----- Original Message ----- From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 2:34 PM Subject: Re: Gulags
On 6/13/05, Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Gary Denton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 9:27 AM > Subject: Re: Gulags > > Right away, I wanted to re-establish what the Geneva convention actually > says. > > > > >The Geneva Conventions does specify how to handle POWs and all other > >prisoners. > > The relevent section of the covention, from an earlier post of mine: > > > A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons > belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the > power > of the enemy: > > 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as > members > of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. > > 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. > > AQ doesn't qualify under these provisions. Particularly clear is the fact > that they do not comply with b. > > The Geneva convention is a treaty between governments. It does not cover > citizens of a country fighting in another country without clearly joining > the military or militia of that other country and demonstrating it by > wearing uniforms. > > Dan M. You are focusing on one section in several Geneva Conventions. I will repeat what I have above. >Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional >Protocol II apply to prisoners regardless of the status of the legal >standing of their organization. Common Article 3 also applies to >government clashes with armed insurgent groups. In the Geneva Convention of 1949, I find. <quote> Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are. <end quote> That excludes virtually all of the members of AQ. I think if they were Iranian, they might be covered, so that's a reasonable point. I see the same clause in the 4th Geneva convention, so the protected person status there appears to be the same. If you see a contrary definition of a protected person from the one I listed, I'd like to know where it is. I tried to go to the obvious place to find these definitions, but I realize treaties can have things in not so obvious places. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
