On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:27:32 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:53:31PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: >> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]: >> >> >> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one. >> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms >> > and >> >> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11? >> > ...who were civilians acting in self-defense? > >> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may >> > be >> >> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot >> after having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the >> murderer, and in an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur >> and the spy. The latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to >> earn a verdict, but can still be held as POW for the duration of the >> war without committing any war crimes, read especially the commentary >> to Article 46 for background: >> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument >> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument >> >> > They can be held as POWs, but the right of communication can be witheld > (GC IV, Art 5): > > Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is > satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected > of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such > individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and > privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the > favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of > such State. > > Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained > as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of > activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person > shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be > regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present > Convention. > > In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity > and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and > regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be > granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the > present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security > of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be. ..interesting, here you use Art. 5 to argue Hezbollah's case against the 2 captured IDF officers, and against Israeli corporal Ghilad and in favor of whoever holds him. I would have checked the commentary to verify whether such an interesting angle can be taken as valid: ;o) http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600008?OpenDocument http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/380-600008?OpenDocument > It seems, like the prisoners at Gitmo *are* being held in accordance > with the GC (less the isolated cases of guards acting in contravention > to the other GC protections). ..you 'n "Toby" do similar bible reading? ;o) Generally, when in doubt of your understanding and interpretation of a Geneva Convention article, consult its commentary and whatever the commentary cites, such as the Protocol Additional I articles and their commentaries, there _has_ been changes to the original 1949 Conventions, such as banning mercenarism and adding to the commanders responsibilities. ..for further court martial litigation advice, hire me or a lawyer. >> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or freedoms. >> > We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and need to >> > stay that way if free nations are to survive. Though there have been >> > some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily outside >> > the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat. >> >> ..really? ;o) They are. On one line: >> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906? >> opendocument >> > Umm. That document is an article about International Humanitarian Law. > It mentions nothing of tribunals. ..correct, it concerns their _relevancy_, and the relevancy of proper treatment of POW's and Article 90 tribunal procedings is just one part of this. Read it, instead of just pasting stuff blindly. Also read: >> ..a good starting point for further reading: >> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief? >> OpenDocument >> -- ..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o) ...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry... Scenarios always come in sets of three: best case, worst case, and just in case. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
