Question on POW's

[Badger1]

Rummy has said that saddam will have all rights of a POW. He then said yesterday that he has not yet been designated as a POW. Here's the question for all you international law experts, is it because he can not be considered a POW because technically no war has been declared?

[DuctapeFatwa]

1. The bush regime does not consider itself bound by international law

or the Geneva convention.

Apparently the rest of the world has no problem with that.

[apsuman]

2. well actually...

The resolution voted upon by the Congress authorizing the use of force *IS* a declaration of war. There is no international standard for "how-to-make-a-declaration-of-war" that I know of.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

3. No . . . .

. . . under conventional international humanitarian law/"law of war" (e.g., the Hague and Geneva Conventions) doctrines, a formal "declaration of war" is NOT a prerequisite for a person being entitled to the protections afforded a "prisoner-of-war." Rather, what is required, to put it in general terms, is (i) that the person in question be deemed a so-called "lawful combatant" (e.g., he fights in a uniform, or in some garb intended to identify him as a combatant-in-arms; carries his arms openly, etc.); and (ii) that the person in question have been captured in the course of a so-called "international armed conflict."

While the issue of what sort of conflict meets the criteria of an "international armed conflict" is sometimes a matter of dispute, the U.S. attack/invasion of Iraq clearly meets the standards for such a conflict.