home

U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights

By Jeralyn, Section Terror Detainees
Posted on Mon Feb 13, 2006 at 11:55:33 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Government has filed its response brief in (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, docket 05-184). Oral Argument is Friday.

The Bush Administration told the Supreme Court on Monday that the Justices could put a stop to a foreign national's challenge to a military war crimes trial without worrying about any constitutional violations, since detainees like him have no rights under the Constitution. In the latest court filing by the Justice Department on the meaning of the new Detainee Treatment Act, the Justice Department argued: "The Constitution does not guarantee aliens held abroad a right to habeas corpus." As a result, it said, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national, "cannot claim the protection of our Constitution."

Shorter version: Detainees have no constitutional rights

Longer Version: The text of the Government's brief (pdf).

< 'Bali Nine' Death Sentences Handed Down for Drugs | Saddam on Hunger Strike, Trial Nears Collapse >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights | 45 comments (45 topical)
    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#1)
    by bad Jim on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:23:35 AM EST
    Once upon a time, America was something new, an utterly free country, a place where anyone could live unfettered by the strictures of prejudice or tradition. Now it's policy that this is not that sort of nation.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#2)
    by john horse on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 03:38:20 AM EST
    bad Jim (sarcasm alert) Yes, I've heard that at one time it was self-evident that all men have inalienable rights. Now it is self-evident that inalienable rights does not apply to aliens.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 05:19:16 AM EST
    news flash - these are illegal combatants. YOu know what the military did to their ilk during WWII? Summary execution.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 05:24:29 AM EST
    Phffffthtt. That what you call leading by example, JR?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#5)
    by Darryl Pearce on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:36:18 AM EST
    Sorry, James Robertson. This whole Global War on Terror® is conducted in a self-admittedly outside-the-law fashion. We should have been better than that. Now, it's just competing gangs doing drive-by's of each other and the gangs are getting very proficient at improvised explosive devices. The United States military has simply become yet another overworked, underfunded government program. That's why conservatives hate big government so much. They're so bad at it.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#6)
    by Punchy on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:39:55 AM EST
    Is this correct: Our gov't wants the ability to go into ANY country, round up what it claims to be a "enemy combatant" or "terrorist", then detain them forever, without any trial? Do they get a trial in their own country? I'm guessing no. So, in effect, the US can take ANYBODY they want from anywhere, slap a label on them, and they're forever incarcerated--rightly or wrongly--until they die? Uh...doesn't that make us kidnappers in the least, fellow terrorists in the worst? I'm betting this will do wonders for the travel and tourism industry with respect to people with brown skin....

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lora on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:54:54 AM EST
    Such a nasty mean-spirited, un-American interpretation our government has given. This is wrong on so many levels. Legally there are treaties such as the Geneva Convention and other International Law that our country has agreed to, and we are legally bound to uphold, no matter how we want to pretend otherwise. Morally, to look for ways to get out of treating ALL human beings with respect and due process is just despicable. This whole argument is shameful.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#8)
    by Sailor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:57:22 AM EST
    What are these 'illegal combatants' you speak of? It is a fictional term created by bushco, there is no basis in law, much less reality, for it. from the US Navy:
    The classification of prisoners taken in Afghanistan as "illegal combatants" immediately attracted much scrutiny, in part because international law provides no precise definition of what such a categorization implies, and in part because its use in the present instance was intended to deprive Taliban and al-Qaida fighters of the protections afforded prisoners of war under the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#10)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 07:16:09 AM EST
    Narius: we have to conquer all the muslim country to give women the "right to pursue happiness". Ian posted a rather insightful comment the other day. One that you might find enlightening, if you are so inclined. Posted by Ian February 12, 2006 01:11 PM
    One time when visiting Tehran I had an interesting conversation with a woman I met there. She made a couple of interesting points about the concept of "freedom". One of the ones that stuck with me was the way she contrasted "theoretical" freedoms with real world freedoms. She pointed out that, sure, in the US women are theroetically free to do whatever they like, in so far as the law does not restrict their actions. But she pointed out that freedom from legal interference is not the only definition of freedom. To illustrate, she asked me how many American women would feel free to walk alone down a deserted street late at night. Sure, the government won't stop them, and so in that sense they are "free" but the reality is of course a different matter. .... I suspect you have precisely ZERO direct experience of the societies of which you are so critical, and so I thought this conversation might benefit from what little experience I have.


    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#11)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 07:19:28 AM EST
    Slightly OT: Remember Al Amiriya

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#12)
    by squeaky on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 07:23:33 AM EST
    narius-
    Of course aliens should have no rights under the US constitution.
    A hair's breadth away from sonething like this: Damn foreigners are taking America away from us. America is a white country and all others should have no rights. They are inferior. Didn't you say you are asian?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#13)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:10:32 AM EST
    I am finally in a position to agree with PPJ, the UN is completely useless. Allowing the US to play world police and deny basic legal rights to whoever they deem "evil" is a sure sign that the UN is no longer necessary.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#14)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:16:09 AM EST
    Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni national, "cannot claim the protection of our Constitution." Now sombody please enlighten me....why a "Yemeni national" should have "Rights" under the U.S. constitution???? What is with you people, assuming every single person on Earth has "rights" under our constitution??? DP.... This whole Global War on Terror® is conducted in a self-admittedly outside-the-law fashion. Yes...it is unlike any war we have ever fought. So should that deter us from doing waht we need to do to win it? Adapt or die... yes??? Too bad our enemies don't play by the rules we'd like them to. Lora... Legally there are treaties such as the Geneva Convention and other International Law that our country has agreed to, and we are legally bound to uphold This has been argued many times... The GC only applies to "countries" that have signed it. If our 'enemy' doesn't follow it (and they don't) we are not obligated to either. This is war...you do what you need to win!

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#16)
    by Punchy on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:25:15 AM EST
    Now sombody please enlighten me....why a "Yemeni national" should have "Rights" under the U.S. constitution???? What is with you people, assuming every single person on Earth has "rights" under our constitution??? Oh, maybe because WE are the ones who grabbed him, WE are the ones who then labeled him something that legally has no basis (illegal combatants?), WE are the ones holding him, and WE are the ones jailing him forever.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:26:07 AM EST
    Well Narius... you may get your wish sooner than you think:
    US army to target SE Asian terrorists "soon" 2004-06-04 US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that he hoped US military forces will soon be hunting terrorists in Southeast Asia, but stopped short of giving details. In a dialogue with sailors and marines aboard the naval vessel USS Essex at a Singapore base ahead of a major regional security meeting, he was asked "when are we going to start hunting some terrorists in this theater?" "Well, I would hope pretty soon," Rumsfeld replied.
    Maybe they should be given "our biggest bomb", since you're now here, and of course "they" (the asians you left behind) don't seem to count as humans in your view, right?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:52:27 AM EST
    From the statute that the DoD is referring to,Section 1005:"(f) Construction- Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer any constitutional right on an alien detained as an enemy combatant outside the United States." While I would love to accuse Rummy et al of playing fast and loose with this one, this is, in fact, law. How friggin crazy is that? What does it mean in the pledge of allegiance when we say "...with liberty and justice for all..."?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 09:53:55 AM EST
    I hate to be this blunt, but you people are among the dumbest on earth. Just keep on pushing your terrorist bill or rights. The next election you win, will be right after hell freezes over.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:01:58 AM EST
    The next election you win, will be right after hell freezes over. You really want to wait that long to have your rights honored, Variable?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#21)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:36:11 AM EST
    Narius - Edger has thoughtfully failed to note my replay in the same thread at 3:25PM to the world renowned expert on Tehran, Ian who has been there at least one time and had at least one conversation with at least one Iranian. Among my other points: 1. Iran recently hanged a 16 year old young woman for having an affair. The man was also cruelly punished. Supposedly he received 75 lashes. The difference in the two punishemnets was not acknowledged or commented on by Ian, Squeaky or Edger. I would think, however, that the young woman noticed the difference for at least the two minutes it took for her to die. 2. Since part of Ian's claim is that women are more free in Tehran than the US, I asked him to tell us what it is that women are not allowed to do in the US. There was no response. Of course there is no surprise in that. Et al - If the crime is committed within the US by a non-citizen here legally, you have a valid claim that the person should be handled with all the rights, and punishments of our system. That includes the death penalty. You know. ALL the rules, not just the ones you like. Now, let's talk about a non-citizen. This person has no responsibilities to the country. They do not have to defend the country. They do not have to pay taxes on income earned outside the country. They do not have to serve on juries. They can not vote and they can not serve in our government. So where is their claim for "rights?"

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#22)
    by rMatey on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    Guess they don't have basic human rights, either.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:45:26 AM EST
    Now sombody please enlighten me....
    Big Bird is not really a Bird.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    PPJ - Just curious, where do we get the right to detain people? Our law? International law? Murphy's Law?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#25)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 10:47:22 AM EST
    Let me be clear, to detain people on foreign soil.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#26)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:29:19 PM EST
    Variable... Just keep on pushing your terrorist bill or rights. Don't worry... they will. I'm truly amazed at how lame most of these bloggers are. In their Bizzarro world.. The US is the bad guy and islamic crazies that slice peoples heads off, detonate bombs in shopping centers (killing women and children "intentionally"), riot over cartoons...etc..etc.. are the "nice" guys! And to think I used to be a lib... Jlvngstn.. Just curious, where do we get the right to detain people? Our law? International law? Murphy's Law? In a war... you can actually 'capture' the enemy...and hold them. Besides, cutting down the number in their army, It's a sure way to make sure they don't shoot at you anymore. Check it out...it's on the History channel all the time... Ref...WWI, WWII,...etc..etc. Yes, we actually did hold people back then...and I know this might be hard to believe... but, we didn't give them access to our lawyers & courts. And guess what...? Not too many liberals whined too much about it back then either.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#27)
    by Al on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    The US is using a term that does not exist in international law (illegal combatants) to detain indefinitely without trial people who in their majority were not even captured by American troops and are in fact not accused of attacking the US. They are held in Guantanamo, not the prisoners' choice it should be added, because the US government hopes that it falls outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The US also insists these are not prisoners of war, so the "quaint" Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. So, to summarize: The Geneva Conventions don't apply, US law doesn't apply, international law doesn't apply. These prisoners are completely outside any legal system, with no possibility of defense. And no, the Allies did not treat anybody like this during World War II. This is entirely a concoction of the Bush administration, and it is as shameful as it is useless. Hands up who feels safer because people disappear into Guantanamo.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#28)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 01:11:22 PM EST
    I repeat BB, Big Bird is not really a Bird.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#29)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:21:47 PM EST
    I hate to be this blunt, but you people are among the dumbest on earth. Just keep on pushing your terrorist bill or rights. The next election you win, will be right after hell freezes over.
    This coming from the person who once incorrectly stated that people within the United States who are not US citizens, "have absolutely zero constitutional rights or protections."

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#30)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 02:34:36 PM EST
    Et al - If the crime is committed within the US by a non-citizen here legally, you have a valid claim that the person should be handled with all the rights, and punishments of our system. That includes the death penalty. Now, let's talk about a non-citizen. This person has no responsibilities to the country. They do not have to defend the country. They do not have to pay taxes on income earned outside the country. They do not have to serve on juries. They can not vote and they can not serve in our government. So where is their claim for "rights?"
    Jim, The 14th amendment. Click here for clarification of how "person" is defined in the 14th amendment.
    As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship.
    Relevent caselaw is referenced on the Findlaw Webpage.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 05:36:45 PM EST
    What is with you people, assuming every single person on Earth has "rights" under our constitution???
    I don't assume...I hope for it. Every human being, in my opinion, deserves to face his accusers in a court of law. Due process for all in US custody..this is my wish. And if proven in a court of law that he/she committed terrorist acts against innocent people...jail them for life without parole with no sympathy. But my free American soul can't stomach the thought of people being jailed without due process. It's simply evil. I'm not saying a US criminal court per se, but some type of judicial check on our governments new widespread detainment policies.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 05:47:31 PM EST
    mac - I didn't claim I found the constitution to meet my desires. But note in the first paragraph I specificed non-citizens in US legally. In the second I note what the non-citizen doesn't do. It was just my way of saying, "They shouldn't." As to unlawful combatants captured outside the US I see no rights for them and would cheerfully hold them until the conflict is over, or hang them for their crimes if they have killed people.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#33)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 05:56:58 PM EST
    Don't worry... they will. I'm truly amazed at how lame most of these bloggers are. In their Bizzarro world.. The US is the bad guy and islamic crazies that slice peoples heads off, detonate bombs in shopping centers (killing women and children "intentionally"), riot over cartoons...etc..etc.. are the "nice" guys! And to think I used to be a lib...
    Who said Muslim terrorists were good guys? Exactly when were you a lib?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:03:39 PM EST
    Jim: As to unlawful combatants captured outside the US I see no rights for them Ah, you have your eyes closed every time I cite the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War Open your eyes, Jim, and see: Article 5 still says (just as it did the last n times I pointed it out to you) "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." (Yes, yes, I know: you're about to claim that Bush & Co didn't need a competent tribunal to prove that all of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay were "unlawful combatants, because Bush & Co had no doubt at all that all of them were - and you stick by that, no matter that so many of them have been proved not to be.)

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 06:22:36 PM EST
    mac - I didn't claim I found the constitution to meet my desires.
    Fair enough, but you did ask:
    So where is their claim for "rights?"
    And I stated non US citizens have the right to due process under the 14th amendment. My issue is when people state that non US citizens, within the United States, have no rights under the US constitution. This generalization is false and displays the ignorance of those who propagate such nonsense. While they (non US citizen within the US) do not have the same rights as you and I, they do have certain rights.
    As to unlawful combatants captured outside the US I see no rights for them and would cheerfully hold them until the conflict is over, or hang them for their crimes if they have killed people.
    In this case I would have to agree with Kdog when he states:
    I'm not saying a US criminal court per se, but some type of judicial check on our governments new widespread detainment policies.
    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#36)
    by Johnny on Tue Feb 14, 2006 at 07:21:07 PM EST
    It's easy... wrong-winger=brown people all evil until proven otherwise left-winger=brown people all good until proven otherwise. 14th amendment is a humdinger, no wonder the freedom hating wrong-wingers want it repealed

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:52:42 AM EST
    Folks, why respond to the outrageous opinions posted by known trolls like JR, PPJ, BB, and variable? They always post deliberately provocative comments, and when you respond with logical arguments their responses pollute the thread with yet more garbage. We are never going to get them to see reason, so why waste space trying?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#38)
    by john horse on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 03:54:21 AM EST
    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
    When our founding fathers wrote these words, they were talking about universal rights, not rights bestowed upon Americans and no other people. I guess that those who oppose human rights for detainees not only think that the provisions of the Geneva Convention are "quaint" but also the provisons of the Declaration of Independence.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#39)
    by Lora on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 06:43:18 AM EST
    BB (and Jim), We don't need to be treating ANY human beings without basic human rights and due process. And we are not winning.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#40)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 07:54:38 AM EST
    Do you know about that camps are being built for you? see alex jones and read author Howard Bloom ( we are in the midst of a 1400 year-long war and its a global war with islam )and what side is Bush really on? and where is bin laden?

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:09:42 AM EST
    Al... The US is using a term that does not exist in international law (illegal combatants) Maybe it's time to include it? Not sure how old you are, but terrorists (of all kinds) have been holding the world hostage for many decades now. Isn't it time the worlds fight back and stop coddling these murderers? The US also insists these are not prisoners of war, so the "quaint" Geneva Conventions don't apply to them. They don't apply because they haven't 'signed' them or agree to abide by them.....it's very simple! And no, the Allies did not treat anybody like this during World War II. You are dead wrong on this one! If you think for one second that prisoners of that war (or any other war for that matter) were not 'tweaked' for information, I have a bridge to sell you. The difference is the press (at that time) was on our side and didn't have access to every little freakin thing that went on. Jlvngstn.... I repeat BB, Big Bird is not really a Bird. Nice comeback! Kdog... I don't assume...I hope for it. Well we can all hope... but unfortunately (in the real world) it just isn't possible. Our court system is a sham as it is...can you imagine if we tried to run every captive prisoner through it?? We'll have to agree to disagree. I doubt the founding fathers wished to include our enemies in our legal system. Charlie... Exactly when were you a lib? Welcome back... hopefully you can debate without getting nasty this time? I was a lib back in my 20's & 30's.. when I was younger, naive and idealistic. I realize now that liberal Americans are ruining this country... dumbing it down as it were. I can get in to many details if you wish? cymro.. They always post deliberately provocative comments, So what do you want... milk toast ideas & comments? How can you learn if you all agree all the time? Lora... And we are not winning. I said you where WHINNING... And, if you really care to check any other source but the NY times... you will see that we are winning.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 08:48:16 AM EST
    I doubt the founding fathers wished to include our enemies in our legal system
    But they aren't enemies BB unless there is evidence they committed violent acts against us. Absent that eveidence they aren't enemies, just human beings accused of being an enemy.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#43)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 09:57:06 AM EST
    BB, I wish. Oh, and by the way, there's no "h" in winning. But thanks, the way things are going, I'm sure that 56 percent unfavorable for shrub will continue to rise in spite of the NYT's efforts to keep him afloat.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#44)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 12:58:44 PM EST
    "He who fights with monsters must take care, lest he thereby become a monster."

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#45)
    by Lora on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    BB, Not even the WSJ thinks we are winning.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#46)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Feb 15, 2006 at 02:40:05 PM EST
    And we all know what happens when we get in bed with monsters..... They send 17 of their countrymen to our great nation to kill as many of our citizens as possible. I for one am a little tired of us making out with Saudi Arabia.

    Re: U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights (none / 0) (#47)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Mar 11, 2006 at 06:38:46 AM EST
    Few issues here about "Law".............there is United States Constitutional law. Those provisions concern only citizens. Newsflash if you are an illegal immigrant you are not covered either. Second the Geneval Convention only those who enter into a conflict as designated combatants. Terrorists are not legally covered by any international law. They are criminals who are criminally active. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy: 1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. 2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) That of carrying arms openly; (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. 3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. ARTICLE 4 GENEVA CONVENTION If you wear no uniform you are not covered by the Geneva Convention. That is why covert operators on foreign soil know there is no legal recourse if they are captured. Just a few thoughts you might like to ponder before you throw the "rights" issue around so haphazardly.

    U.S.: Detainees Have No Constitutional Rights | 45 comments (45 topical)