>>>>>>So, it's a war except when it isn't, and it isn't a war except when it is. They are at war, but when they're captured they don't get any of POW status and no law applies to them;
>>>>>
>>>>>They do not get POW status as they are not soldiers. I do agree that they need to be charged and tried.
>>>>
>>>>In a regular court, if not military, not the special monkey courts where they can't even see the evidence against them (which, I presume, can't be seen by prosecution either, being nonexistent in many cases).
>>>
>>>It appears this matter is now settled as the Administration has reversed their policy and granted Al Qaeda Geneva protection. I can't say I agree with this, but in light of the Supreme court's decision in Hamdon vs. Rumsfeld I don't think they had much of a choice.
>>>
>>>http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e1de1572-1089-11db-8eec-0000779e2340.html
>>
>>
>>That arrogance is so typical of the Bush White House. How big of them to grant prisoners their rights under the Geneva Convention!
>
>Geneva applies to those who have signed it. Since Al-Qaeda is not a signatory and they are not a nation, Geneva does not apply. The administration should get some credit in your eyes. Personally I think they should've waited until the Supreme Court ruled specifically on their legal status.

Jake,

From Part 1, Article 2, "Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." Al-Qaeda has not signed it and is not bound by it - but we have and we are.

Regards,