Like I said, you would be unable to provide any details.

...you can't seem to ever provide justification on status and yet it always falls upon those who disagree to prove you wrong.

Whatever. I've quoted the relevant articles of the G.C. I've shown how the prisoners meet the criteria.

All you've done is say that I'm wrong and that the prisoners don't meet the criteria.

This is a flaw in your reasoning. Because the prisoners don't have to meet ALL of the criteria, as I have pointed out to you.

Instead you'll hide behind saying that "they will be treated accourding to the G.C.". Well, that's saying ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Which is why I asked you to detail the differences in how the prisoners would be treated as opposed to how POW's would be treated.

Thats not my fault. Nor does it magically become my responsibility.

No magic necessary. I've made a statement and provided references. You've said that my references don't mean what I say they mean. Fine, then support your statement.

The assertion is that "treatment according to the present convention"=pow status.

That is an incorrect statement. Article 5 is what I quoted.

I have provided expert analysis that contradicts this.

Great. And the "experts" you've quoted are........? How about we look at the REAL experts? What does the Red Cross have to say? Hmmm, seems that they agree with my position? It isn't hard to find an "expert" that will say anything on any subject. The problem is finding the people who are the REAL experts.