Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by robertthebard:
He was captured on a battle field, armed, and fighting against coalition forces.
|
Prove it. [/QUOTE]So you are saying Hicks is NOT a POW?
Too bad Hugh, you might have just cooked your own guys goose! Here's why:
If you are arguing NO, then be aware that he would likely be classified as one of the following: Guerilla, terrorist and franc-tireurs (part of an irregular military unit). Member of those groups are NOT protected by the terms of the Geneva conventions.
The Hague Convention No. IV from 1907, ruled that ... partisan fighters ..... could not be considered lawful belligerents under Article 1 of said convention and THEREFORE are not entitled to prisoner of war status. It went on to say that:
"We are obliged to hold that such guerrillas were francs tireurs who, upon capture, could be subjected to the death penalty. Consequently, no criminal responsibility attaches to the defendant List because of the execution of captured partisans."
Therefore the terms AND PROTECTIONS of the Geneva convention would NOT apply to Hicks if he were NOT classified as a POW, and he COULD be summarily executed.
(Just so we're clear, I am NOT arguing that. Just thought it might be important for you realize the flip side of the argument.)
As for his detainment, the Geneva convention says only this:
Article 21
The Detaining Power may subject prisoners of war to internment. It may impose on them the obligation of not leaving, beyond certain limits, the camp where they are interned, or if the said camp is fenced in, of not going outside its perimeter. Subject to the provisions of the present Convention relative to penal and disciplinary sanctions, prisoners of war may not be held in close confinement except where necessary to safeguard their health and then only during the continuation of the circumstances which make such confinement necessary.
Article 118
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
Nothing more, nothing less.
So LEGALLY, there is NOTHING in the Geneva Convention that REQUIRES the detaining country to grant the POW a swift and speedy trial, because as a POW he has comitted no crime and he doesn't NEED to be tried. He will be repatriated WITHOUT a trial (unless war crime charges are brought against him) at the cessation of hostilities. Tough news, but maybe Mr Hicks should have chosen his friends more carefully? So, while you can gripe and complain about Mr Hicks being held for what appears to be an indefinite period - there is NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT! And the US is NOT guilty of "war crimes" for holding him as a POW for what appears to be an indeterminate period. Soldiers on BOTH sides in WW2 were held for four years of longer in some cases. Detention does NOT, in and of itself, constitute a "war crime".
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_Geneva_Convention
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Third_...n_of_Captivity (look for article 109 and start from there)
In honesty, I had originally argued that his case should be brought to a speedy resolution for two reasons, (1) because I would wish to be afforded the same rights and privilege were I being held "in limbo", and (2) because being held for trial for four+ years seems totally excessive.
BUT, these are more than just criminal charges being levied against Mr Hicks. He's not being held for some charge of grand larceny, but for being a terrorist supporter at the minimum. While YOU may have trouble believing the charges, they appear to be detailed, quite specific, and make Mr Hicks appear to be less than the lily-white innocent I believe you think he is.
And yet, I will STILL support a call for a quick resolution of his case, but under no circumstance will I support a call for his immediate release. He is entitled ONLY to his day in court.