Rogue terror state violates Geneva Convention

[Jim Dixon]

On Sun, 13 Jan 2002, Declan McCullagh wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 01:13:41AM +0800, F. Marc de Piolenc wrote:
> > I'll say it again - these are not prisoners of war!
>
> This is the heart of the matter. If the detainees are determined
> to be POWs, that triggers a certain level of legal protection.
> So far, it seems as though the U.S. is saying they are not but
> we'll extend them some of the benefits because we're nice guys.

Conventionally, in order to be a prisoner of war you have to be a
soldier.  To be considered a soldier, you have to be in uniform
and you have to be part of an organized military force, meaning
that you have a rank and, unless you are the commander in chief, you
have  a superior to report to.  This is an essential requirement,
because PoWs are supposed to be handled through their own chain of
command.

In the second world war, people out of uniform but carrying guns
were often just shot out of hand.  If taken prisoner, they weren't
treated as prisoners of war but as spies, bandits, or terrorists.
Some of us remember the chief of police in Saigon dealing out summary
justice during the Tet offensive on this basis: the VC wasn't in
uniform, so he just shot him, right in front of all of those
cameramen.

Those fighting on behalf of the Taleban appear to be an unorganized
militia - no uniforms, no ranks, no saluting, just guns and lots of
spirit.  You can't make them PoWs because they don't recognize any
chain of command.

--
Jim Dixon    jdd at dixons.org
tel        +44 117 982 0786
mobile     +44 797 373 7881