I get it. So, according to the Geneva Convention, then captured members of AQ are not technically prisoners of war. Thanks for the clarification.
But what confuses me now is this: in this "new war", can any terrorists -- members of AQ or the Taliban, or others -- really qualify as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention? > They are. In the common sense of the words, the AQ prisoners are prisoners > of war, since they were captured in war. But, if you look at the Geneva > convention, which Jerone conveniently provided a link to you will find the > provision: > 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including > 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. > > > #2 is of particular interest. The attack on the WTC violated several of the > provisions under 2. Thus, for the sake of the Geneva Convention, they are > not legally prisoners of war, even though we are fighting a war. That is > the legal sense that the S of D uses. > > > Dan M. > > > > -- Sliante, Richard S. Crawford mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.mossroot.com AIM: Buffalo2K ICQ: 11646404 Yahoo!: rscrawford MSN: [EMAIL PROTECTED] "When you have lost the ability to laugh at yourself, you have lost the ability to think straight." --Clarence Darrow "Push the button, Max!"
