On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:21:58 -0400 Roberto C. Sánchez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 11:08:42PM +0000, Arnt Karlsen wrote: > > On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 16:13:41 -0400, Celejar wrote in > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > > > > It is not at all obvious that the fourth convention applies to 'unlawful > > > combatants'. The (current US) administration has claimed that it does > > > not. Can you prove that it does [0]? > > > > ..diversional slant, # 4 protects Civilians and by implication most non- > > combattants. > > > You are missing what he said. Civilians and non-combatants are not the > same as unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants are basically just > civilians or non-combatants who have given up their protected status by > engaging combat operations. Of course, combat operations are distinct > from self-defense, including protecting other protected persons or > places, IIRC. Thanks, Roberto. That is indeed what I meant. Celejar
