As with any war, such soldiers are POWs who ultimately are released & repatriated,
Not necessarily. I was listening to an interesting program the other day on CSPAN, and the speaker was quite particular with regard to whether Al-Qaida members could be considered "soldiers" under international law.
They are really illegal belligerents, with no identifiable uniform, and who are given to carry arms in secrets, as well as deliberately targeting civilians.
Thus, there is no requirement to treat Al-Qaida members as legitimate combatants. They are "non-state actors" who can be treated as international criminals and tried by any state against whom their activities have been directed. This also applies to any "assets" Al-Qaida had in place within the US.
Comparisons to Nathan Hale are not justifiable, because the US had declared their independence, and Hale had received a commission from the fledgling US government, which represented itself as a legitimate state actor. His actions as a spy, certainly warranted his being hung for his operating in civilian garb to conduct his military intelligence mission. No one could really argue the British were illegitimate in carrying out such a sentence against him.
With regard to the Taliban soldiers, it CAN BE ARGUED they are legitimate combatants, being employed as the official army of the Taliban government. However, if it is discovered that they acted under the guise of Al-Qaida, they could be subjected to charges they were illegimate combatants while in that status, and who could be extradited to be tried by whatever nation against which they carried out their activities (India, Uzbekistan, ... etc)
Hawk |
