Unicef?

haha, sorry. Try the Geneva Conventions and pay close attention to the part where they are not to be considered soldiers if they do not wear some sort of uniforms and a relevant chain of command. Also, they are not to hide among civilians and target other civilians.

No, he was not a Child soldier, he was a child terrorist.

This has already been discredited all over the forum. US courts have ruled otherwise.

There is no distinction under international law or agreements.

No, I have seen claims that they should be under the Geneva Conventions, but I have not seen anything that said that they ARE.

There is a distinction in the GC as to what a soldier is.
Omar would be a Child Enemy Combatant or a unpriviledged combatant.

The SCOTUS ruling was that they were to be entitled to access to the US justice system, not that they were 'soldiers' entitled to Geneva Conventions coverage.

Regardless, the inmates at GITMO are treated better than most as far as prisoners go.

They just are not soldiers.

The Supreme Court says they are.

Now you're just making stuff up. Neither 'Child Enemy Combatant' nor 'unpriviledged combatant' exist in law. Anyway see the Supreme Court decision.

Wrong. Read their decision.

Completely irrelevant.

No, the supreme court said that they should not be tried by military court.
It did not rule that the prisoners fell under the Geneva Conventions.


Incorrect.
read here

I did, you should read it. They did not rule that the Geneva Conventions applied to them. (probably because they don't have the jurisdiction to do so. lol)


Irrelevent? Of course if you were in anyway concerned about the plight of the prisoners, I think it would be relevant.

However, if you are only interested in it as an attack vehicle vis a vis the Bush government and/or the USA - then I can see why it would be 'completely irrelevent' to you.

You need to read the article I linked. Here's the relevant part:

Yes, I read that. I sm still looking for the part where they said that the Geneva Conventions applied to them. Oh that's right. They didn't because they can't. They used US law for this ruling.
They may think that it violated the Geneva Conventions, but they have not ruled that the GC apply to them. HRW and Amnesty International have said that they should be, but have thus far been able to have the GC apply to these prisoners, as soldiers, in any event.

The GC was drawn up to have rules on how countries would deal with each others prisoners in times of war. The GC never pretended to account for combatants who refuse to follow the rules of conflict and implicitley and repeatedly says that the GC as it pertains to POW's does not apply to them.

There is an argument about wether two subsequent subsections of the GC should apply to them, but if you understand GC Article 4 you would know that it is not about soldiers but about citizens.
There is legal discussion if all the articles are meant to be taken as a whole or can the earlier restrictions and laws apply to all. If the latter definition is taken then the GC still would not apply to them - even as citizens.

Do you still think that there is no such thing as unpriveledged combatants?

Gee I don't know what to say here WD. You are completely wrong. The full Supreme Court decision can be read here. On the very first page the decision specifically states that the Geneva Convention applies to the prisoners.

I think you have to be misunderstanding the legal jargon.
They are saying that being tried by military commissions (which is what Bush wanted to do) would only be applicable IF the prisoner was a POW under the third convention which they said it had not been determined that he was.

I think you need to read it again.
Your conclusion is not supported by your evidence.
I do admit, I can see how you could make the mistake, easily, however.