randy wrote:
I got tired of having to explain to folks over and over that if the prisoners in GITMO were:
1. legitimate POWs, not only can we hold them indefinitely without trial (i.e. until the war is over or they are exchanged), but to put them on trial just for being enemy combatants is war crime in and of itself.
2.If they are not legitimate combatants, then by following the strict guidelines of the various treaties we can give them a summary court to determine their status, stand them against the nearest wall and shoot them, all within a day's work.
I've got the ICRC manuals on the law of war in PDF form here are a couple of their rules:
Rule 107. Combatants who are captured while engaged in espionage do not
have the right to prisoner-of-war status. They may not be convicted or
sentenced without previous trial.
And this:
Rule 106. Combatants must distinguish themselves from the civilian
population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation
preparatory to an attack. If they fail to do so, they do not have the right to
prisoner-of-war status.
Another one...
Rule 2. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread
terror among the civilian population are prohibited.
Then there's this one:
Rule 14. Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental
loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a
combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.
And this one:
Rule 15. In the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to
spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects. All feasible
precautions must be taken to avoid, and in any event to minimise, incidental
loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
And this:
Rule 17. Each party to the conflict must take all feasible precautions in the
choice of means and methods of warfare with a view to avoiding, and in any
event to minimising, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and
damage to civilian objects.
Depending on their attack methods[e.g. a second IED that targets responders and the wounded], they've probably violated this one:
Rule 47. Attacking persons who are recognised as hors de combat is
prohibited. A person hors de combat is:
(a) anyone who is in the power of an adverse party;
(b) anyone who is defenceless because of unconsciousness, shipwreck, wounds
or sickness; or
(c) anyone who clearly expresses an intention to surrender;
provided he or she abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.
Rule 65. Killing, injuring or capturing an adversary by resort to perfidy is
prohibited.
And we can shoot their leaders, too:
Rule 153. Commanders and other superiors are criminally responsible for war
crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or had reason to know,
that the subordinates were about to commit or were committing such crimes
and did not take all necessary and reasonable measures in their power to
prevent their commission, or if such crimes had been committed, to punish
the persons responsible.
And there aren't any statutes of limitations on war crimes. I think its safe to say that we could put everyone in GITMO on trial, and then shoot them.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
