Re: a dumb query? pls humor me
On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 15:58:56 -0400 (EDT)
judd@wadsworth.org wrote:
> On 18 Mar, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2007 at 02:04:42AM +0100, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>
> >>
> >> ..peace. First we need to hang all our war criminals, then they have
> >> to hang theirs, all under the strictest combination of Sharia, the
> >> full 4 Geneva Conventions, the US War Crimes Act, the Norw. Military
> >>
> penal code etc.
> >
> > Sorry. Geneva conventions applies to lawful combatants. Now, if any
> > coalition troops have committed crimes in violation of the Geneva
> > conventions, then yes they need to prosecuted. Now, the terrorists
> > are afforded no such protection under the Geneva Conventions. In
> > fact, they don't even have to be taken prisoner. They can simply be
> > shot on sight. It is the grace of the US government that efforts are
> > made to capture and detain rather than just kill outright.
> > ...
>
> Acutually, it is the 3rd Geneva convention that only applies to
> lawful combatants. The 4th convention, which the US is also a signatory
> of, applies to unlawful combatants, and non-combatants. And it provides
It is not at all obvious that the fourth convention applies to
'unlawful combatants'. The (current US) administration has claimed that
it does not. Can you prove that it does [0]?
> protections against, among other things, being tortured and being held
> indefinitely without trial.
> And 3rd convention protections are to be given to all captives until
> their combatant status is determined by a "competent tribunal", which,
> IIRC, is interpreted in international law to be a body of the judicial
> branch, not the executive.
International law to which the US is a signatory? I violently reject
the notion that we're bound by international law to which we aren't.
Celejar
[0] http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1169078731.shtml
Reply to: