"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ...

Chapter and verse, Colin, please.

(You're usually very clueful, but the GCs are explicit: even spies may
not be shot out of hand, but must be tried first)

Are you sure? Here is the only passage I can see where it talks about
persons who are not protected under Geneva III or Geneva IV.

Geneva (IV)-1949

Art. 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.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained
as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of
activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person
shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be
regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present
Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity
and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and
regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be
granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the
present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security
of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.
/end quote

They must be "treated with humanity" but from my reading it seems to
be that *if* you try them, the trials must be fair. I don't see any
requirement that they be tried. Indeed, they specifically make
reference to holding someone based on on suspicion and then they are
"regarded as having forfeited rights of communication". Fairly broad
powers there, enshrined under Geneva-IV (1949), from my readings it in
fact seems to justify what's going on at Gitmo completely (if we
assume that the men at Gitmo don't qualify for protection under either
GC III or GC IV).

That brings up Geneva III-1949, Article 5.

"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."

Again, no right to a trial that I can see, only a "competant
tribunal". The US has started releasing men from Gitmo, admitting that
they had been caught up in the dragnet by mistake, so there is some of
this going on; note also that I don't believe they say that the
tribunal (for deciding whether they meet GC III 4.2) must be an open
one. And you don't need a tribunal to declare someone not covered by
III or IV; you only need the tribunal in cases where there is doubt.

The US seems to be loudly protesting that the men aren't entitled to
protection under the GC's, but in all actuality most of the AQ men
wouldn't get any protection anyway (Geneva III (1949) Article 4
section 2 would be the standards that they would have to meet, and
from my knowledge of AQ very few of them would meet them). I don't
think the way the men in the pens are treated would be any different
if the US were to announce that they were to be held under the GC's,
because so many men wouldn't qualify as POW's, not meeting the
requirements of GC (III) 4.2 (which are fairly strict, requiring a
chain-of-command and a mark recoginzable at a distance (distinct from
merely carrying a gun)). The AQ men almost certainly wouldn't, the
Taliban men might, I don't know enough about how the Taliban operated
to know.

Now, giving the British citizens to Britain would be the smart move to
help Tony Blair... it seems so obvious that I don't really know why
they aren't.

Chris Manteuffel