[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: a dumb query? pls humor me

On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 21:27:32 -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote in

> On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 10:53:31PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
>> On Wed, 04 Apr 2007 16:33:28 -0700, zfh wrote in
>> 360937.25915.qm@web83205.mail.mud.yahoo.com:
>> > Sorry to break into your offtopic rants, but I can't resist this one.
>> > Under the Geneva Conventions, enemy combatants that wear no uniforms
>> > and
>> ..like the passengers onboard flight UA93 on 9/11?
> ...who were civilians acting in self-defense?
>> > commit acts of murder and sabotage are considered to be spies and may
>> > be
>> ..you speak of murderers, saboteurs and spies, who may only be shot
>> after having received a verdict so ordering in a trial for the
>> murderer, and in an Article 90 hearing _and_ a trial for the saboteur
>> and the spy.  The latter 2 generally need to commit some war crime to
>> earn a verdict, but can still be held as POW for the duration of the
>> war without committing any war crimes, read especially the commentary
>> to Article 46 for background:
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750056?OpenDocument
>> http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750056?OpenDocument
> They can be held as POWs, but the right of communication can be witheld
> (GC IV, Art 5):
>   Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is
>   satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected
>   of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such
>   individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and
>   privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the
>   favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of
>   such State.
>   Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
>   as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
>   activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
>   shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
>   regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
>   Convention.
>   In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
>   and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
>   regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
>   granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
>   present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
>   of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

..interesting, here you use Art. 5 to argue Hezbollah's case against the 
2 captured IDF officers, and against Israeli corporal Ghilad and in favor 
of whoever holds him.  I would have checked the commentary to verify 
whether such an interesting angle can be taken as valid:  ;o)

> It seems, like the prisoners at Gitmo *are* being held in accordance
> with the GC (less the isolated cases of guards acting in contravention
> to the other GC protections).

..you 'n "Toby" do similar bible reading? ;o)
Generally, when in doubt of your understanding and interpretation of a 
Geneva Convention article, consult its commentary and whatever the 
commentary cites, such as the Protocol Additional I articles and their 
commentaries, there _has_ been changes to the original 1949 Conventions, 
such as banning mercenarism and adding to the commanders responsibilities.

..for further court martial litigation advice, hire me or a lawyer.

>> > Al Queda and the Taliban don't care about anyones rights or freedoms.
>> >  We need to follow the rules because we are who we are and need to
>> > stay that way if free nations are to survive.  Though there have been
>> > some abuses, military tribunals and Gitmo are not necessarily outside
>> > the rules when dealing with an organized terrorist threat.
>> ..really?  ;o)  They are.  On one line:
>> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/ihl-article-300906?
>> opendocument
> Umm.  That document is an article about International Humanitarian Law.
> It mentions nothing of tribunals.

..correct, it concerns their _relevancy_, and the relevancy of proper 
treatment of POW's and Article 90 tribunal procedings is just one part of 
this.  Read it, instead of just pasting stuff blindly. 
Also read:

>> ..a good starting point for further reading:
>> http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/section_ihl_in_brief?
>> OpenDocument

..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;o)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.

Reply to: