I may have been misled, Robert; another source points out that the Fourth Convention (which isn't really intended to cover combatants) doesn't protect "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state" but I don't know which States aren't party to the Convention. Article 5 of the Third Convention may be more applicable; it states that "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." (Article 4 gives the categories of people who must be accorded POW status. Its terms are broader than I thought.) RP>>>>Then I'm not sure what the Administration gains from using its alleged power to designated anyone whom it pleases as an 'unlawful enemy combatant.' The claim, I'd thought, was that so designating them made it possible to avoid giving them 'the rights of fair and regular trial' (especially as in a special military tribunal they're deprived of the right of habeus corpus). <<<<< Yes. I imagine the Administration would argue that the military tribunals are "fair and regular trials"!! Judy Evans. Cardiff Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html