>
>Lawyer question:
>
>A prisoner of war is subject to the Geneva Convention,
>and a criminal is entitled to a fair trial w/all the
>usual rights. Yes? If these Al Qaida/Taliban guys are
>neither, what are they? What law governs their treatment?
>
>mbs
>
There was a very scholarly short essay posted here a while ago, writtem by a military lawyer, that covered most of the bases. The long and short of it was that "unlawful combatants," as the US classifies the aQ/T "detainees" are not covered by the Geneva convention. The US does not consider them to be covered by constitutional rights, despite the fact that these generally apply, on the text of the document, to "persons," not just citizens. I think what this means is that to the extent that they are protected by any laws, they are covered by the UN Charter, to which the US is of course a signatory, and which prohibits, among other things, torture, and by the customary law of international relations. Practivally speaking they have no rights, and the US can do with them what it damn well pleases. The British citizens among the detainees may get better treatment because the Brits are on the case. For they rest, they're fucked. I get the Guardian of Long and Le Monde, some times read Der Spiegel. The Europeans are horrified by the US treatment of the detainees--a Brit paper headed its story, "Tortured!" This should make very little difference, since the Europeans don't vote here, and the US public woukd just as soon see the detainees tortured.
jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com