Which would be quite accurate, except the Al-Queda are not signatories
to the Geneva Convention, which regulates treatment of POWs held by
warring COUNTRIES. Would any nation care to step forward and claim the
terrorists as part of their state's military policy, then you would be
correct. But until then, which clause in the Geneva Convention
specifically treats terrorist groups not aligned directly with any
particular state?
Jay Travis
Gavin Broad wrote:
> Esteemed Listers,
>
> It seems that George no-mates-at-Enron Bush nearly choked on a Pretzel
> last night.
>
> I wonder if it was the shock of realising that he had contravened the
> Geneva Convention when he unilaterally declared that the raghead
> prisoners on Cuba were not POWs, without first holding the agreed
> tribunal to decide their status? Treaties can be so tiresome at
> times....... Who said ABM???? :-)
>
> OMVC:
>
> Nice HMMWVs pictured mounting .50 cals to guard the aforementioned
> ragheads. I bet old Fidel is well gutted.
> Ha!
> Gavin
>
>
>
>
> ===Mil-Veh is a member-supported mailing list===
> To unsubscribe, send e-mail to: <mil-veh-off@mil-veh.org>
> To switch to the DIGEST mode, send e-mail to <mil-veh-digest@mil-veh.org>
> To reach a human, contact <ack@mil-veh.org>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 06 2002 - 11:49:26 PST