs. The US constitution says that treaties MUST be followed as US law. The US constitution also says that people are subject to habeas corpus if held. The Bush administration was attempting to subvert both the constitution and the GC before the courts stepped in and said they were not free to do so.
