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: D. Long who wrote (52590)	10/17/2002 6:53:51 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

This is exactly what you have said: 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. So the lawyer is correcting you on the following: 1) That Taleban was recognized by some countries (and you agree now) 2) That Northern Alliance represented the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan. The NA were nobodies until the conflict with the US started, and their leader was Masood (assassinated shortly before 9/11), a post later inherited by Rabbani. Of course, we are talking about the time before the US conflict. As seen here, the reason for which the US chose the NA as an ally was not because they "represented the internationally recognized government" of Afghanistan: terrorismanswers.com To come back to the topic of conversation which was, in fact, whether or not the Geneva Convention is relevant to the detainees in Guantanamo: I posted the legal opinion of a lawyer or the issue. Have you read the Geneva Convention, especially the Articles he quotes? What do you think about them?