hey, i know, we take them out into a big field, build
a camp fire, make s'mores, and by the third stanza of
Cum Ba Ya, they'll be our buds for life. if they know
of any impending attacks they'll surely tell us after
that. 

--- "Kendall D. Corbett" <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> As I read article 4 of The Geneva Convention, the
> combatants should be
> considered prisoners of war.
> 
>  I didn't bring up waterboarding, so apparently
> there are some on the
> list interested in discussing this topic.  I guess
> Mike and I could
> discuss it off-list, but it's a lot more fun to
> discuss things when
> there's a difference of opinion!
> 
> ;-{)}
> 
> http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
> 
> 
> Notice that Article 4-A says persons belonging to
> _one_ of the two categories
> (4-A-1 or 4-A-2)  shall be considered POW's.
> 
> Article 4
> 
> A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present
> Convention, are
> persons belonging to one of the following
> categories, who have fallen
> into the power of the enemy:
> 
> 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the
> conflict as well as
> members of militias or volunteer corps forming part
> of such armed
> forces.
> 
> 2. Members of other militias and members of other
> volunteer corps,
> including those of organized resistance movements,
> belonging to a
> Party to the conflict and operating in or outside
> their own territory,
> even if this territory is occupied, provided that
> such militias or
> volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
> movements, fulfil
> the following conditions:
> 
> (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible
> for his subordinates;
> 
> (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign
> recognizable at a distance;
> 
> (c) That of carrying arms openly;
> 
> (d) That of conducting their operations in
> accordance with the laws
> and customs of war.
> 
> 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess
> allegiance to a
> government or an authority not recognized by the
> Detaining Power.
> 
> 4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without
> actually being
> members thereof, such as civilian members of
> military aircraft crews,
> war correspondents, supply contractors, members of
> labour units or of
> services responsible for the welfare of the armed
> forces, provided
> that they have received authorization from the armed
> forces which they
> accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose
> with an identity
> card similar to the annexed model.
> 
> 5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and
> apprentices, of the
> merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of
> the Parties to the
> conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable
> treatment under any
> other provisions of international law.
> 
> 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.
> 
> B. The following shall likewise be treated as
> prisoners of war under
> the present Convention:
> 
> 1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the
> armed forces of the
> occupied country, if the occupying Power considers
> it necessary by
> reason of such allegiance to intern them, even
> though it has
> originally liberated them while hostilities were
> going on outside the
> territory it occupies, in particular where such
> persons have made an
> unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to
> which they belong
> and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail
> to comply with a
> summons made to them with a view to internment.
> 
> 2. The persons belonging to one of the categories
> enumerated in the
> present Article, who have been received by neutral
> or non-belligerent
> Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are
> required to intern
> under international law, without prejudice to any
> more favourable
> treatment which these Powers may choose to give and
> with the exception
> of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67,
> 92, 126 and, where
> diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to
> the conflict and the
> neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those
> Articles concerning
> the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic
> relations exist, the
> Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend
> shall be allowed to
> perform towards them the functions of a Protecting
> Power as provided
> in the present Convention, without prejudice to the
> functions which
> these Parties normally exercise in conformity with
> diplomatic and
> consular usage and treaties.
> 
> C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of
> medical personnel
> and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the
> present Convention.
> 
>  On 10/27/06, ken barber <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
> > i do not think these guys meet the description to
> > have the geneva convention apply. and i do not
> think
> > they should have contitutuitional rights conferred
> on
> > them. i think if we could get their home countries
> to
> > take them they should be turned over to their own
> > governments for trail. but, many of their
> countries
> > don't want them either. the other things to do is
> turn
> > them loose and find them again on the battle field
> as
> > has happened with some that were turned loose in
> the
> > past. the other is to use the law that just passed
> the
> > congress.
> >
> > --- "Kendall D. Corbett"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > If the prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere are
> > > prisoners of war,
> > > then the Geneva convention should apply.  To me
> > > "waterboarding" sounds
> > > like a violation of Geneva. Wasn't it (or
> something
> > > very similar)
> > > done by the VietCong in the 60's and early 70's,
> > > with a loud outcry
> > > from the military and public at that time?
> > >
> > > If the captives are not prisoners of war,
> shouln't
> > > US lawe apply,
> > > since they are being held on American soil?  (US
> > > bases are, in effect,
> > > US Territory)
> > >
> > > Finally, what happened to the Judeo-Christian
> > > precept of two wrongs
> > > not making something right, or the truism that
> "An
> > > eye for an eye
> > > makes both blind"?
> > >
> > > Kendall
> 
=== message truncated ===



 
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Check out the New Yahoo! Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster. 
(http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta) 

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy