Chris Dodd for President

I had been a supporter of Barack Obama since October or November of last year but I have recently become more and more supportive of Sen. Dodd instead of Obama. I only wish that Dodd would get the media support the front three have. He deserves it. He does have experience and he seems to be on the right side of most if not all the issues. I support him on how he has suppported our civil rights and the proper role of our country throughout the world.

We keep referring to the Geneva Conventions, but how many of us have read them? See below (from Wikkapedia):
Civilians who directly engage in hostilities, are considered unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants/belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action.[1] Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a prisoner of war (POW), but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation.[2]
Article 5 of the GCIII states that the status of detainee may be determined by a "competent tribunal". Until such time, he is to be treated as a prisoner of war.[3] After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of the POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial".[4]
The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII).[1] However, Article 4 of GCIII does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties which deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children. In the United States, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"[5] because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".[1][6]

You have to know the above for the following to be fully understood:

Part III METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE COMBATANT AND PRISONER-OF-WAR STATUS

[edit]
Article 44. -Combatants and prisoners of war
This is the most controversial section of Protocol I. More specifically the paragraphs 3 through to 5. It is the primary cause for US administrations not adopt this protocol.
3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly: (Keep in mind, our own special ops don't wear uniforms, attempt to blend in with noncombatants, to not be "visible", so this applies to us as well)
( a ) During each military engagement, and
( b ) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.
Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 ( c ).

(Article 37, paragraph 1 (c) involves "ruses" like: flying a white flag then attacking, pretending to be physically incapacitated when not, pretending to be something like a UN soldier, and pretending to be a noncombatant. Obviously some of these things are happening in Iraq but note that in several places in the GC it still insists that either they are given the treatment/rights of a POW or someone else that you bring up on charges.

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.
5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by virtue of his prior activities.
This is a large extension of the laws of war because of the second sentence of paragraph 3. This sentence appears to give lawful combatant status to guerrillas who are not wearing a military uniform that distinguishes them from the civilian population. It has been generally accepted that to be a belligerent in a conflict one must be recognisable as such. As is stated in the first sentence, without such identification not only are belligerent occupation forces open to attack from combatants posing as civilians, but enemy civilians are more likely to be attacked by belligerent occupying forces who can use the legitimate legal defence that they thought they were engaging an enemy combatant. In general police are trained to asses the situation and only to fire if certain of their target's hostile intent, while soldiers are trained to asses a target and to fire if not certain of their targets peaceful intent.

Where are the tribunals? Where are the charges? What place does "rendition" and the forms of torture we know have been used have? If we say, "but they do it to us" we are stating that our moral compass is dictated by our "enemy". Is that really what we want to do?

I believe it is our responsibility to be as informed as possible. In the book, 1984 by George Orwell, one of the mottos is "Ignorance is strength". Boy, we're good at being ignorant

Marsrocks