Great article on how the Supreme Court blew this ruling:
link
Especially interesting for our Geneva-Convention argument:
Quote:
Let's look at the relevant Geneva Convention. First point - since when does a party that has NOT signed a treaty, and does not comply with a treaty, become a part of such a treaty? The Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war provides, at Article 4, that —
"A. Prisoners of war ... 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 terrirory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill 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."
Do terrorists fall under this definition? No way. They work entirely outside of international law, therefore it does not apply to them.
Log in
Wiki
FAQ
Search
