Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (52571)	10/17/2002 5:16:23 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Your friend misses the fact that the Taleban were not the recognized government of Afghanistan. The exiled government, represented in the Northern Alliance and headed by Rabbani, was the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan. Again, the Taleban, and the al Qaeda that fought with them, were unlawful combatants in every sense. And thus were not due the protections of POW status. Derek

To: zonder who wrote (52571)	10/17/2002 12:54:12 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Hi zonder, Your friend rather quickly concludes that the prisoners from Afghanistan were all POWs just because we were fighting them, regardless of their own behavior. Whoa, I don't see that in the Geneva convention. Article Four stipulates conditions that combatants must fulfil to be considered prisoners of war: 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. Does your fried think that Al Qaeda conducts their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war"? Do they wear uniforms, do they carry arms openly? I would also point out that in Afghanistan it was quite unclear if Al Qaeda was fighting for the Taliban or vice-versa. And neither was a "High Contracting Party" to the convention, but let that pass. So were we fighting the Taliban or Al Quaeda? If the Taliban, then we should treat the Taliban as prisoners and let them go home -- but we don't have to consider Al Qaeda as POWs. If we were fighting Al Qaeda, then hostilities have not ceased, and we have no obligation to let the prisoners go, and they don't qualify as POWs anyway.