But the Geneva Convention also defines what a combatant is.

Yes it does, and anyone who takes an active part in an attack (i.e. fires the gun, pilots the plane, even planning and coordination) is a combatant. Even a doctor that takes up arms for more than an immediate last line defense of his charges can be considered a combatant.

Note that Bush said the tribunal can also apply to people who gave assistance to the
terrorists or anything like that.

We've never tried doctors and nurses before, but this will allow us to start.

Unless they meet the criteria specified above (and I doubt any have), we won't

"With proper oversight (usually a neutral country's representative), it should be as fair as a
criminal court case can be without all the nasty little loopholes that bind those cases."

Ah, but such "proper oversight" has not been proposed, has it?

I haven't examined the proposal, but I would imagine such oversight will be a requirement. Any attempt to do otherwise would probably bring down the condemnation of our allies.

"More importantly, as the author mentions in the article, it can be performed without concern
for terrorist reprisal."

Ummm, exactly HOW is that?

And don't tell me "because it is".

If "because it is" was the only answer I had I wouldn't bother saying it. The fact is it's easier to intimidate people than governments. By this I mean that those jurors would be individual people with their own fears as opposed to a tribunal of government officials whose concerns are much broader

Tell me how holding a secret military tribunal will stop terrorists from hitting other targets.
Or taking other prisoners? Or doing ANYTHING differently than they are doing now?

It wouldn't. The effect on the people making the decisions would be different.

"3.What's the potential that the jury might be influenced by the threat of terrorist action?"
Simple. Don't release the names of the jurors.

How much do you keep secret? The threat can be against the courthouse itself, or the hotels around the courthouse (one of wich would probably contain the sequestered jury. It wouldn't necessarily be directed at the jurors. And if you have to keep too much secret, then we're back where we started.

"4.What's the potential that an effective/sleazy lawyer could get him off on a technicality and
defeat the whole purpose of this war on terrorism"
Ahhhhh, the crux of the issue.
You don't have confidence in your own legal system.
Either that, or you don't have confidence in the government's ability to build a case.
Too bad.

Yes, to some degree you are correct here, my confidence isn't high, and that may be just my prejudice in the system, so I'll strike that question

"And yes, because they haven't distinguished their "combatants" from their
"non-combatants", the deaths of their non-combatants are considered as part of their crimes
under the laws of armed conflict."

Huh? Because they don't wear uniforms, their civilians that we're killing are part of their
"crimes"?

Are you sure you read that correctly?


With the obvious exception of attacks that hit civilian centers instead of terrorist controlled targets. If they are housing civilians near obvious targets and dressing the same as the civilians, they are responsible for their deaths. And yes, I just went through my annual LOAC (Laws of Armed Conflict) training for the Air Force last week.