----- Original Message ----- From: "Brett Coster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2002 3:29 PM Subject: RE: Defense Policy
> > Behalf Of Dan Minette > > > > As for the Geneva Convention, sorting out who is and who is not a POW, I > > > take it from the preamble: > > > > > > > Where did you find the preamble? I saw several sights without it. > > I downloaded from the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library. > www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/1899b.htm OK, now I understand. That is the 1900 treaty. Doesn't the III Geneva convention in 1947/48 qualifty as "a more complete code of the laws of war is issued" ? In that, there are very specific rules for determining who is a POW that the AQ fail miserably. Thus, while later they say that a tribunal should decide cases with doubt, it appears that the AQ can be seen to clearly not fall under POW protection. Further, its seems reasonable to believe that countries will not implicity reduce their soverignity. Thus, if there is a word like "tribunal" standing alone, I don't think "international" should be implied. Rather, one would think of, dare we say it, a military tribunal is thought of. I would guess this would be to prohibit a general from unilaterally declaring that none of his prisoners qualify as POWs. While this doesn't automatically protect prisoners, it does ensure that the whole system, not just one individual, has to be off before a true POW is not given protection. Dan M.
