Quote Originally Posted by Papewaio
So the short answer is that they are a POW until proven a criminal. So until such time they should be afforded all the rights (and responsibilities) of a Prisoner of War.

What status was the Nuremburg court, military or civilian?
The Nuremburg trials after WWII were military tribunals. There were actually two distinct sets of trials. The first was the International Military Tribunal, which had judges and prosecutors from each of the main allied countries - U.S., France, USSR and the UK. The judges and prosecutors were a mix of military officers and civilian experts (professors, lawyers and diplomats for the most part). These trials included the prosecutions of members of the SS, the SA, the General Staff and the Gestapo and more.

There was also a series of 12 trials afterwards conducted by the U.S. alone, although under authority of the rules of the Allied Control Council, which allowed single Allied countries to conduct trials within their zone of control. The growing divisions between the former Allies made more trials such as the first big one impossible. These trials, spread out over three years from 1946-1949, were a military tribunal was well; although again, mixed military and civilian personnel. The trials included the "Doctor's Trial" of those suspected of medical experimentation, such as Karl Brandt, Hitler's physician and others, and the "Judge's Trial" of German jurists and lawyers. The tried many of the industrial giants as well, such as at the Krupp Trial and the IG Farben trial. They also tried members of the infamous Einsatzgruppen of the SD and others.

Considering the discussion at hand, I think it's important to note that not everyone tried at Nuremburg was in the military, or even a "combatant" as such. They tried judges, executives of various companies and more who weren't, at any time during the war, in uniform or in the military.


Alberto Gonzales 2002 memorandum for the president is disturbing because it attempts to define prisoners captured in Afghanistan as not being protected by the Geneva Conventions. The memorandum states things like Afghanistan is a failed state, that the Taliban was not a government, that by making this determination there would be no need to determine POW status on a case by case basis (just lump everyone they find together and not have to worry about it), and perhaps even worse the statements that this approach would eliminate any danger of U.S. personnel being tried for war crimes under the 1996 War Crimes Act since they couldn't be committing war crimes if they weren't using the Geneva Conventions in the first place. Appalling isn't it?

There were more memos, some just as appalling. Findlaw has them here:
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/doc...turememos.html