• From: Judith Evans <judithevans001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 22:31:37 +0100 (BST)

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

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

(Article 4 gives the categories of people who must be
accorded POW status. Its terms are broader than I

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

Other related posts: