[quote="staurofilakes[list=]"]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 03USMC Yes and it falls under Article 5 GCIV. Any more silly lawyer games[/list]you care to try?
b) As you said, the GCIV is relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, and a prisioner of war is not a civilian!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But any way, all the protection for CIVILIANS is resumed here. People fighting are NOT civilians!!
Article 5
Where, in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.
|
It would occur to me that a law student would understand both literal and spirit interpretation of law and statute. Reread ^^^^^^^^ the above. Then go back and reread the GCIII and the GCIV LITERALLY. Not just the articles that appear to strenghten your argument.
Article 5 gives you clear circumstances of when a "civilian" as designated under the GCIV losses privileges of that convention. BTW the ruling of the District United States Court that the US could not envoke Article 5 as it pertains to Detainees is in appeal so it is moot. Until ruled on by SCOUSA.
As far as customs of war. If you want to try that argument then you must toss out your UNCAT argument. One or the other Consular. If your arguing as I am that a State (US) is involved in armed conflict with hostile forces (terrorists) then clearly the Geneva Conventions dictate the conduct of said actions.