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: Ilaine who wrote (80539)	3/8/2003 8:29:32 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<So give me an argument that explains how Yemeni and Egyptian members of Al Qaeda who got their marching orders from bin Laden are nevertheless regulars in the Afghan army, even though they never wore the uniform of the Afghan army or drew pay from the Afghan government.> Yes, that is an ambiguous case. There is no body of international law, no set of treaties, for the treatment of guerrilla soldiers who don't wear uniforms, and whose command structure is vague. They are totally without rights or protection of any kind. This leaves them prey to unlimited violence, which they reciprocate. (please, let's not get into a chicken-and-egg argument about that last sentence.) I refer you to the Geneva Convention, and the links I have already provided. The treaty has provisions for deciding which soldiers are considered "prisoners of war", and which aren't, if it is ambiguous. There is a specific mechanism outlined in the treaty, in such cases. The U.S. government has refused to implement that mechanism. Further, until that mechanism is implemented, the U.S. is obligated to treat all the ambiguous cases as prisoners of war. It's in the treaty. But there should be no ambiguity at all, about treating Taliban soldiers as prisoners of war. That is totally indefensible.