DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**Evoryboypoto** · 01-26-2007, 02:10 PM

And the war on terror is just a set of policies against terrorism. Thus, those captured should be given a trial or released.

That's what I'm driving at.

Ok, I see your point, so lets think about this.

Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope

IMO treating them as POWs is a dodge because the admistration believes, correctly, that America does not have the stomach for mass executions, which would be the just response to the acts of mass murder that many of these people are guilty of.

In the example 4 out of 9 executed; how many prisoners does the US hold?

01-26-2007, 02:10 PM	#29
Evoryboypoto Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 377 Senior Member	And the war on terror is just a set of policies against terrorism. Thus, those captured should be given a trial or released. That's what I'm driving at. Ok, I see your point, so lets think about this. Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years. Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope IMO treating them as POWs is a dodge because the admistration believes, correctly, that America does not have the stomach for mass executions, which would be the just response to the acts of mass murder that many of these people are guilty of. In the example 4 out of 9 executed; how many prisoners does the US hold?
	Quote