trollface
Quantum Scribe
Since there was no formal declaration of war, they are not considered POW's, as there is no official war. However, this also frees the US from the contstraints of the Geneva Convention, as it were.
Ah, but the US is justifying these actions as part of "The War Against Terror" and are saying, as a result that they operate under wartime rules, which is why they can use military tribunals and hold people indefinately without charge, trial, or access to any legal representation whatsoever. Unfortunately, the US seems to want to have it both ways, and takes whichever laws from wartime or peacetime it deems appropriate. Besides, article 2 of the Geneva Convention says (link in my previous post):
Art. 2. In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
So, it doesn't matter what the US calls it, it was war, and the GC applies.
EXACTLY what law is the US breaking?
Well, here is one article of many about the situation.
This is an altogether new kind of war.
And yet just a couple of paragraphs ago you said that it wasn't a war. I feel that a more definate definition is required.
The only rules we abide by, for now, are our own self imposed codes of honor, integrity, and morality.
In other words, the US should be entirely entitled to do whatever it wants without fear of retaliation adn the rest of the world should just shut up, stand by and let it happen? Why don't I find that argument a particularly convincing one?
Perhaps it's time to revisit the whole Geneva Convention in theory.
Perhaps a look at international law isn't a bad idea. However, new laws or adaptations of old ones would have to be done with the consensus of the international community, they could not be dictated by the US. And, until such a time as this happens, and new laws are created to replace the old ones, the old ones are still binding. You cannot just arbitraritly decide that laws are out of date and don't apply to you.
Often the way to look at things like this is to imagine them not within the framework of countrys interacting with each other and international law, rather think of individuals and national law. If somone decided that the way of US law was outdated, and that every person should be master of their own justice and to that end kidnapped and tortured someone that he considered had done him wrong, then do you think the police should just stand back and say "well, he thinks the old 'due process' law is outdated and shouldn't apply to him, let's just leave him alone with his lawbreaking activities"? Or should that man be subject to the same laws as everybody else, and have to campaign and gain support for his proposed changes to the law?
The United States is righteous.
bin Laden believes that he is righteous, too. Unfortunately, it's not the opinoin of the US that matters here, it's the opinion of the rest of the world.
Where is Europe's outrage?
If you've not heard it, you've simply not been paying attention.
Just because the citizens of Europe will speak up when they see wrongdoing by the US doesn't mean that they didn't stand up when they saw wrongdoing by those the US opposes. It is possible for both sides in a conflict to be wrong and to commit unspeakable and illegal acts. This is not a film where there are "good guys" and "bad guys" and one side is noble and whiter than white and the other are evil.