From: "Robert G Lewis" 


"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 ?

Bob Lewis

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