The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants

Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?

  • Unlawful

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Lawful

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Neither Combatants or NonCombatants

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    0
They are tried according to Taliban laws.

Those serving in a Taliban regular army unit or militia and captured while openly bearing arms or in uniform can only be tried for war crimes. However, most of the detainees don't fall into this category. Someone who shoots at United States soldiers while neither openly bearing arms or wearing a uniform can be tried for attempted murder of murder should they have succeeded. If they were attempting to gather informaiton about allied operations then they can be tried for espionage and according to the Geneva Convention, executed. If they were captured for taking part in a terrorist operation outside of the country of capture then it gets more complicated. However the Geneva convention does provide for the execution of civilians involved in serious acts of sabotage. As long as the pre-invasion penal code allowed for it.
 
Ok, which Taliban laws did they break when they defended their country against invasion by US forces?
 
Pershing (and any other member posting facts or what they believe are facts), provide your sources.

Staurofilakes, any further instigation of flame wars will result in me personally banning you. Tone down your language and patronization of other members immediately.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
They are tried according to Taliban laws.

Those serving in a Taliban regular army unit or militia and captured while openly bearing arms or in uniform can only be tried for war crimes. However, most of the detainees don't fall into this category. Someone who shoots at United States soldiers while neither openly bearing arms or wearing a uniform can be tried for attempted murder of murder should they have succeeded. If they were attempting to gather informaiton about allied operations then they can be tried for espionage and according to the Geneva Convention, executed. If they were captured for taking part in a terrorist operation outside of the country of capture then it gets more complicated. However the Geneva convention does provide for the execution of civilians involved in serious acts of sabotage. As long as the pre-invasion penal code allowed for it.
Click to expand...

k....they are murders

now give them trials plz, and u call them murders without letting them have lawyers to defend themselves

how hypocritic you are,
you are doing this while telling other nations to have fair trials

and by the way, i never heard anybody using other nations' laws to sentence somebody who is in jail in U.S (Gitmo is part of U.S i consider)
 
CSmaster said:
how hypocratic u r,
Click to expand...

Didn't know we had a doctor in the house. :lol:


CSmaster, while on this forum, please try to use full words, this isn't an instant messenger and in the interest of maintaining clear communication, refrain from treating it as such.


Bulldog, provide your own sources as well, simply stating that someone is wrong because you say so doesn't cut it. If you disagree with someone's facts, lay out your own verifiable information to counter them.
 
sorry, i am just used to type like that on msn

REMOVED. Any issues with the moderating here should be taken up with the Administrator.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
As I'm essentially repeating the same thing over and over again. My source still hasn't changed since I first posted it in this thread:

http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Click to expand...

Well, it seems that we will never agree. For me is crystal clear that they are lawful combats, talibans were the soldiers of the afgan goverment.
The last point of article 4 is also very expresive: Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

So in the concept of prisioner of law we will have at least these two groups. Are you saying that non of the arrested in Guantanamo fits inn them?

And, in the hypothetical case that they were unlawful combats, they can not be tortured under any circunstance.
Universal Declaration Of Human Rights;
Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Also read article 1 here: http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

I would love if you can explain me point by point why any of the detenied in Guantanamo don´t fit in any of the six points of article 4 GC against torture: http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
 
I already stated previously that the regular Taliban military are lawful combatants.

However, what I was referring to was members of the insurgency who do not follow the Geneva convention nor do they openly bear arms or wear clearly seperate themselves from the civilian population. Which is almost the entire Iraqi insurgency. Parts of the Afghani insurgency however are lawful combatants as they only attack United States and Afghani troops and openly bear arms in the remote regions of Afghanistan they inhabit.

Those captured for connections to terrorist activities elsewhere would not be lawful combatants as they have attacked United States interests through sabotage. For example the World Trade Center bombings, the embassy bombings, and other such terrorist actions aimed at civilians.

I would love if you can point out where I said it was legal for us to torture those at Guantanamo.
 
www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A34519-2004Nov8.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_X-Ray - 64k - 22 Jun 2005

news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3238624.stm

www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/ shows/khadr/readings/gitmo.html

Here is some of the sources, this covers the rules for interogation and the rules of the trials. Pershing, I am not asking for a source for the classification of the prisoners. But rather the sources for your trial rules and the numbers of prisoners taken, their disposition and what they have been charged with. Most of the prisoners themselves do not know the charges against them, how do you?
 
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
 
CSmaster said:
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
Click to expand...

Guantanamo is NOT "other prisons," and was never intended to be. It serves a unique purpose, holds individuals unique from your average everyday criminals, and must necessarily be run in a unique manner as a result.

However guilty or not guilty you believe the terrorists being held there are, I fail to see how insults can be considered torture by any rational being, the prisoners' feelings being hurt does not in my mind constitute the degree of mistreatment (or in fact any undue treatment at all) that would make it torture.
 
In order to even serve on a military tribunal for these prisoners you need a top secret security clearance. That means no press, no observers, and all the public would hear is a verdict. Sorry, but the rest of the world is going to take to that even worse then them simply being detained. It's a simple matter of politics, it is more acceptable to hold them then to try them because people don't know the reality of the situation.

Here's a link that says 595 prisoners in Cuba before the 2005 releases: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5388908/

As there were clearly more then 595 men in the entire Taliban army. I shouldn't have to point out and that entire Talibani army isn't at Guantanamo.

Secondly, the United States has repeatedly said that the detainees are unlawful combatants. Hence, they are not there for serving as a regular soldier.
 
Redneck said:
CSmaster said:
and according to TIME magazine,

U.S troops uses Psychological "tortunes" such as insulting the prisoner's religion belief and other ways to break down the prisoner mentally


men, i dont think U.S guards in other prisons are allowed to do that
Click to expand...

Guantanamo is NOT "other prisons," and was never intended to be. It serves a unique purpose, holds individuals unique from your average everyday criminals, and must necessarily be run in a unique manner as a result.

However guilty or not guilty you believe the terrorists being held there are, I fail to see how insults can be considered torture by any rational being, the prisoners' feelings being hurt does not in my mind constitute the degree of mistreatment (or in fact any undue treatment at all) that would make it torture.
Click to expand...


United Nations Convention Against Torture:

Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
 
So an insult can cause "severe pain or suffering?" These men are not only adults, but have spent most of their lives killing other human beings, I find it hard to believe that telling them they smell funny would generate too much anguish.
 
hehehee, okey, said like that sounds wiard... :lol: I was thinking in religious insults, the use of dogs to scare, sensorial privation and so on.... May be one day with this entertaiment will be fine, but I guess that during four years could be a bit anoying. Okey, do not misunderstood me, I am not saying to let all those fanatics free, just to treat them with a bit of humanity.
 
They are actually treated with a good deal more humanity than they, in my opinion, deserve. Their physical well-being is looked after, they are well fed, clothed, and sheltered, they are allowed and even encouraged to openly practice their religion, and a good deal of consideration is paid to giving them the opportunity to adhere to whatever they personally believe as far as calls to prayer and the availability of the implements necessary to their worship are concerned.

http://www.usembassy.org.uk/terror564.html
 
Redneck said:
So an insult can cause "severe pain or suffering?" These men are not only adults, but have spent most of their lives killing other human beings, I find it hard to believe that telling them they smell funny would generate too much anguish.
Click to expand...

In the 1980's in response to public outcry and civil litigation brought againt the US Army, Drill Sergeants were no longer able to insult a trainee but instead was forced to make it clear that he was "criticising" the group at large or the private's "actions" not the person's self. Although I personally believe this to be total horse puckey (if you can't stand being yelled at how the heck are you going to take getting shot at?) it does establish a precedent. In today's US Army Basic training privates are given yellow cards for when they feel "stressed" and need a break. So we do have a strong precedent here for the use of insults constituting abuse. No matter I personally disagree.

www.hackworth.com/article04032002c.html

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Defensewatch_111903_Army,00.html
 
how do u know they are terriosts yet, have u had a fair trial?

innocent until proven guilty, that is ur law and u try to impose on other nations, why U.S does not follow its own rule

and also according to TIME magazine, they force the prisoner to stay up all night and there were some physical brushes like pushing (and large potion of the log of that prisoner was still classified, maybe more secrets will be revealed)

by the way, i think it is a serious kind of insult to pee or "accidentally spill" pee on Koran, imagine u r locked up and somebody pee on Bible and says "where the hell is ur god doing now"

pretty inhumane huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top