“except the JAG types (many are ACLU members), ”

I have two questions. First Can you prove this accusation? Second is, are those that are members guilty of treason because the ACLU is in partnership with a foreign government (The United Nations)?

If they are not guilty then their loyalty is certainly compromised.

1. While Military Courts are a ‘regularly constituted court’, they are not the same as Bush’s Military Tribunals.

2. I never claimed that the Taliban and Al-Queda are prisoners of war, that is why I quoted Article 45 instead of Article 4.

Also, Protocol I, Article Four reads:

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.

The Taliban and Al-Queda prisoners do NOT fullfill these conditions.

And if they ARE prisoners of war, then they do not have to be released until hostilities are over. Considering that Al-Queda and the Taliban both continue to attack our soldiers, the hostilities are not over and they can be detained until hostilities are over (That is stated in the last section of the Conventions)

Protocol I, Part III, Section II, Article 45 states:

“Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.”

Article 75 of this Protocol then states:

“No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure.”

Bush’s Military Tribunals don’t qualify as a “regularly constituted court”.

Unfortunately for most the recognized justice is execution…I only hope that the ACLU lawyers can abstain from molesting children with their NAMBLA friends long enough to represent these cowards too.

Technically, the rules the Geneva Conventions ascribe for the treatment of combatants with no uniform, no recognized rank structure, and not fighting in the military of a recognized nation is very specific: they are supposed to be subjected to military tribunals in the field- the equivalent of a field court martial. The rules were originally written for dealing with spies, but they describe the jihadi prisoners at Gitmo as well. The usual penalty, as was applied by both the Axis and Allies during World War II, was execution.

Glad to see you support the concepts of justice and due process.