CMike
Zionist, proud to be
- Oct 25, 2009
- 9,219
- 1,172
- 190
Unlawful combatant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Also the tribunal to determine what's their status can be done by a military tribunal.
12. ^ The ICRC Commentary on Article 5 says on the issue of competent tribunal that "At Geneva in 1949, it was first proposed that for the sake of precision the term 'responsible authority' should be replaced by 'military tribunal' (11). This amendment was based on the view that decisions which might have the gravest consequences should Hot [sic] be left to a single person, who might often be of subordinate rank. The matter should be taken to a court, as persons taking part in the fight without the right to do so are liable to be prosecuted for murder or attempted murder, and might even be sentenced to capital punishment (12). This suggestion was not unanimously accepted, however, as it was felt that to bring a person before a military tribunal might have more serious consequences than a decision to deprive him of the benefits afforded by the Convention (13). A further amendment was therefore made to the Stockholm text stipulating that a decision regarding persons whose status was in doubt would be taken by a 'competent tribunal', and not specifically a military tribunal.
Which was in my post.
Once their status is determined, being Lawful Combatant or Criminal, then they must be tried by a court, as per the normal laws of said country.
But, most importantly, said prisoners are to be treated according to the Geneva Convention rules until their status is determined.
Look, let's apply this to another situation that happened quite recently:
Just last year, 2 American journalists were captured by North Korea as spies, perhaps you heard of it?
According to your rules, North Korea had every right to:
1) hold said reporters indefinitely,
2) waterboard them until they made some sort of forced confession,
and
3) tried them in a military tribunal, where they would have been convicted and given the death penalty.
Do you see where this might be a problem?
And we would have a right to drop a bomb on their ministry of defense.
I am simply quoting what the Geneva Convention wrote. I didn't write it.