What are the categories of individuals considered as POWs?

[Adam]

I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding POWs. Thus I supply again this information:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to ONE of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

• (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
  
• (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
  
• (c) That of carrying arms openly;
  
• (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

B. The following shall likewise be treated as prisoners of war under the present Convention:

1. Persons belonging, or having belonged, to the armed forces of the occupied country, if the occupying Power considers it necessary by reason of such allegiance to intern them, even though it has originally liberated them while hostilities were going on outside the territory it occupies, in particular where such persons have made an unsuccessful attempt to rejoin the armed forces to which they belong and which are engaged in combat, or where they fail to comply with a summons made to them with a view to internment.

2. The persons belonging to one of the categories enumerated in the present Article, who have been received by neutral or non-belligerent Powers on their territory and whom these Powers are required to intern under international law, without prejudice to any more favourable treatment which these Powers may choose to give and with the exception of Articles 8, 10, 15, 30, fifth paragraph, 58-67, 92, 126 and, where diplomatic relations exist between the Parties to the conflict and the neutral or non-belligerent Power concerned, those Articles concerning the Protecting Power. Where such diplomatic relations exist, the Parties to a conflict on whom these persons depend shall be allowed to perform towards them the functions of a Protecting Power as provided in the present Convention, without prejudice to the functions which these Parties normally exercise in conformity with diplomatic and consular usage and treaties.

C. This Article shall in no way affect the status of medical personnel and chaplains as provided for in Article 33 of the present Convention.

Once again, in terms of pure logic: POW = A1+(A2a.A2b.A2c.A2d)+A3+A4+A5+A6+B1+B2

This Boolean statement shows precisely which are POWs.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not quite sure why, but there seems to remain some lack of comprehension regarding POWs. Thus I supply again this information:

Adam, we've had this discussion before. Your understanding is incorrect. No need to repeat the same discussion again.

 

[kat]

Does that mean you have read the law and understand it? Do you have some comment about the law?

can you show precedence in the American Courts to argue against the current administrations interpretation? THAT'S how case law works here...show the precedence and then you will have supported your argument. That's what everyone here...has been trying to explain.

 

[Adam]

Okay Kat, you're still not understanding this at all. Read carefully. The law mentioned is international law which the USA signed on for. International law. USA agreed to it. International. Agreed. International law. USA agreed to it.

Got it?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Article VI of the US Constitution says that ratified treaties become "The supreme law of the land" and that all US judges must be bound by them.

The US courts and the US military do in fact recognize and obey the conventions on POWs. The question arises, who is a POW? For example the administration claimed that the people detained at Guantanamo are not POWS and not subject to the provisions.

 

[kat]

Okay Kat, you're still not understanding this at all. Read carefully. The law mentioned is international law which the USA signed on for. International law. USA agreed to it. International. Agreed. International law. USA agreed to it.

Got it?

It still comes down to interpretation and precedence. There is PRECEDENCE in regards to the unlawful combatants vs. POW issue. If you can't support your argument with precedence and judicial interpretation then your argument is not supportable either!

 

[member 5645]

So I got around to reading some more of the geneva convention, and since Adam seemed to not go further than Article 4, I decided to go to Article 5:

Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

In layman's terms.
All rights under the Geneva convention are suspended as long as giving such rights to the person would be prejudicial to the state.
All rights shall be reinstated as soon as such an act is no longer a threat to the security of the state or occupying power.

 

[Adam]

Yes, actually I have read it many times. And what, in the section quoted, negates in any way the material previously provided?

 

[member 5645]

Yes, actually I have read it many times. And what, in the section quoted, negates in any way the material previously provided?

You didn't mention Article V.
In other threads, relating to Guantanamo, you have referred to this thread and reposted the material as 'proof' that they are being held illegally. However, Article V makes it very clear that all of the standard procedure for POW's is to be put on a moratorium in said conditions of Article V. My point is that you have selectively taken part of the Geneva conventions and repeatedly used it in a manner condusive to your point.
My point is to make the picture whole for anytime you refer to this thread in the future. Or I need to refer to it.

 

[Adam]

You are very much misunderstanding what you are reading. Please read it again, more carefully.