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

jackehammond

Active member
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
I am voting Taliban as lawful combatants, which I think was YES under the original poll (if not I have voted incorrectly).
 
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.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
Missileer said:
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! :roll:
Then I guess that CIA members shoting a M-16 without uniform in Irak, Afganistan, Iran... are criminals also, right?
 
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.

May be after their "holidays" in Cuba they have so much anger and hate towards the US that they decided to join Osama´s holy war.
 
If they gave me as long time that I needed ,that is the time it takes to go from detainee to detainee for a "chat", I would extract the information from those Taliban detainees alot faster then they get it today. That would help them get back to their homes and to their goats if they just cooperate with me and dropps that terrorist attitude for a couple of minutes. Those who still would like to test me - Well.... Let´s say that the liberals, the leftwing, the conservatives the whole freaking socialist Europe would really have something to whine about after I was finished. If they don´t have anything to conceal they would not be detainees any longer then necessary. In that way you don´t make another terrorist out of one that isn´t a terrorist, sitting there at GITMO. 8)

But I can assure you all. The detainees with information would have been talking or been dead, as far as Im concerned that would not have been my problem. What is my problem though, is if someone of those bastards are sitting on their asses praying for my family to be the next victims of a Boeing 747 at school or at work. That is of my concern. Problem is that this world would not stand my methods for one bloody minute. And thats why I think people like me aren´t welcome anywhere. Thats the price I just have to pay for my honesty and my will to protect my loved ones without all the whining around.

Where they are today - Is really a paradise island. :roll:
They got sun, water, shelter and food. They are not in any way hurt more then maybe their pride that gets wings after capture. If anyone looks for sympathy or tolerance for what some of them have done, or planning to do in the future you can count me out. My message to the world is - Stop Whining around with these people like a massive gay lobbying group and get on with your business. What people need to understand is that you have the right to demand a little peace of mind (Not looking over your shoulder everytime an arab walks by) instead of giving your libertys away to a group of awkward people still living in the freaking Middle Ages down there in the Middle East. Welcome to my reality. 8)

:firedevi:


Cheers:
Doc.S
:viking:
 
Doc.S, your sincerity is laudable. I could partialy agree with parts of your estatement, however we live in a world ruled by the law, where people can not do what ever they want and where people is responsible of their acts. A world where human rights must be respected, even the rights of those we know are guilty. And may be this is the biggest handicap we have against this band of fanatics. If we do not want to come back to the Middle Age, and apply the Talion´s law, we should keep the human rights as the centre of all our legislation, as they were stablished in a primitive way many many many years ago by uncle Montesquieu and uncle Rosseau back in 1789.
 
PershingOfLSU said:
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.
Again, I ask what is your source for this information?
 
Because it frankly isn't possible for the United States to have moved the majority of the Talibani army to Gitmo. It isn't even possible for us to have moved even the entire officer corp. It doesn't take much more then common sense to realize that if the camp holds 500, then the majority of a defeated army numbering in the tens of thousands isn't there.
 
I realize what youre saying seems to make sense but it still doesnt have a factual basis to back it up without some sources, please. I would really honestly like to know where the data is coming from, honest.
 
k, dude,


if they are criminals,

they should have fair trials right???????????

yet many in GItmo don't


so i am just wondering where does U.S stand on this issue??
 
Anyone we tried would have to be sentenced in accordance with the pre-existing penal code of the country they were captured in. The Taliban penal code was rather light in terms of incarceration and rather heavy in terms of executions.

Something that although perfectly legal, would greatly infuriate most of the world even further then incarceration in Guantanamo.

Edit: There are other problems with trying them as well. Almost all information that would be used in a conviction is classified. Why? Because if you reveal sensitive intelligence information, then even though the terrorists already know it because it's about them, they can get an idea of your intelligence network. Worse yet they may notice connections that lead them back to spies. The natural extention of this is that unless we want to essentially forfeit what few human resources Clinton didn't scrap, we would have to hold any trials in secret. Secret trials handing out guilty verdicts would cause even more trouble then just holding them. Expecially lwhen the sentence is death. Another worry is that you hold a trial, the person is found innocent, and they proceed to go back to Al Queda and extoll the virtues of the American intelligence network.
 
Ok, now I find this post very instructive.
You say that anyone the US "tries" will be "sentenced". Thank the heavens that it isn't necessary to convict them before you mete out punishment. Now are they being tried according to the rules and laws of the country they are from as well? How can being a fighter in the Taliban be against the laws of the Taliban country of Afghanistan? Or are they tried according to US laws, which they are not owing the rules already laid out by the Defense Department, and then punished according to the laws of Afghanistan? Do you see the irony in this scenario?
 
Back
Top