Perhaps you should read more carely. That wa not the distiction initially made. The distinction was uniformed vs. non-unifirmed combatants. There are some non-uniformed combatants that are indeed covered.

That is why I corrected him.

And when they don’t follow the “conventions of warfare” they aren’t covered, right? So what’s the problem?

No, I am not. I realize this (as a note: guerilla warfare is also covered), This is not what you said.

“There is a HUGE difference between uniformed soldiers and terrorists. Geneva Conventions protections apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants. Nonuniformed combatants (terrorists, saboteurs, and spies) may be tried by military tribunal and executed without any of the protections afforded to uniformed personnel.”

All I said that your statement regarding uniformed vs. nonuniformed combatants doesn’t always hold true as there are some nonuniformed combatants that are protected under the conventions, such as miltitias and civilian insurgencies. As stated, they must also follow the Conventions of warfare, but they ARE coverned none the less.

They are hiding among the civilian population (forbidden),
they are targeting mostly civilians (forbidden),
and
frequently carry their weapons concealed (also forbidden).

To claim that the terrorists are entitled to the same treatment as uniformed or even nonuniformed combatants who are abiding by the terms of the Geneva Conventions is WRONG. I have no problem with nonuniformed combatants who fight as a militia in accordance with the rules of land warfare. Those are a fact of life in this kind of situation. My problem is with people insisting that we extend to terrorists who intentionally and wantonly target innocent civilians the same protections due to uniformed soldiers who obey the laws of land warfare. They are engaging in economic and psychological sabotage. Therefore their designation would be as saboteurs which are treated the same as spies under the Geneva Conventions.

That is correct, which conforms exactly to what I said. However, a militia is simply an organized command of civilians. They do not need to be uniformed, unlike your statement: “Geneva Conventions protections apply to UNIFORMED SOLDIERS. They DO NOT apply to nonuniformed combatants.”

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3). In other words, they do not have to be uniformed.

Your reference about feigning civilian or non-combatant status applies to combatants, that is a soldier can not rpretend to be a civilian while in on the battle field. In other words, a soldier can not steal civies and fiegn being a civliain in an effort to fool the enemy.

Thus the Geneva Accord can apply to noon-uniformed conbatants.

As far as Bush wiretapping his enemies, that kinda reminds me of what Klinton did. He didn’t mess around with wiretapping. His goons just stole 900 FBI files, plus used the IRS to harass his enemies. Yep, Klinton went straight to the core. He didn’t use half measures against his enemies.

But that’s okay, because he was a democrite, and he was America’s first “black president. So it’s okay…

Considering the terrorists, even those who are members of the assorted armed militas in Iraq fail to meet one or more of those conditions, they are NOT lawful combatants and therefore not protected by the Geneva COnventions. Hezbollah in Lebanon was actively violating one or more of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions by hiding among the civilian population and wearing civilian clothes.

That’s not entirely true. They also apply against openly armed non-uniformed civilians, militia and the like. There are provisions in there for non-uniformed combatants, however there are NOT provisions for non-uniformed combatabts that are not openly declared. This is why spies are not covered by the Geneva Accords.