Geneva Convention

[Philistine]

Sure there is. ( Fallacy of bifurcation or false alternatives. )

Read some of the analysis here:

http://www.fed-soc.org/Publications/...combatants.htm

BTW, I learned something interesting: the US is not even a signatory to the revisions of the Geneva Convention which extend all the protections we've been discussing to the likes of spies, saboteurs and other "unlawful combatants". Neither, of course, is al-Qaeda and its ilk, which are neither nations nor Powers as defined by international law, and they do not even profess to be fighting for a state, unless it's the non-existent pan-Islamic State...how can a treaty to which neither party has agreed bind either?

Not exactly.

While it mentions the Geneva Convention (IV) protecting civilians (which does explicitly deal with what happens when said "civilians" are spies, saboteurs or undertake actions hostile to an occupying power), it rather strangely fails to note its applicability. The US (and Iraq) are signatories to the Geneva Convention (IV).

As such, Iraqi prisoners (non-Iraqis may be treated differently, depending on the circumstances) are covered by the Geneva Convention (IV). The main distinction of not being a POW, is that a POW may not be tried for his military actions (so long as they were in accord with the laws of war) whereas a "civilian"/"illegal combatant" can. Thus, Iraqi Republican Guard fires RPG and takes out an APC and its crew--he can be held for the duration of hostilities, but that's all. Guerrilla does it--it's murder and he can be tried, convicted and (potentially) executed for it.

As the case everyone cites said:

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

Such was the practice of our own military authorities before the adoption of the Constitution, and during the Mexican and Civil Wars....

Ex Parte Quirin, 317 US 1 (1942)

(Note that the "modern" Geneva Conventions date from 1949, after the end of WW2.)

--Philistine

[epeemike81]

Here's another slippery slope of Olympic bobsled-run magnitude...

I'm not saying it's going to happen, just that it's a REALLY bad idea to give the government the wide latitude of powers with which it CAN do that.

-m

[Inquartata]

That's probably been said, though, about every controversial new law ever passed. I recall similar sntiments being expressed, and much dire predictions, about the RICO laws when they were enacted---government was going progressively bring more and more activities under the lawsso it could seize more and more property not only from drug dealers and smugglers and organized crime figures but from the average innocent citizen as well. Yet somehow the Union has survived this terrible threat for over 3 decades. When there have been real oversteppings by law enforcement the courts have generally slapped them down. The laws have been refined instead of tossed out altogether; this way something good has a chance, at least, of coming out of the statute. If it's just discarded whole that chance goes with it.

[epeemike81]

That's probably been said, though, about every controversial new law ever passed. I recall similar sntiments being expressed, and much dire predictions, about the RICO laws when they were enacted---government was going progressively bring more and more activities under the lawsso it could seize more and more property not only from drug dealers and smugglers and organized crime figures but from the average innocent citizen as well. Yet somehow the Union has survived this terrible threat for over 3 decades. When there have been real oversteppings by law enforcement the courts have generally slapped them down. The laws have been refined instead of tossed out altogether; this way something good has a chance, at least, of coming out of the statute. If it's just discarded whole that chance goes with it.

yes, but with RICO they were saying "this is a trend toward more power. what's next in the changes of the law?" I'm not saying that the laws are moving TOWARD the point where they could do that. no, they could do it NOW, with current laws and current interpretations of laws. we shouldn't depend on the goodness in the hearts of our administration (whichever party) to choose not to lock up American citizens. they should have to provide actual proof and prove a charge, at least according to the bill of rights (and, IMO, common sense).

-m