HI,

>>>The 'unlawful combantant' reason for detaining the prisons at Guantanamo Bay is flawed. The Haque convention defines a legal combatant as
>>>
>>>To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
>>>To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;
>>>To carry arms openly; and
>>>To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
>>>
>>>This means that both Delta Force and the CIA (the paramilitary division for sure) could be held by enemy states as unlawful combatants.
>>
>>You need to expand a bit on your argument. The definition you give obviously means the CIA etc are not lawful combatants - but that, in itself, does not make them, any more than it makes me, a 'combatant' of any sort.
>
>Sorry about that. That was just my point. The Bush Admin says that the Al-queda are not lawful combants, therefore they Geneva conventions don't apply. This sets a dangerous precendent for the Delta Force and the CIA paramilitary unit since they also fit that same definition of not being a lawful combatant. This puts US military and intelligence personel at risk since some unfriendly countries could hold them without trial as well.

I understand your point (especially after reading Tracey's link) - I was only nit-picking your logic:
The definition of an elephant is xxxx
This animal by definition is not an elephant
Therefore it is a walrus.
<s>
Regards,
Viv