No uniform = SPY

You are allowed to shoot spies during a war.

Got a quote for that?

Here’s what I’ve found regarding spies:

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 security of State or Occupying Power as case may be.

Remember that this doesn’t mean they get POW status, just protected civilian status.

Read the whole thing here.

No uniform = spy

I do not believe it is spelled out in the Geneva Convention, but de facto, do not the indentifiers, or national insignia of uniforms have to be designated before the fight begins?

Otherwise, how do you declare what is not a uniform, when determining who is a spy, and who is a combatant?

The Geneva Conventions and legal traditions are explained beautifully at the Federalist Society

The only sure identifier I can determine for these terrorists is a severed human head which is seen easily at a distance as required by the Conventions, and pretty much copyrighted by that group.

The head choppers should be accorded full Geneva treatments, everyone else should be shot on sight.

This would be a win-win, because, in most of America excepting perhaps San Francisco, and Bloomberg’s New York, cutting off the head of a kafir would be considered at least a misdemeanor.

It may even be sufficient to disqualify the identifiable combatant from getting amnesty under the Senate Immigration Bill.

You are allowed to shoot spies during a war.

Finally admitted I’d been pushing myself too hard and crashed for a little over 12 hours. In the mean time, Zero beat me to the story of the day. One of the great things about having a team…

Changing the policy on his own initiative lets Bush bank some goodwill on the eve of the G8 with North Korea and Iran on the table.

Smart politics. And so good for the soul.

Is this like the goodwill he always seeks from his enemies? Gee, I don’t think any of them have ever reciprocated. And they won’t now.

Its my understanding that the GC protections (in Article 3) do not extend to ‘illegal combatants’ in any nation…When terrorists hide in the civilian population as civilians they endanger the civilians and do not deserve GC protection.

Absolutely correct. Yet, we’re giving it to them on bended knee with neck proffered.

It’s over, we’ve lost.

USAToday is reporting that the Bush Administration has caved to the ACLU by providing “rights” to detainees that they clearly are not entitled to:
“The Bush administration said Tuesday that all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, an…

OK, one word. Sue me.

Is this true?

The GC was written, partially, to protect the civilian populations by clearly identifying the combatants. When terrorists hide in the civilian population as civilians they endanger the civilians and do not deserve GC protection.

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

D means that we can keep them for as long as we want, as POWs without charging them… we only have to give them judicial guarantees IF they go to court…

C is more problematic, as personal indignity is in the eye of the beholder… they can say that not following Sharia law is an affront to their dignity…

Other problem with this… do you know that we have to start PAYING these prisoners under the Geneva Convention???