| mrstickball said:Only problem is that POWs usually mean that the captive is a member of a regular army, and not a guerilla fighter. When you hide behind women in children, the Geneva convention typically doesn't apply....So we may need to find a new defition of a 'captured terrorist' than a POW. |
Actually, POW status is conferred upon many other people. Being a member of a regular army does qualify one for POW status, but it also applies to those are authorized to accompany the regular army (for example, defense contractors), militias, and even guerilla groups that display a certain number of defined characterisitcs. Those who hide behind women and children would be guilty of perfidy and would be charged with war crimes. Captured terrorists are labeled as unlawful combatants and are not conferred POW status. With that being said, they are still entitled to humane treatment (no physical or mental torture) and (I believe) can expect a trial in a regularly constituted court.
This is a confusing and demanding issue, but I believe Obama, in conjunction with the previous rulings of the Supreme Court, is beginning to move the US in the correct direction.
