|
( I first posted this as a response in another thread, but after the effort decided maybe it was worth a post of its own. I do not claim ANY expertise in these matters and openly admit that this is just MY understanding of the issues...if correct I will be quite glad, if not, correct me so I will be closer to the truth.)
Do not mix armed combatants, a coined term to apply to this issue, with prisoners of war. I'll come back to this.
Secondly, the Korean and Vietnam wars, even the invasion of Grenada(remember that little highlight)were acknowledged by all parties to fall under the Geneva treaty and other parallel treaties and agreements dealing with human rights and treatment of prisoners. As for civil wars here there is a complete lack of understanding about the nature of such things. Civil war is an internecine fight, it is generally accepted that the rules of the pre-existing government are the source of dealing with prisoners, granted that flips and flops depending on the viewers take on who the 'good' guys are. But no matter which side is considered the 'good', the world acknowledges the 'good' guys laws rule the day. Exceptions of course are in the cases of 'cleansing' and genocide.
Now back to the first issue as promised. There is no clear accepted legal definition of 'armed combatant' that would make it a unique category. As I said it is a coined phrase of convenience to avoid the term criminal or prisoner of war. Why was that done? To negate the jurisdictions of both civil law and international treaties such as the Geneva Convention.
Your declaration of claiming that someone is claiming you 'can't have POW's' is therefor completely and unarguably wrong: it is a poorly stuffed 'Straw man' at best, and a 'Red Herring' at the least.
The argument that the prisoners are POWs hinges on their being an acceptance that a war exists. The world, nor we to my knowledge ever declared that organized unaligned groups seeking any nations destruction, and not having any recognizable base at a physical location is the problem that is the fundamental stumbling block in this. The closest thing would be a Jame's Bond thing, a 'CHAOS' like creature that even in the fiction books are called criminal organizations. The truth is, history does not make room or acknowledge 'wars' other than those between sovereign powers. Even the American Indian wars were against the various tribes who were known as 'nations'. Geronimo was treated as a criminal when he left the reservation and headed home to fight. Why a criminal? Because although an Apache, he was not the tribes acknowledged leader. Bin Laden is a Saudi, but at least publicly is not acknowledged as speaking for Saudi Arabia...he is a criminal. The Iraqi's and the Afghani's on the other hand when captured were acting for a recognized ruler of their country, remember the taliban with Omar was in charge, we went to war with Afghan, therefor all Afghanis captured are POW's and automatically covered by all treaties etc. ONLY al Qaida members are not covered by those treaties and agreements because they are criminals, they represented no sovereign nation, and they broke the laws of several countries within the confines of those countries; hence, the bombers of Madrid are subject to the laws of Spain, the bombers of Britain the laws of Britain, and of course, the hijackers and all leaders and co-conspirators are subject to the laws of the USA.
Why can the military then be used to fight and capture those who are criminals? Because there are no constitutional restraints against there use outside our nations boundaries, they cannot except by presidential declaration of martial law, be used within our boundaries...remember even Lincoln followed this. But having the military capture a criminal, does not put that person under the jurisdiction of the military justice system, Geronimo was brought back for trial.
I hope that helps in some way to clarify the muddled waters of Swamp Cheney.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(378 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
