From: George Sherwood 

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

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