From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"George Sherwood"  wrote in message
news:pan.2006.03.29.22.00.22.580881{at}beernabeer.com...
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 14:41:41 -0600, Robert G Lewis wrote:
>
>
>> "George Sherwood"  wrote in message
>> news:pan.2006.03.29.20.29.05.715406{at}beernabeer.com...
>>> On Wed, 29 Mar 2006 18:45:46 +0200, Phil Payne wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Bill of Rights IS IRRELEVANT when it comes to
enemy combatants
>>>> captured
>>>>> on the battlefield.
>>>>
>>>> "Enemy combatants" is entirely a neo-con
coining, just like renaming
>>>> napalm
>>>> to get around treaties.
>>>
>>> You couldn't be more wrong.  POW is defined in the Geneva Convention
>>> and so is enemy or illegal combatant.  Look at Article 4 and 5 of the
>>> third Geneva Convention.  If you are an illegal combatant, you don't
>>> have the rights of a POW.
>>>
>>> George
>>
>> Article 5
>>
>> The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article
>> 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their
>> final release and repatriation.
>>
>> Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a
>> belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to
>> any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy
>> the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status
>> has been determined by a competent tribunal
>>
>> Since you have had more training/education ( I think) than the rest
>> of us combined , What is your interpretation of the term competent
>> tribunal ?
>
> This is the million dollar question. I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot
> poll.  I have had quite a bit of training but unfortunately for me it
> revolved around being on the receiving end and not the other way around.
> 
>
> The smartass answer would be that the winner of the conflict determines
> the meaning of "competent tribunal".  Maybe not even that
smartass of an
> answer.  I think if you look at the SS examples with company level or
> below officers acting as this tribunal and applying a death sentence it is
> clearly not IAW the Conventions.  I think if you look at the rules of the
> treatment in Gitmo that provide reasonable care and respect for religion.
> You will have a hard time proving that the conventions are being violated.
> I am trying to think of how the treatment would be different if the
> tribunal declared them POW's.  I think it is mostly in access of the Red
> Cross and release of information to their leadership.  Though I am not
> sure who that would be in the case of terrorists.  I would go on to say
> that for the most part since and including WWII our POW's have never been
> treated IAW the Conventions.   Clearly it is an incredibly complicated
> situation. I am not nearly knowledgeable enough to scratch the surface,
> but the people that say we are definitely in violation of the conventions,
> in my somewhat educated opinion are not looking at this in an at all
> reasonable way. I would say the same goes for those that insist the we can
> do anything we want with these "enemy combatants".
>
> George

Rats I was hoping for a nice simple answer .

Seriously thanks for the answer. It is the Million dollar question. I must
admit I do have some reservations about our fully upholding the conventions
but I freely admit I don't know. I do think the vast majority of the
Military is trying to follow the conventions. I do think we have had some
failures but I would always expect that in a time of confusion. it's all
those darn grey areas .

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