I read your artical from the NSA web site. Not exactly an impartial site, being run by the US military (.navy.mil/).
"The comments that follow are not intended to address the POW issue directly, still less the question of what should or should not count as "war" in present circumstances."
But I found it interesting. Especialy the following;
"The classification of prisoners taken in Afghanistan as "illegal combatants" immediately attracted much scrutiny, in part because international law provides no precise definition of what such a categorization implies, and in part because its use in the present instance was intended to deprive Taliban and al-Qaida fighters of the protections afforded prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions."
the paragraph after your quote on the Hague Act of 1907 is also interesting;
"Among these the most ambitious is the first Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Protocol I), concluded in 1977. Protocol I, which the United States has signed but not ratified, tried to take account of the perfectly obvious fact that no guerilla organization or resistance movement worthy of the name could possibly survive strict adherence to the requirements set forth at the Hague."
Correct me if I am wrong but the last instance of the Hague Act is the IJC which not only did the US refuse to sign, but activly campaigned against it . When it was passed and 78 countries signed the US enacted what has been called the 'Hague Invasion Act' and coerced 80 countries into signing a disclaimer that they would never prosecute US servicemen using the new international laws.
Can you explain the difference in treatment of Afghanii Taliban fighters who are suspected Al Queda members and Cuban terrorists?
Specifically why if I am a Taliban fighter in Afghanistan I get up to two years in Camp X-Ray Cuba without any rights / human contact. These guys are in solitary confinement, have about an hour outside a week and no contact with their families.
But if I hijack a plane an make it fly to the US I get BAIL!!?? (I am refering to the two very recent hijackings) Seems a uneven application of the law on terrorists.
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/5535985.htm
"That same year, Cuban Army intelligence Lt. Col. Jose Fernandez Pupo hijacked a civilian plane to the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Pupo was acquitted of hijacking charges by a federal jury in Washington, D.C., but he was denied asylum because he used guns in the hijacking."
Hey, the Supreme Court just ruled that US law did not apply to Guantanamo Bay?
>>Yeah, Zahid -- almost all of that info? in those links are half-truths or incomplete or just plain wrong... 1 blatant one is it has the US invaded Panama in 1960's which is wrong - we invaded in 1988 and the further explanation in that 1 is just incomplete just like the others..
Again OSR you can't get it right.
First it was January 9, 1964 that Panamanians attacked US citizens and interests in Panama. Panama later took the US to the UN over the matter.
Second it was December 20,1989 that the US started bombing Panama (not 1988).
Like the rest of your posts this one contains "half-truths or incomplete or just plain wrong".
