They weren't the government though, and the conventions require the combatants be in uniform and carrying an id card.
-----Original Message----- From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 9:43 PM To: CF-Community Subject: Re: speaking of Tim What I was taught at the CFB Borden OCS was that the US was a guarentor power. In other words this nation guarenteed the application of all but the 1952 (the only ones the US has not signed) of the Geneval Conventions. Also I think it can be argued since the Taliban was the government in power at the time the soldiers fighting for them cannot be considered illegal combatants. larry On 7/11/05, loathe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. The US is not a signatory of the Geneva Convention. > 2. From our classes, and we never went into articles, us dumb grunts don't > need to know that sort of stuff, we were told that if they weren't in > uniform and they weren't carrying a government issued military id card than > they were saboteurs or spies and could be summarily executed. > > Now of course I went to basic training almost a decade ago. Not sure if > things have changed since than, but I doubt it. > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jochem van Dieten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, July 11, 2005 1:26 PM > > To: CF-Community > > Subject: Re: speaking of > > > > > > Sam wrote: > > > > > > The prisoners in Gitmo didn't honor the Geneva Convention so it does > > > not apply to them. > > > > Could you elaborate as to which part of the Geneva Conventions > > you are referring to? I can not reconcile that statement with > > what I read in them. > > > > Many of the people in Gitmo are to be considered PoWs under > > article 4a2 and 4a5 of the Third Geneva Convention. Any > > disagreement as to whether certain detainees can claim to be PoW > > has to be resolved following the procedures under article 5 of > > said convention. Until such proceedings have resolved the issue > > the detainees are to be considered PoWs. > > Proceedings under article 5 have not taken place so everybody > > claiming to be a PoW is to be considered a PoW and to be treated as such. > > > > Furthermore there are those in Gitmo who are labelled > > 'saboteurs'. Even if we accept that label these people are still > > protected unther the Geneva Conventions. Under article 5 of the > > Fourth Geneva Convention these people are to be considered > > protected people that have lost their communication rights for as > > long as required for the security detaining party. All other > > rights remain intact, and one can hardly claim that it is still > > in the interest of US state security not to permit these people > > the communication privileges normal PoWs have. > > > > > > If you feel I have missed something in my summary of the position > > of the Geneva Conventions on the people detained in Gitma, please > > be specific as to which articles of which convention you feel I > > have missed. > > > > Jochem > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:164345 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
