From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George Sherwood wrote:
> 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

Nah but the trials of the SS wrt their anti-partisan actions against
similar illegal combatants such as the French & Dutch resistance did
show that there were rules.

Or maybe it was simply victor's justice. So hard to tell.

Adam

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