Quote:
Originally Posted by lch
Quote:
Originally Posted by chrispedersen
Quote:
Originally Posted by lch
Something of an issue that I have with this paragraph, the Geneva conventions are being ratified by countries, not associations.
They cover how to treat prisoners of war, and other types of "combattants". The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants", a new term that was invented by the US government under Bush during the war on terrorism. The US-american courts are increasingly adopting a position that differs from the government on this.
|
Factually not true. Combattants as you say, are covered so long as they *always* wear something that visually identifies them as member of a militia or resistance group. |
Doesn't conflict with what I said. Yes, that's the case. My main beef with your paragraph was that you said something which made it sound like Al-Quaeda had to ratify the Geneva conventions in order to benefit from it.
The rest what I wrote is true as well. And IMHO it's a good thing that the courts allow themselves to deviate from the government line if they consider it unlawful.  for that. |
We are mostly in accord. What I disagreed with in your paragraph was your statement 'The US denied members of the Taliban these kind of rights by declaring them "illegal combattants'
The US didn't deny them these kinds of coverages,
they never applied for multiple reasons alluded to before.