I have two questions.
1) It is my understanding that military tribunals cannot actually try civilians, but only soldiers. Is this true? I know court martials are supposed to be for both soldiers and civilians, depending on the situation; but does anyone know if military tribunals are limited to soldiers only?
2) Are all soldiers covered under the Geneva convention, or just the soldiers of countries that signed the Geneva Accords?
1. Wong. Tribunals are for illegal combatants. An illegal combatant can be shot in the field with no trial of any kind. A soldier, in uniform, must be treated in compliance with the convention.
2. Only the ones who are in compliance with the convention. They must be clearly identifiable from the civilian population by wearing a distinct uniform or a marker of some kind.
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:10 am
1. Wong. Tribunals are for illegal combatants. An illegal combatant can be shot in the field with no trial of any kind. A soldier, in uniform, must be treated in compliance with the convention.
2. Only the ones who are in compliance with the convention. They must be clearly identifiable from the civilian population by wearing a distinct uniform or a marker of some kind.
References :
Retired Chief Petty Officer
November 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Yak Rider is correct.
References :
Army Veteran
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:07 am
Yes, which is why the Bush administration had to invent the "enemy combatant" to get around following the actual Conventions.
2) Since we signed the accords, we agreed to treat all soldiers according to those agreements. Furthermore, even nations that didn’t agree to them are expected to uphold them, and can be charged with war crimes for violating them.
References :