Dear Mark WHo isn't a POW under this definition.... Your legalism here is AQ really is a government under the Geneva Accords, so all AQ members captured are POW... Even if AQ crossed into a nation-state and beheads and used terror tactics on the local population BECAUSE AQ claims to be the World's government even though it does not recognize the UN or the Geneva Accords...
A simple reply is AQ is NOT a nation-state or authority in the sense of the verbiage "Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."... You equate AQ to be a government or authority as therein described... I do not... I suspect a vast majority of folks do not either... On Apr 24, 12:09 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Keith, > > Please see (1) (((AQ is a Party to the Conflict))) and (3) (((even if AQ > is NOT recognized))) > > Manner of dress is NOT a condition in these instances. To NOT recognize > this is to say AQ and its requirements for dress, membership, duty do not > exist. If that is trye then AQ does not exist. > > Part I : General provisions > ARTICLE 4[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View > 'COMART']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/1a13044f3bbb5b8ec12563fb0066f226/eca76fa4...> > > 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, > incuding 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[image: > Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/af0617d4...>, > 10[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/0c498fd6...>, > 15[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/002de19c...>, > 30, fifth paragraph[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View > '1.Traités \1.2. Par > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/7c1c1f47...>, > 58[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/ebdcec6f...>-67, > 92[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/cafb6fc3...>, > 126[image: Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. > Par > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/7906c83a...>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[image: Database 'IHL - > Treaties & Comments', View '1.Traités \1.2. Par > Article']<http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/9ac284404d38ed2bc1256311002afd89/00608118...>of > the present Convention. > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]>wrote: > > > Good Morning Mark! > > > You just answered your own question. > > > The twenty eight detainees were not prisoners of war, in the sense of a > > foot soldier, as the clause you are referencing is referring to. These > > individuals where enhanced interrogation tactics were utilized, (and no, I > > do not believe that the enhanced interrogation tactics resulted in torture, > > I don't think anyone in good conscience can believe that if they read the > > Memoranda) were homicidal murderers intent on killing Americans. > > > Further, out of the over nine hundred that were captured and detained, > > based on the information that has been released to date, only 28 of them > > were exposed to any coercive interrogation tactics in order to obtain > > information. The remaining nine hundred plus, were treated no differently > > than any other American prisoner in the federal Bureau of Prisons' system, > > as can be witnessed at both Baghdad Central Prison and Guantanamo. > > > Folks keep forgetting the era also. At the time that these enhanced > > interrogation tactics were being utilized, on the twenty eight that are > > being referenced, our intelligence departments literally did not know who, > > or what we were dealing with, and especially where or when the next wave of > > attacks were coming. All Americans were fearful of dirty bombs, chemical > > attacks, or planes being flown into our skyscrapers. It wasn't a question > > of "if" but a question of "when". Our federal government by the mandate of > > the United States Constitution, has a duty to "insure domestic tranquilty, > > provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare..." > > > Had the Bush Administration failed to have done as much as they did, we > > very well might not be having this converstaion right now. > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 10:40 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> Keith, > > >> How is this for Myth ?? > > >> QUOTE<<<<No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of > >> coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them > >> information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to > >> answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant > >> or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.>>>>>UNQUOTE Part III : > >> Captivity #Section I : Beginning of captivity ARTICLE 17 > > >> Now we are back to discussing the POW definition. The law is VERY > >> specific. NEXT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > >> On Apr 23, 8:20 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Waterboarding as it was applied to THE THREE HOMICIDAL MURDERERS THAT > >> WERE > >> > ATTEMPTING TO KILL YOU was not specifically against any international > >> law or > >> > treatise that the United States was a signatory. > > >> > Waterboarding as we applied it, was not torture! > > >> > MoonbatMyths!!!! > > >> > On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 7:26 PM, studio <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > On Apr 22, 10:21 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > I think a better way of framing your question Studio, is, "That if > >> the > >> > > > enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding is 'torture', then > >> how > >> > > > does one survive the procedure after 183 times?" > > >> > > I don't know, let's try it on you to make sure. > > >> > > The fact is the US was a International signatory against torture, > >> > > which also > >> > > includes water boarding. > >> > > It was and is against the law, period. > > >> > > It's really nice how you conservative moralists love telling everyone > >> > > how > >> > > moral and effective torture is. > > >> > > INTERROGATOR: > >> > > Have you been ripping the American people off for the last eight > >> > > years? > > >> > > BUSH - CHENEY: > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
