during the vietnam war, one of our US Senate members John McCain was shot down as some of you might know. after being shot down McCain was taken prisoner by the Vietcong. he was kept there for almost 6 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:N...POW_McCain.jpg

That is him when he got out, after being tortured. He was released when the war was over in 1973.



"members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause" -- Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Part 1 , Article 3, Statement 1

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm


it says "ARMED FORCES" so that means any force that has taken arms against your army or government i.e. enemy combatants. Armed forces generally refers to forces of an enemy nation i.e. soldiers, which could be the reason why they didnt want to use the term armed forces. for example, for those of you that still dont get it or are pigheaded, when people speak of america's armed forces they mean the soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines that defend our constitution. but this is just an assumption.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatant

enemy combatant, well synonyms for it have been around since the 1940s. according to this article atleast.

The geneva convention also states the following:

"Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities"--SECTION II
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118

The problem with calling people "enemy combatants" is that it is very vague and allows our government to avoid following the rules of the Geneva Convention. They can pretty much call anyone an enemy of the USA and throw them in prison without a trial.

This is simply not acceptable behavior no matter how you semantically twist the argument.

very true. wat do u think they should be refered to as??

If this truly is the "WAR on Terror" then they are POW's and they deserve all the rights entitled to a POW.

yea then they would get the same rights as they have now tho. i read most of the Geneva Convention today for that other post of mine. they should call them POWs if they wanna get anything out of it

There is no way the Geneva Convention allows our government to hold people indefinitely, without being charged, and without the right to a trial.

If you state that they only have to grant these rights after the war that is bullshit because the "War on Terror" is so vague that it might never end.

"the same rights"?
You REALLY didn't read the Geneva Convention close enough.
You are REALLY missing the big picture here...

There is a reason why the Bush administration is trying damned hard to not give these people the title "POW". It's because if they WERE classified as POWs and being treated as they are now, it would be a blatant violation.

Tell me if the Geneva Convention allows POWs to be held indefinitely.
Tell me how the Geneva Convention treats POWs and charges against the POWs, with trials.

The Geneva Convention does not allow us to hold people indefinitely, but it does not specify the amount of days or years that a POW/Enemy Combatant can be held for.

"Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
Section II
RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES
Article 118

That sentence means that POWs HAVE to be released once the force that the POWs belonged to and/or its allies have surrendered or made terms of agreement to stop or end a war. You can argue that they are enemy combatants and not POWs. But, enemy combatants that have been captured are infact prisoners of war. the bush administration is stupid for not having used the term POW, which would allow it to hold POWs without anybody being able to complain about it. I wonder why they have now

Read the post right before this where I have evidence that is pulled directly from the Geneva Convention. POWs do not get trials without commiting war-crimes.

You keep ignoring the laws. Your feel good semantics is noble. Unfortunately, the law des consider feelings. Members of the Taliban and al-Qaeda do not fall under the characterization of prisoners of war. Instead they fall under the classification of unlawful combatants. The Supreme Court of the United States has deemed unlawful combatants as Enemy Combatants.

In either case, combatants do not classify as criminals unless they can be proven to have commited war crimes. It is only then that they require a trial or tribunal of any sort. The Geneva Convention allows for the holding of combatants until the cease of hostilities.

People keep using the word indefinite. Until one of the Gitmo prisoners has been held longer than 7 years, your words are mere rhetoric. During the Vietnam War there were prisoners who had been held for 5, 6 and 7 years. No one at Gitmo is even remotely close to that time frame.

First you accused the administration of making up the word. An assertion I proved false.

Then you accused the administration of not abiding by the law. Once again an assertion I proved to be false.

Now all ou have left are your feel good feelings and rhetoric. Face it, you lack merit and truly have no real argument other than you don't like it. The facts and the laws are against you.

dmk