Do you know the definition of a prisoner of war, according to the Conventions signed and ratified by the USA? Do you know what the definition of a legal enemy combatant is?

Get back to me when you look that up then we can talk about those folks at Gitmo.

There's no such legal term as an "illegal enemy combatant". That was an invented term of the Bush administration that was used as a loophole to engage in things that were unconstitutional, and the Supreme Court has spoken against it. There are only prisoners of war and common criminals. Stateless terrorists fall in the latter category, like it or not.

It's a useful and accurate term to describe a certain class of combatant. You prefer "criminal", but I believe that is less accurate. In my estimation, criminals are not ideologically or religiously motivated. However, as with a criminal, their activities are illegal under the definition of a combatant in the Conventions signed and ratified by the USA.

Criminals (or my preferred term, illegal combatants) are NOT subject to the same treatment as legal combatants. They have lesser protections under the treaty.

Finally, would you say that the Nuremberg Trials were fair or unfair?

Here's an argument concerning the applicability of the conventions. Agree or disagree, fine with me. http://useu.usmission.gov/Dossiers/Detainee_Issues/Dec1007_Bellinger_PrisonersOfWar.asp

Actually there is a definition of legal combatant [see article 4 in http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm] for determining who is entitled to the protection of Prisoner of War status. Combatants not meeting these tests may be dealt with by summary execution.

[Geneva convention excerpt]

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

[ end of excerpt]

Note that to be entitled to protection under the conventions, persons in the categories of organized militias, resistance movements and "Inhabitants ... spontaneously take up arms" are afforded protected status only when they 'respect the laws and customs of war'.

The purpose of following the convention is to assure humane treatment of soldiers from your side who 'fall into the power' of the enemy.

Criminals can indeed be ideologically or religiously motivated. There are many examples of that. I agree most would not be covered under the Geneva Convention and that's why I think they fall in the other category of a common criminal whose access to legal council and a trial is constitutionally guaranteed. I don't see how the black hole of indefinite incarceration without charges or trial can be constitutionally justified. That's why the Bush administration had to do a lot of dancing to make it appear legal.

As to the Nuremberg Trials, I haven't studied them enough to render a verdict on their fairness.

Not common criminals. See #19.

Read-up on Nuremberg and compare them to the system more recently passed into law.

I think the liberals call them "jaywalkers". They can't believe why we have them detained.....

I ask anybody who thinks Gitmo should be closed, do you think it is okay to release these "innocents" on the streets of Miami? If not, why not?

Kind of hard to answer that question unless you provide more facts about each individual prisoner. Do you know any facts about the individual prisoners?

My guess is that some dangerous and guilty people will walk free because the Bush administration so completely screwed up the evidence against them, there will be no way to convict them of anything. So, unless there is some other basis for holding them, the law (remember that word, "law", it just came back in style about 2 days ago) will require that they be released.

It's Bush's fault for not treating enemy combatants like common criminals. Like we did German POW's.

Uhhhhh......

Ahh so article 2B, C, and maybe A is what gets the Gitmo guys.

Bingo. I believe that is why we should abide by them regardless.

Ask them WTF they want them......they don't know.

We need to start an Adopt-an-Al Qaeda program. Every terrorist is just reaching out for love and understanding. They don't intend violence, they just want to be heard.

Here's a fine candidate for adoption. A real go-getter! http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/23/mideast/detainee.1-414168.php
B

What is the definition of POW and will those detainees fit the defined description?

We don't need such a program. We have open borders and chain migration from regions that are openly hostile to the United States. That we weren't attacked again following 9/11 can only mean that no one seriously wanted to attack us. I don't deny the threat at all; I just can't credit Guantanamo Bay or Lindy England with preserving my freedom.

According to the Geneva Convention, if there is any question, the combatant status of these "detainees" is to be determined by an independent and "competent tribunal". Many of these men were captured during the fighting in Afghanistan, and would logically fall under the category of POW.