Wow you are dense...
shadowrelm wrote:
by your definition then, which the whitehouse does not hold BTW, all prisoners we hold ARE "prisoners of WAR" , and thus coverend under the geneva convention.
No. You seem to be continually confusing the idea of "Prisoners of War" with "Prisoners taken during a War". Not the same thing. I've said this several times. I'll say it again:
The official legal catagorization of a "Prisoner of War" requires a set of conditions in the GC. Not every prisoner taken during a time of war will fit that definition. For instance, a civilian caught breaking into a store in an occupied area is *not* a POW. He's just a criminal subject to whatever interim local system is present. The fact that a war is going on does not change things in that manner.
Additionally, a POW as defined in the GC is *not* limited to military actions that are "wars". Anytime a combatant in a military engagement is captured and meets the conditions of the GC (verly loosely: Is uniformed or identifiable as to who he's fighting for, was actively engaged in some military task, was captured by an opposint military force, etc...), he qualifies as a POW.
Just because POW has the word "war" in it does not mean what you seem to think it means.
Quote:
as such, "coercive interogation" is strictly illegal. under the convention, no prisoners may be questioned PERIOD, much less tortured.
No again. No person who is a "POW" may be questioned (beyond name, rank, ID number). But again, not everyone captured in a war zone is a POW. The GC has whole sections on civilian justice in an occupied area, treatment of military prisoners in an occupied area, and treatment of civilians who violate their status as civilian in an occupied area. You keep assuming that everyone who is taken prisoner in an occupied area is a POW. That is simply not true.
... And everything else in your post is wrong because it follows from a completely incorrect assumption.
Shadow. I'm not kidding here. Why not try to actually learn someting about a topic before arguing about it. You obviously know almost nothing about the GC, nothing about POW status, and nothing about the basic definitions and terminology involved. Until you do so, you'll continually missunderstand everything about this subject and make yourself look really foolish when you post about it.
Just a suggestion. Take some logic classes. Pick up a copy of the GC and *read* it. They didn't write all those words just so some yahoo could declare anyone taken prisoner to be a POW. They set forth whole paragraphs explaining what contituted a POW for a reason. Ignoring it just makes you look ignorant of the topic.
