Law: POWs

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


    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.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

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


  4. 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.
     
  5. 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?
     
  6. selfAdjoint

    selfAdjoint 8,147
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  7. 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 arguement with precedence and judicial interpretation then your argument is not supportable either!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2004
  8. 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:

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

  10. 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.
     
  11. You are very much misunderstanding what you are reading. Please read it again, more carefully.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook