Quote:
|
Originally Posted by danielf
Since I don't see each other coming any nearer to each other, let's.  |
Unless of course, you insists on keeping up the cheap rhetoric...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by jerrek
These guys are NOT prisoners of war because they are NOT part of the former Afghan military, and they were NOT dressed in military garb.
|
Indeed, some of them are under 16:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/...941876,00.html
The thing is, nobody knows who is there. It's a black hole, and that in itself is reason to protest.
According to this source (which you will no doubt dismiss as socialist or communist)
http://hrw.org/editorials/2003/us033103.htm
There's 6 people that were arrested in Bosnia. Not captured in war, but it's not clear they are combatants either.
It also states:
Instead, the United States decreed that no member of the Taliban s armed forces was entitled to POW status ††a decision that most independent international law experts found legally untenable. Furthermore, the United States insisted that no members of Al Qaeda deserved Geneva Conventions protection ††not even those captured while fighting for Taliban armed forces.
So, it looks like being a member of the Taliban's armed forces, pretty much excludes you from being a POW. Garb or not...
Edit: and while looking for less communist sources, there was this interesting article from CNN:
http://us.cnn.com/2002/LAW/03/column...tainees.03.11/
Do note, it is a year and a half old (and at the time all GB detainees were captured in Afghanistan), but it places some question marks at whether this illegal combatants thing is lawful or desirable.
The word quagmire comes to mind...