Jmm99,

Thanks for compliment! But I only use this art if I myself am convinced that I was wrong. In my personal view that happens, of course, very seldom; so don't expect to much conceding...
Also thanks that you promoted me to the rank of a military lawyer, but I'm still only in education, just having completed my 1st Staatsexamen.
I'll read your links, but it may take a bit. Then I will also try to reply to your last post, M-A Lagrange.
To be honest, I'm very happy that you gave me this "homework". It feels good to engage with an area of law that interests me. For the time, no more learning for boring warranty claims etc.


---

Till I read the links, maybe a related question. Please note, that the following is up to now only an academic discussion. As far as I know there haven't been any court cases.
The basic law guarantees several basic rights (civil rights). These are binding.
Quote Originally Posted by Art. 1 III Basic Law
The following basic rights shall bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law.
Now some (in science and far-left politicians) have concluded that the Bundeswehr as part of the "executive" is fully bound by these basic rights. So for example if the Bundeswehr would a arrest a suspected terrorists, it would be bound by Art. 104.
Quote Originally Posted by Article 104 Basic Law
(1) Liberty of the person may be restricted only pursuant to a formal law and only in compliance with the procedures prescribed therein. Persons in custody may not be subjected to mental or physical mistreatment.
(2) Only a judge may rule upon the permissibility or continuation of any deprivation of liberty. If such a deprivation is not based on a judicial order, a judicial decision shall be obtained without delay. The police may hold no one in custody on their own authority beyond the end of the day following the arrest. Details shall be regulated by a law.
(3) Any person provisionally detained on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence shall be brought before a judge no later than the day following his arrest; the judge shall inform him of the reasons for the arrest, examine him, and give him an opportunity to raise objections. The judge shall, without delay, either issue a written arrest warrant setting forth the reasons therefor or order his release.
(4) A relative or a person enjoying the confidence of the person in custody shall be notified without delay of any judicial decision imposing or continuing a deprivation of liberty.
This is obviously not very practical in the middle of Afghanistan. Furthermore one could contest, that the Bundeswehr may only transfer the arrested to Afghan Authorities if they would give the suspect the same rights, he has under the German constitution.

To give you another example, Art. 19 IV could be applicable
Quote Originally Posted by Art. 19 IV 1 Basic Law
Should any person’s rights be violated by public authority, he may have recourse to the courts.
Meaning the suspect could seek a judicial review of the Acts of the Bundeswehr while still in custody. If one would strictly apply german administrative dispute law the Bundeswehr would probably be forced to hold him in custody till its case is reviewed and only then he could be transferred to Afghan Authorities. In extreme case the administrative court (in Germany) might even order a release.

This is all not very practical and has been criticised. One stated that the Bundeswehr in Afghanistan isn't part of the "executive" because it implements international law. A first start for this discussion can be found here (in German!).

So I'm interested how this is handled in the USA. Because if I read the Bill of Rights, I think that some of it Rights would apply to Foreigners in Foreign Countries. For example the Sixth Amendment only speaks of "criminal prosecutions" not of "criminal prosecutions against US citizens or in the USA".
[My knowledge of the Bill of Rights is restricted to the text itself. So bear with me, if there is some obvious common knowledge answer.]