breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 944

Robert Redelmeier

What other options are there? Surely the government is not saying that they are protected persons under Gen Con IV. If they were, Art. 43 would apply: " Any protected person who has been interned or placed in buttigned residence shall be enbreastled to have such action reconsidered as soon as possible by an appropriate court or administrative board designated by the Detaining Power for that purpose. If the internment or placing in buttigned residence is maintained, the court or administrative board shall periodically, and at least twice yearly, give consideration to his or her case, with a view to the favourable amendment of the initial decision, if circumstances permit."

But it is not written in a definitional way, although it easily could have been if that had been the intended meaning. It requires states to provide cards to members of its forces; it does not say that only people carrying cards are considered members. See also Art. 18, which says in pertinent part: "At no time should prisoners of war be without idenbreasty documents. The Detaining Power shall supply such documents to prisoners of war who possess none." Note that is is 'should', not 'must', in the first sentence, and that the second sentence clearly anticipates that some POWs will not have ID cards.

In practice, yes, or almost always. But it does not seem to be a requirement under this Convention.

Is that a term of art?

Hardly; at least not military uniforms. Even civilians wear them.

Maybe, or maybe not; I don't know. But just because Osama wears nothing distinctive does not mean that none of his troops ever did.

We are not an Occupying Power in Afghanistan. Even if we were, I don't read Convention IV as allowing us to do what we are doing to spies, etc.

I don't read it that way at all. There is one paragraph dealing with "territory of a Party", and another dealing with "occupied territory". They are clearly different things.

But that was from Convention IV.

There is another problem: the so-called WAT will never, ever, end.

That much we agree on entirely.

I would just like someone to show me something that specifically authorizes the kind of detention we are doing, even for "spy-equivalents".

I haven't been following the case. What have they done?

--