breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 945
Why not? It is the only one that implicitly allows spies, saboteurs and hostiles to be held and foribly questioned. Otherwise, ConIII explicitly forbids it. They may well be "protected persons", but their conduct deprives them of any protection!
Nope. " Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be enbreastled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State."
No rights for hostiles under ConIV. And no rights under ConIII unless they meet the definition of armed forces or recognizable irregulars. They are SOL. The USG slips through a loophole.
Prbably a deliberate and intentional one. These conventions were carefully drawn to protect recognizable guerillas but not "persons". I expect the French made sure a great deal of definitional effort into it after their Resistance-FreeFrench wartime experience.
Interesting. Thank you. al'Quaida is SOL. It seems that Afghanistan is signatory to ConIII and the Taliban could be protected. But the Prez has determined the prisoners taken aren't enbreastled to PoW status, presumably because they weren't members of armed forces or irregulars that meet the defintion. It would be nice if there were more details here.
Yes, the defintiion of armed forces is ambiguous. And POTUS did grant Taliban that status. Just not the detainees. It tend to think he has both moer data and more experts to make such a determination which also must survive Congressional oversight even if in camera.
Certainly some. But not all. The real question is what defines armed forces.
breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 946
There is a difference between the US and the USA that is important here. This is the USA where the...
What they wore would then not qualify as "distinctive" if it were secret and not known to the enemy. It would also be stupid disrespective to his followers if there were one and he did not wear it.
The Coalition most certainly was an occupying power in Afghanistan in the interim between the fall ofthe Taliban and the establishment of the Afghani govt. ConIV explicitly allows allows holding and implictily allows interrogation (by not forbidding it as it does in ConIII) of dangerous persons. Note the White House press release emphasises this.
Perhaps not soon. It is too politically useful. But it will end in a hundred or thousand years.
Well, Protocol I has Art46 covering spies and Art75 forbidding torture. Holding, and holding incommunicado are authorized under ConIV Art5. Questionining and interrogation are not fobidden anywhere except ConIII. The question is whether detainees at Gitmo have been tortured. I do not know.
What is torture? I take it to mean the intentional infliction of suffering as an end in itself, not for other purpose. Corporal punishment and physical coersion are different.
AFAIK Hamdi's laywer-provocateurs jumped the US Court of Appeals and appealed directly to the SCOTUS who sent them back down. This is an insult to the US CtAppl, and makes for the propaganda claim "Hamdi lost in the Supreme Court". Please remember that Hamdi remains fundamentally antagonistic to the US. Padilla won.
breastle screen for HLA Adventure Need help designing one 949
Robert Redelmeier I think the prohibitions of torture, etc., would ban forcible interrogation. Torture is forbidden in any circumstances. See below. Exactly. In this case, the part...
Alt Folklore Computers Newsgroups