Niter North Allis Township, Michigan List of universities in Croatia Jamaican Girl V都rona Starstreak Clinton morrisson Motor Vehicle Safety Armando Alejandro Estrada Cambridge (ON) …

In any case, I’ve done some research in passing on the matter a few months back, but am by no means an expert.

The things I’ve been most interested in have to do with the evolution of the Convention and the Laws of Ground Warfare. Especially with questions regarding intent, redress, retaliation and deterrence.

I had been hoping that perhaps some folks here might be familiar with the concepts in the Convention, and that – maybe – folks might have some insights (that aren’t ten pounds of partisan sniping, wrapped in a five pound sack of pseudo-legalese)

I am assuming that you’re familiar, at least in passing, with the provisions of the Geneva Convention and Article 4. Given your reading on it, what is your take on the distinctions between insurgents, volunteers, and mercenaries.

I’ve been chewing through it a while, and it seems that if one grants reasonable interpretation to those three roles, then the role played by foreign jihadists in Iraq really doesn’t properly fit (or even trend) towards any one of those three categories.

It also does, I suppose beg the question of the interpretation of these strictures when very arguably those we fight aren’t represented by a contracting state.

Any thoughts?

BRD

I just snipped one article from the 4th Geneva Convention. There are 158 more articles to it.

Read the whole thing before claiming it backs up your Abu Ghraib/Star Chamber idea of justice.

I did. To demonstrate the difference with which we handle our citizens involved in treason or spying, and those who are not citizens involved in spying. The former are “citizens” with Constitutional protections; the latter are “illegal combatants” and come under Geneva.
Alphie, since you typed all that above, I’ll assume you actually read it. It actually supports my argument. “..such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and priveleges under the present Convention…”.
“..be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication..”.
Unless “..in case of trial,..”. So, by your own Convention quotes, we “may” choose to give him a trail, or we “may not”, depending upon “..the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.”
Don’t you get tired of shooting yourself in the foot, Alphie?

Hello, isn’t the United States a battlefield in this war. What else do they need to admit that. This type of rulings will simply make the U.S. Battlefield issue more clear………steve

None of that matters. If the government wants to imprison someone, it must not be permitted to do so without the prisoner having recourse to defense. That’s a bedrock principle of the United States and our way of life.

Neo, is “not alleging otherwise” tantamount to admission of guilty as charged?

Maybe I missed something, but I can only find that al-Marri has denied all charges, and that the only witnesses against him are other detainees.