Ok, I'll start the thread....

True. But is a country allowed to go in with military forces and retrieve the persons in question? Don't you automatically go to war with such a country when the rules use their military to oppose your forces? And wouldn't then Al-Qaida fighters along with the Taliban become militia in said country since they're defending it (by defending themselves)? I don't know the answers to this one, I'm just asking. And yes, I've been know as a nitpicker.

Under US law a person is innocent until proven guilty (granted, Al-Qaida and other prisoners from the Afghanistan conflict can easily be said to be resisting arrest), and also permitted legal council. From what I've read some of the prisoners haven't even been formally indicted yet. How long can you be kept in containment without being formally charged with a crime in the US?

Ehrm.... I seem to remember an international war-crimes tribunal that the US refuses to ratify, mainly since it would allow the tribunal to prosecute American nationals if they should be accused of war crimes. Wouldn't this be a possible court for this?

Not much really. And it's pretty far from an objective page. Has a couple of potential good links, but I'm not authorized to view those documents.

One would think they would. Matters such as this need a very specific wording so as not to be ambigous (which is the fine point all lawyers base their livelyhood on). I'm not really sure who makes sure the Geneva convention is followed either. It seems more like a gentlemans agreement, and if someone is caught breaking it they will simply say "Sorry old chap. Got a bit carried away there. I'll get back to my tea and biscuits now"

Very true, but without a true world tribunal there is very little hope that a new "gentlemans agreement" will be better off than the last one. At least IMO.

And the Geneva convention is only 50-some years old. There are a lot of other documents out there that govern nations which are much older, and much more out of tuoch with the world we live in today. There is always a lot of work to do, and not enough good men (and women) to do it.

 

The POW's really don't deserve to be treated that way.
If they were Illegal Battlefield Combatants on the other hand ...

 

Let me quickly explain something to you. The reason the Geneva convention talks about uniformed personel, is to protect Civillians, whe Iraqi's dress up as Civillians and attack US forces, it endangers real civillians, that is why the uniform part is mentioned, if they are unwilling to wear their uniforms, and use the civillians as cover it is more like spies who are not covered by the stated rules above.

 

IIRC as their not on mainland US soil and in a military facility standard leagl protections no longer apply.

 

heck, even if they were on US soil, the patriot act made chagreing them with a crime unnecessary anyway.

 

I agree. The Geneva convention seems to assume that military forces and militia will always display markings visible over a (significant) distance (very gentleman-like). Ironically the hallmark of military personell today is either the parade uniform (you don't go to war in that), or their camo outfits (with a little dinky flag on the shoulder). Requiring armed forces to carry clearly visible and distinct markings seems like something the entire world has figured out might look good on paper but is fairly stupid in real life (ofcource "distinct" being fairly vague and open for debate). The problem remains with discerning civilians and non-combatants from "legal targets". Personally I don't know how this would be done effectively in guerilla(sp?) warfare. Waiting to see if they shoot at you is hardly an option.