Ddrak wrote:The GC does deal with non-state actors in considerable depth, both non-coms and combatant ones. I believe (disclaimer: IANAL) that the current administration's interpretation is simply a clear case of deliberate misreading to attain a predefined goal.
The intent of the GC seems pretty clear to me - noncoms are to be protected where possible and combatant non-state actors are to be detained if possible until the cessation of hostilities where they are to be tried in the country of origin as criminals. Maybe the language could be "tightened up" but I really don't think it's all that obscure and honestly when it comes to agreements of that nature I'd prefer to keep what we have than throw it open for every country to fight over their own agendas.
TOM MALINOWSKI: It's probably correct -- I agree with the other guests that al-Qaida members in particular because they didn't wear uniform insignia, they didn't abide by the laws of war probably would not be deemed to be entitled to prisoner of war status.
The Taliban prisoners -- and there are some Taliban prisoners among the detainees in Guantanamo -- might be deemed to be entitled to POW status because they were fighting for the armed forces of one of the parties to the conflict -- the government of Afghanistan. But it's unclear and as was mentioned, the key thing is to entitle these detainees - all of them -- to a hearing to determine their status. That's a requirement whenever there's a doubt.
Mr. Malinowski is the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, incidentally.
It is possible that we are arguing two different points. I suppose that I believe that the rules for determining thier status must be explicated, where you are suggesting that once individuals are labeled properly as non-combatants, they're treatment is made clear (though I think I could also make arguments to that affect as well).
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
