Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

[Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:21:58 -0400
Roberto C. Sánchez <roberto@connexer.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:08:42PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in
> > [🔎] 20070321161341.3d5ba74a.celejar@gmail.com:
> > 
> > > 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]?
> > 
> > ..diversional slant, # 4 protects Civilians and by implication most non-
> > combattants.
> >  
> You are missing what he said.  Civilians and non-combatants are not the
> same as unlawful combatants.  Unlawful combatants are basically just
> civilians or non-combatants who have given up their protected status by
> engaging combat operations.  Of course, combat operations are distinct
> from self-defense, including protecting other protected persons or
> places, IIRC.

Thanks, Roberto. That is indeed what I meant.

Celejar