The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 10th, 2005  
jackehammond
 

Topic: The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants


Folks,

During the 2001-2002 war in Afghanistan the US took prisone a number persons: ie some were al Qaeca, but many were Taliban. FYI the Taliban had a draft before and during that time period.

Many of the Taliban taken prisoners are now at Gitmo in Cuba.

The US has classified them as unlawful combatants who have no rights to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

Unlawful Combatants are the opposite of lawful combatants. Lawful combatants are described as combatants who 1> Carry their arms openly 2> Are distinguished between combatants and civilians and 3> Have a command structure and answer to a central command structure that can be held accountable.

Jack E. Hammond
June 10th, 2005  
chewie_nz
 
taliban was the Govt at the time and they had a standing army, as you said...there was a draft in place. i would count the talibans forces as lawful combatants

al quida however are an orginisation that has no borders...they represent an orginisation...not a country.
June 11th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Definition of prisioner of war according to article 4 Geneva Convention:

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. 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.
--
Boots
June 12th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
The prisoners taken during the initial invasion of Afghanistan and serving in the regular Taliban military were lawful combatants and for the most part have been released.

However, many of the people in Guantanamo currently do not fall into that categorization for several reasons. First, they do not bear arms open, follow the rules of war, or wear a distinctive sign. According to the Geneva convention, since they are considered civilians commiting crimes, they can be subjected to any punishment the occupied country had on the books, before the invasion, that is permissable under the Geneva convention. As both Iraq and Afghanistan have very liberal death penaltys, a large number of the detainees could be executed as criminals. A good number could also be executed under the espionage portion of the Geneva convention. I'm not saying they should be of course, I am saying however that the Geneva convention provides for it.
June 12th, 2005  
MontyB
 
 
I am voting Taliban as lawful combatants, which I think was YES under the original poll (if not I have voted incorrectly).
June 12th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
If you're caught out of uniform while firing an AK47 at US troops, you are a criminal and should either be given life in prison or killed on the spot. The way I see it, they are safer where they are now.
June 17th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
The prisoners taken during the initial invasion of Afghanistan and serving in the regular Taliban military were lawful combatants and for the most part have been released.

However, many of the people in Guantanamo currently do not fall into that categorization for several reasons. First, they do not bear arms open, follow the rules of war, or wear a distinctive sign. According to the Geneva convention, since they are considered civilians commiting crimes, they can be subjected to any punishment the occupied country had on the books, before the invasion, that is permissable under the Geneva convention. As both Iraq and Afghanistan have very liberal death penaltys, a large number of the detainees could be executed as criminals. A good number could also be executed under the espionage portion of the Geneva convention. I'm not saying they should be of course, I am saying however that the Geneva convention provides for it.
Do you have a source for this information or is it your opinion?

I think we can see from our Spanish friend's post that we can use the Geneva convention to either prove or disprove the case of unlawful/unlawful combatant for the suspected terrorists being held at Camp Delta.
June 17th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
My source for that is the Geneva convention itself.

If you check you'll see it provides for the execution of civilians for crimes as long as pre-invasion laws allow for execution as a punishment for the crime in question.

http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Look up the definitions for sabotage, guerillas, civilian property, civilian, combatant status, and death sentence.
June 17th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I do not mean about the terms. I am talking about the claims of most being released and how do you know who the people in Camp Delta are?
June 20th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Missileer
If you're caught out of uniform while firing an AK47 at US troops, you are a criminal and should either be given life in prison or killed on the spot. The way I see it, they are safer where they are now.
You just won the first prize of hypocrisy!
Then I guess that CIA members shoting a M-16 without uniform in Irak, Afganistan, Iran... are criminals also, right?