Sure. It was correct/necessary/humane/etx to treat U.S. pilots as POWs. But juridcally they weren't. The U.S. had not declared war on Vietnamj -- the bombing raids were no more valid than was 9/11.
No, Carrol. It is of no importance for the legal status of a combatant - and this way to the right to be treatened as a POW -if there has been a declaration of ware ore not. The only important questions are: Is there a armed conflict and?do the?soldiers fullfill the?traditional conditions:?? The Qualifications of Belligerents Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:
To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
To carry arms openly; and
To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army." (here from the Hague Convention 1907, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/hague04.htm) ---- Clearly the US Air Force and Navy pilots did fullfill the first three conditions. The fourth about the conduct of operations is so loosely defined,?that even the use auf CBU's ore of later detonating bombs is not in general excluded. (Laws of warfare have not been made by politicians and military experts to make warefare impossible.)
Only spies and mercanaries (blackwater and dyncorp?and ... ) are in general excluded from the status as combatants. But even this does not mean, that it would be legal to kill them.
Sebastian
ps: Marx was a declared opponent of the death sentence. Ryazanov remembered his comrades about this in process of establishing the first soviet penal code - without success. ________________________________________________________________________ Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail f?r alle. Klicken Sie auf AOL.de um heraus zu finden, was es sonst noch kostenlos bei AOL gibt.