It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by G_Scard
The Department of Justice opinion is said to have revived concerns because the non-Iraqis are described to be stateless persons that are not entitled to the protection of the Convention
a reversal of the Bush administration's position since March, 2004 that all prisoners, be they military or civilians, would be accorded the rights under the Convention
They are irregular non-state radicals, why should they be recognized under the geneva convention? THey are subject to criminal law, not the convention, it only deals with uniformed soldiers.
Originally posted by dubiousone
They are irregular non-state radicals, why should they be recognized under the geneva convention? THey are subject to criminal law, not the convention, it only deals with uniformed soldiers.
Don't forget, a captive need only be a "suspected" this or that to qualify for mistreatment or to be killed (murdered) by Uncle Sam.
Originally posted by G_Scard
These prisoners were transported out of Iraq
It therefore appears that the prisoners are being treated by the US as prisoners of war
1. Convention I doesn't apply because those captured are not members of ANY armed forces in the field;
2. Convention III doesn't apply because they are not prisoners of war;
3. Convention IV doesn't apply because they are not civilians entitled to protection;
4. Protocol II doesn't apply because those captured are also not members of "an armed opposition controls enough territory to enable them to carry out sustained military operations"; and
5. The Iraqi sovereign is excluded from enforcing its criminal law against those captured.