Geraldo Rivera was just on Fox News and he seems a little confused about what constituted a POW according to the Geneva Convention. I wrote the following letter to him via the contact info provided on his Fox News website.

From: Ritch

Subject: POW's

Date: May 21, 2009 10:08:44 PM CDT

To: Geraldo Rivera

Here is some info regarding the Geneva Convention (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm) you may find useful. The third convention article 4 describes who may become a POW.

(Article 4.2) "Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) That of carrying arms openly;

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."

Paragraphs (b) and (d) make difficult POW classification for militiamen fighting U.S. troops overseas. If they are not POW's under what status shall they be held?

Now, article 5 on the other hand states:

"The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

With Article 5, however, a POW is tried by tribunal, not civil court. I believe POW tribunals are held in international court, but do not know that for sure. As a war correspondent you probably know more about that than I. I'm not a lawyer, but it seem that any doubt about status should afford detainees POW status. Once POW status is granted I think housing them in a criminal prison would be very difficult or impossible as a POW is granted much more liberty than a convict. I believe it would be a violation of the Convention for a POW to be locked in a cell for long periods of time and they have to right for form under a command structure. Also, at what point are hostilities ended and POW's repatriated? Then again, since the Global War on Terror is over can we even hold a POW? More likely they should be held by the Iraqi/Afghani governments and tried according to their own customs and laws.

If ones goal is to provide greater protection to detainees then granting them POW status and thus full protection under the Geneva Convention should achieve that goal. I'm all for that. And I'm for fighting an enemy who openly carries their weapon and does not hide among women and children and who forms themselves under a distinctive sign or wears a uniform.

Take care, sir.

V/R

RITCH