Roman J. Rohleder wrote:
(BUFDRVR) schrieb:


I don't think the convention makes such a distinction.

It absolutely does. You can't engage in armed conflict in jeans and a T-shirt
and expect to be recognized as a legal armed combatant. The convention not only
says you must be a uniform, but an "officially recognized" uniform.


Article 4 of the third convention sates that any indiviudual,
militia or voulenteer corps engaged in war is regarded a POW
when captured.

Correct, if wearing a uniform identifying themselves as such.


And if not they should be regarded as POW until proven of different
status..I stumbled across an item by "The Guardian" dealing with that
as a side-topic.

Well, since by definition conducting military operations without
such a uniform (or if not possible, then typically a "distinctive
marking" is considered adequate) specifically disqualifies one as
a legal combatant, then the determination doesn't take too long.
If, as a military member, I were captured taking potshots at
someone while wearing jeans and a T-shirt, then I would quite
likely not be entitled to combatant status.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...921192,00.html

To quote:

"The US government claims that these men are not subject to the Geneva
conventions, as they are not "prisoners of war", but "unlawful
combatants". The same claim could be made, with rather more justice,
by the Iraqis holding the US soldiers who illegally invaded their
country. But this redefinition is itself a breach of article 4 of the
third convention, under which people detained as suspected members of
a militia (the Taliban) or a volunteer corps (al-Qaida) must be
regarded as prisoners of war.

First, there is no legal distinction between whether a military
act is considered illegal in defining a legal combatant, so a uniformed
soldier engaging in any conflict is a legal combatant, period. They
could possibly be tried for carrying out illegal acts (invasion isn't
one of them) before their capture, but by convention only after the
end of the conflict (some countries hold exceptions to this, North
Vietnam was one of them, IIRC). The uniform issue applies even
if one IS a recognized member of an armed force- operating out of
uniform for the purpose of carrying out military activity (blowing
up a fuel depot for example) is prohibited, and marks you as
an illegal combatant- specifically, a spy, for which you may
legally be executed. Note that JUST being out of uniform
doesn't count, as you may be disguised if not carrying out
military activities- escaping from a POW camp in civilian
clothes doesn't make you an illegal combatant (or evan
a combatant, for that matter), but blowing up that fuel
depot while escaping would.

BTW, al-Quaeda isn't considered a volunteer organization, since
they don't operate under the direction of a national command
structure, nor are they fighting for a specific nation
(fighting AGAINST someone isn't enough). More importantly,
perhaps, is that no nation has claimed that al-Quaeda is working
FOR them- quite understandable, given that a) no one wants to
openly side with them, because b) no one wants to openly declare that
they consider themselves to be an appropriate target of the US and
other NATO forces (note the previous invocation of the mutual
defense clause of the NATO alliance by the NATO council on
12 September, 2001).


Even if there is doubt about how such people should be classified,
article 5 insists that they "shall enjoy the protection of the present
convention until such time as their status has been determined by a
competent tribunal". But when, earlier this month, lawyers
representing 16 of them demanded a court hearing, the US court of
appeals ruled that as Guantanamo Bay is not sovereign US territory,
the men have no constitutional rights."

The "competent tribunal" in this case rested with the US military,
which took the prisoners- note that not all prisoners were labelled
illegal combatants.

Also note that the ruling by the Court of Appeals was based on
a 50+ year old Supreme Court ruling, but that the US Supreme Court
has now apparently agreed to hear a case on that very point- guess
we'll see how it goes. Pretty much only the Supreme Court has
the luxury of overturning one of its previous rulings- lower courts
are bound by the previous precedent.

Mike