From: Adam 

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Mar 2006 01:06:40 +0200, Phil Payne wrote:
>
>>> What is defined by the conventions is a legal combatant.  If
you are not a
>>> legal combatant, then the conventions do not apply to you.  That is why
>>> different terms are used.  During our training we were often
just referred
>>> to as "War Criminal".
>> "6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the
>> enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without
>> having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they
>> carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."
>
> Might work for some, if you are an Afghan.  If you are an Arab there,
> probably not going to work out so well for you.  Also most of these are
> not carrying weapons openly and have not respected the laws and customs of
> war.
>
> George

Chuckle. Just out of interest is carpet bombing of cities etc or nuclear
weapons respecting the laws & customs of war? Given when the GC was
written one would presume not.

It's about power. Lose & you're guilty. Win & you're innocent.

Hitler lost ergo Wehrmacht/SS were war crims.

The US will hold & possibly execute those it captures on any grounds it
feels like & the Iraqi insurgents/taliban/AQ will do likewise.

No real difference except that the US authorities have more money etc.

Adam

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