unlawful combatants

[Max Sawicky]

The two key attributes of an illegal non-combatant are
no uniform and attacking civilians.  The first rule was
ignored in Vietnam where Vietcong guerrillas were
given POW status, notwithstanding their lack of
uniforms.  As for attacking civilians, you can fill
in that blank yourself.

The bottom line is the big dog makes the rules,
and the victors write the history.

mbs


>
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> > There was a question posted about where the term `unlawful combatants'
> > came from. I certainly wondered, and decided it was bullshit. Well,
> > that was wrong. It is cited in [several cites given]:
>
> But Chuck, isn't this all domestic US law?  The contention is that the
> term isn't in the Geneva convention nor in any other international treaty.
> And so that to use it, instead of POW, is to openly defy the Geneva
> convention.  Surely if China said their domestic law took precedent over
> the Geneva convention and human rights conventions -- especially in the
> matter of treatment of prisoners and standards of a fair trial -- we'd say
> that was an illegitimate legal position, no?
>
> Michael
> __________________________________________________________________________
> Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com
>