On What Judicial Basis Does the US Hold its Iraqi "Deck of Card"

captures?

I'm really asking. What is the juridical rationale for their arrest and detention?

I am certainly not arguing that these folks were not immoral and violent people. I'm asking a strictly technical question: On what basis (or precedent, or anything) can the United States/ Coalition Provisional Authority hold these people?

Judicial or otherwise.

It's a stunt really, to disguise the fact they are invading someone elses country and taking their govt members prisoner

Either at home or abroad.

Which countries do you think want to form a coalition of the willing and try to stop em?

Bush would nuke them ASAP

From..
THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN THE SECOND GULF WAR
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0304/S00223.htm

"Yet another dumbed down Hollywood style device has been employed to keep us infotained, this time a pack of cards. War it seems is now like a game of cards.

And so every morning if you tune in to the radio you will hear a running total on the number of "most wanted" cards who have thus far been taken into custody, and which card the latest captive is represented by.

I for one would be keen to know a bit more about the deck of cards than simply who has been caught so far.

How this list was decided on, by whom and what is its official status?

Is this the entire list of people who will be arrested by the coalition forces?

Are U.S. soldiers authorised to shoot these people on sight, and if not what exactly does General Brooks mean in saying these are people the U.S. " intend to pursue, kill or capture"?

Is this legal?

How did they decide to confine their list to just 55 people?

Who was left off because they didn't make the cut?

Why are there only four names on the list associated with the feared republican guard? (Of course we now know one possible answer to that question, but it would be nice to hear what the story is officially.)

Unfortunately in the reports I have seen thus far on the deck of cards none of these questions have been asked let alone answered. "

does not feel obliged or obligated to any treaties..conventions or standards of international law..I asked myself as i watched on TV helicopters and 100 soldiers blowing the crap out of a house that contained SH sons ..is this the behaviour of a civilised society?

The ruling principle of US policy might
makes right.

And "god" is on "our" side.

Didn't soldiers in the army of the Third Reich have "God is with us" stamped on their belt buckles in German?

What is the juridical rationale for their arrest and detention?

Dont need one.

Really. This is all pretty much settled international law.

A Belligerent Power can hold members of another Belligerent Power for the duration of Hostilities.

Anybody want to guess the duration?

and we have bigger guns than they do.

Period.