Originally posted by jdub297
That concept exists for American citizens accused of a crime in American courts.
Enemy combatants are NOT accused "criminals." They are in violation of international law and captured in battle.
This is completely false.
While it
may be true that enemy combatants aren't protected under US law—this is debatable—they are,
at least, protected under
international law and treaties, many of which, having been signed and ratified, the United States is obligated to follow them as if they are
“supreme law of the land” as specified under Article VI of the United States Constitution.
Article 3 of the
IV Hague Convention (1907) states that “
The armed forces of the belligerent
parties may consist of combatants and non-combatants. In the case of capture by the enemy, both have a right to be treated as prisoners of war.”
Moreover, Article 8 of the same convention states that “
Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders in force in the
army of the State in whose power they are.”
Even arguing, as the Bush administration argued, that the status of people apprehended weren't of enemy combatants, alluding to the doubt concerning
their status, it doesn't mean we are allowed to treat them however we like. The
III Geneva Convention (1949), under Article
5, makes it clear how to proceed in these cases:
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of
the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been
determined by a competent tribunal.
It's explicit that when there are doubts regarding the status of prisoners they are to be afforded the same
protections as of those of prisoners of war, unless, and until, determined otherwise by a “competent tribunal.”
The Bush administration and their cheerleaders argued that apprehended al-Qaeda members “and other extremists” aren't considered prisoners of war
under Article 4 of the convention, the one Article 5 I just quoted mentions. Article 4 states that,
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.
Don't take my word or interpretation for it, take the Supreme Court's—in
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006) the Supreme Court ruled that the Geneva Conventions apply to
people apprehended in conflicts during the so called “War on Terror.”
Finally, and addressing jdub297's statement that enemy combatants “
are in violation of international law,” this is also untrue.
International law contemplates resistance movements to fight occupation. Just because people are fighting us doesn't mean they are violating any
laws—how egotistic of us. This determination is to be made by a competent court, not by the opinion of politicians in the executive branch.
[edit on 24-2-2010 by converge]
