From: George Sherwood 

Geo. wrote:
> "George Sherwood"  wrote in message
> news:46741db5$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>
>> The term may not of existed, but it is clear that the idea has existed
>> for a long time.  Not sure I see your point.  No matter what you call
>> it, it is covered in the GC.
>
> Ok good we agree that term is an invention of this administration, thats
> a start.

You have to call a person that doesn't fall under the GC something. What
term do you prefer?  That will be an invention also.

>
> Can you find a URL where it shows the part of the GC that covers
> fighters who don't qualify as POW's? Basically all I can find is that it
> says here are the rules for war when both sides play by the rules but it
> doesn't define anything for when both sides don't play by the rules. It
> just defines the rules to determine if it applies.

We can go round and round forever with this.  Not sure what point you are
trying to make.  If you are not described in Article IV of GC III then you
don't have any protections under the GC and I believe essentially you would
fall into National Law.  Whatever you call it doesn't matter, the fact is
there are no protections for that person under the GC.

George

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5