Display:
No idea.  But we just agreed to extradite Noriega to Paris when we're done punishing him.  Which possibly violates the Geneva Conventions about handing off prisoners of war ...

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601086&sid=aCOmPSr4ctQk&refer=latin_america

"Pretending that you already know the answer when you don't is not actually very helpful." ~Migeru.

by poemless on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 04:24:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No it dosn't that is covered by articles 82 and 115 of the third geneva convention

from Human rights watches press briefing on the Geneva conventions

POW status provides protection only for the act of taking up arms against opposing military forces, and if that is all a POW has done, then repatriation at the end of the conflict would be required. But as Article 82 of Third Geneva explains, POW status does not protect detainees from criminal offenses that are applicable to the detaining powers' soldiers as well. That is, if appropriate evidence can be collected, the United States would be perfectly entitled to charge the Guantanamo detainees with war crimes, crimes against humanity, or other violations of U.S. criminal law, whether or not they have POW status. As Article 115 of the Third Geneva Convention explains, POWs detained in connection with criminal prosecutions are entitled to be repatriated only "if the Detaining Power [that is, the United States] consents."


Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Aug 30th, 2007 at 09:38:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series