So it's not a criminal act for someone to make war without authority? It's not a criminal act to commit assault, to attempt murder?
And hey, we've had a ton of mercenaries (meaning non-military combatants) acting on our behalf (see Blackwater, et alii) -- how are they classified? Is "acting on behalf of an authority" enough to change everything? I know that a civilian with a weapon (even if they never use it) is considered a mercenary, and thus a combatant, but how are such persons treated when captured, and to whom are they given when prisoners of war are being released?
In any case, if these are enemy combatants but not criminals (for example, someone carrying a rifle for self-defense, who has never actually fired at our people), then why are we conducting these tribunals? Why put them on trial if they have done nothing for which they can be charged? Shouldn't we remand them to the care of their government? I rather suspect that trials are necessary simply to determine whether any of them have actually committed crimes or made war against us.
no subject
Date: 2009-05-22 03:54 pm (UTC)And hey, we've had a ton of mercenaries (meaning non-military combatants) acting on our behalf (see Blackwater, et alii) -- how are they classified? Is "acting on behalf of an authority" enough to change everything? I know that a civilian with a weapon (even if they never use it) is considered a mercenary, and thus a combatant, but how are such persons treated when captured, and to whom are they given when prisoners of war are being released?
In any case, if these are enemy combatants but not criminals (for example, someone carrying a rifle for self-defense, who has never actually fired at our people), then why are we conducting these tribunals? Why put them on trial if they have done nothing for which they can be charged? Shouldn't we remand them to the care of their government? I rather suspect that trials are necessary simply to determine whether any of them have actually committed crimes or made war against us.