Skip to comments.Persons Not Entitled to be Treated as Prisoners of War [e.g. insurgents, terrorists]
Posted on 06/24/2010 4:33:09 PM PDT by Winged Hussar
74. Necessity of Uniform Members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces lose their right to be treated as prisoners of war whenever they deliberately conceal their status in order to pass behind the military lines of the enemy for the purpose of gathering military information or for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property. Putting on civilian clothes or the uniform of the enemy are examples of concealment of the status of a member of the armed forces.
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.
82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.
(Excerpt) Read more at faculty.ed.umuc.edu ...
Case in point: Immediately after WWII in Germany, the ‘Werewolves’ and other NAZI insurgents who were committing terrorist acts were executed by firing squad when captured. Case closed.
Better hope Gates or some of those political correct Army generals do not visit this site and read this......it will be changed in due haste. =.=
That was justice meted out by the greatest generation. But we ain’t that great no moh.
This is a good example of how W’s administration post-Ari Fleischer couldn’t and wouldn’t defend itself against the media and RAT jackals.
The rationale for the treatment of civilians as noncombatants is eroded if those combatants hide behind the skirts of the noncombatants. And that attacks the discipline of the army on occupation duty.
So the irony is that the "brutal" provision in the field manual referred to is for the purpose of enforcing the Geneva Conventions and thereby limiting the brutality of war.
. . . which was a classic example of retreating from a readily defensible "right wing" position into an indefensible "moderate" position.