The Jacksonian Tradition

[NecronLord]

I live in the EU and I have one thing to say

Who the f**K is woody allen

[Colonel Olrik]

I live in the EU and I have one thing to say

Who the f**K is woody allen

Methinks he's an AMERICAN actor

[Admiral Piett]

What makes you say that American police have the right to beat people to sign confessions or rat on someone? That is illeagal in America. A criminal has the right to a lawyer. where is your support otherwise? The other caes you mentioned, were believed not to be criminals but combatants. We were establishing his status.

Might I remind you that according to internaitonal cutom, the geneva convention, such particopants in a war who dress up as civilians are subject to summary execution, that number includes every detainee at Xray. since We haven't started executing them, it only shows our extreme commitment to justice, treating them far better than they have treated any American soilder who has surrendered to thier side. Thats a fact.

In france they can and have exappropritate your businesses. There are many case of this happening over the past 50 years. You have no gaurenteed right to reenumeration as you do in america. In Europe, all your freedoms are 1 vote away from losing every right you hold, especially economic rights.

It surprises me, that you seem to think quelling the extreme right is more important than quelling the extreme left. The left is allowed to promote its heros and extreme ideals, even the second greatest butcher Stalin (Mao killed the most) but you can't do the same for hitler (A poor 3rd on the mass murder scale) seems a bit inconsistant, and probably explains how close some EU countries are to socialism. Like I said extreme freedom for some, not so much freedom for others. European feedoms for you.

What makes yo think the KKK is allowed to operate freely in the US? Last time I checked they were completely bamkrupt, and had all of thier assets seized. In America, you are free to preech racial hatred/religous intolerence all you want. Why, because its an inalienable freedom. If that book you mentioned were virulently anti-christian, this never would have been brought up. More protections for some, none for others.
European freedoms for you.

You seem to equate adovcating mas murder of americans = critique of the current administration. Thats really stupid.

Look if peole really are that miserable in america, with all our rights and freedoms, they hate our culture, our wealth and power, than they should leave to a place they will fit in. And since the right is persecuted over there in europe especially christians, they should come over here, where they will be freeer, and europe can turn into one of the islamic republics it seems to love so much.

Quite frankly, all you aresuggesting about johan ascrfot is unfounded. You seem to think that this is the FDR administration all over again, wher we round up someone because of their race or religous beliefs and sell off all thier assets for our own profit. Nothing like that happening here under bush. He is doing a good job of protecting our rights, even those who have gone here to kill Americans.

Not even in France policemen are allowed to beat the people arrested.So my point is proven,in the sense that in this aspect France is not worse than the US.In both countrie beating arrested people is illegal and in both the police violates this.Currently in the US it happens that immigrants are arrested and detained without charge for months and then expelled.Sometimes they are clandestine immigrants,so the expulsion itself is not illegal,sometimes they are not.In both cases however they are detained for long periods of time without charges.Are they all terrorist?Mmmmm

As far as I know under Geneva conventions partisans are allowed.And always if I recall correctly FAEs qualify as chemical weapons(not sure about this however)
CORRECTION:apparently incendiary weapons are not entirely forbidden.Their use is merely restricted to some circumstances.
And by the way how many US soldiers have surrendered to them in anyway? 5?3?1? or most likely zero?

Give me an example of France expropriating some businness because it made too much profit.Most likely you are referring to the nationalizations which took place in many european nations.The idea was that some strategic activities,such as public transportation,and some heavy industries,such as steel plants, should have been under statal control.Now this policy is gone and the EU would not allow it in anyway.But I reiterate, give me an example.You will not be able to,as usual.

I have not said that quelling the extreme right is more important that quelling the extreme left.If anything political discrimination this is your problem,since you like the idea that leftists should be discriminated (the thread about starship troopers government).And as far as socialism goes,
give a look to the current italian prime minister.Small hint, he is a showbusinness entrepreneur who owns half of the nationwide television channels of the country and is going around proclaiming support for a war against Iraq.I guess he is a communist for your standards.Italy is in the mediterranean sea,where once there was the core of the roman empire,so do not say me you have not been able to locate it on the map (end of sarcasm).

You have (purposefully) failed to notice that I used the past.The KKK was allowed,till to 60's-70's to do whatever it wanted thanks to complacent local elected sheriffs,complacent local elected judges and your much vaunted juries.The FBI and federal courts were the only nuisance to them.
I challange you to prove that I am wrong.
As a matter of fact libels which critic heavily the church circulate also and no one stop them.The idea that the right and the christian are persecuted here in Europe shows a level a level of ignorance which is beyond any conceivable limit.
For this reson I have included the geographical indication above,because from your statements you are obviously so ignorant about Europe that is it was not for your ancient history studies you would probably barely be able to locate it on the map.

And let us make a small mental experiment.Let us say that I live in the US.I write here that I want to nuke a US city.I do not have the means to procure a nuclear weapon,I am not the member of a terrorist organization
and probably I do not have even the desire to do such even if I could.
An FBI reads what I have written, tracks and arrest me.According to you probably I should be thrown is some prison camp until someone a few decades in the future will decide that the war on terror is over.Do you believe that it is fair? If yes this is worse than Mussolini government.
At least in the 30's I would have been put under a sort of trial before being sent to prison for a definite term.Apparently in your opinion this is just a luxury.So much for your much vaunted freedoms.I can understand why you claim to be a fascist.

Roosvelt for sending the NippoAmerican into concentration camps for the duration of the war is bad.Bush imprisoning middleastern immigrants without any charge is an hero.Speaking about double standards....

Face it.You are completely cleuless about the EU.I know the US much better than you know the EU.

[Admiral Piett]

What makes you say that American police have the right to beat people to sign confessions or rat on someone? That is illeagal in America. A criminal has the right to a lawyer. where is your support otherwise? The other caes you mentioned, were believed not to be criminals but combatants. We were establishing his status.

Might I remind you that according to internaitonal cutom, the geneva convention, such particopants in a war who dress up as civilians are subject to summary execution, that number includes every detainee at Xray. since We haven't started executing them, it only shows our extreme commitment to justice, treating them far better than they have treated any American soilder who has surrendered to thier side. Thats a fact.

In france they can and have exappropritate your businesses. There are many case of this happening over the past 50 years. You have no gaurenteed right to reenumeration as you do in america. In Europe, all your freedoms are 1 vote away from losing every right you hold, especially economic rights.

It surprises me, that you seem to think quelling the extreme right is more important than quelling the extreme left. The left is allowed to promote its heros and extreme ideals, even the second greatest butcher Stalin (Mao killed the most) but you can't do the same for hitler (A poor 3rd on the mass murder scale) seems a bit inconsistant, and probably explains how close some EU countries are to socialism. Like I said extreme freedom for some, not so much freedom for others. European feedoms for you.

What makes yo think the KKK is allowed to operate freely in the US? Last time I checked they were completely bamkrupt, and had all of thier assets seized. In America, you are free to preech racial hatred/religous intolerence all you want. Why, because its an inalienable freedom. If that book you mentioned were virulently anti-christian, this never would have been brought up. More protections for some, none for others.
European freedoms for you.

You seem to equate adovcating mas murder of americans = critique of the current administration. Thats really stupid.

Look if peole really are that miserable in america, with all our rights and freedoms, they hate our culture, our wealth and power, than they should leave to a place they will fit in. And since the right is persecuted over there in europe especially christians, they should come over here, where they will be freeer, and europe can turn into one of the islamic republics it seems to love so much.

Quite frankly, all you aresuggesting about johan ascrfot is unfounded. You seem to think that this is the FDR administration all over again, wher we round up someone because of their race or religous beliefs and sell off all thier assets for our own profit. Nothing like that happening here under bush. He is doing a good job of protecting our rights, even those who have gone here to kill Americans.

Not even in France policemen are allowed to beat the people arrested.So my point is proven,in the sense that in this aspect France is not worse than the US.In both countrie beating arrested people is illegal and in both the police violates this.Currently in the US it happens that immigrants are arrested and detained without charge for months and then expelled.Sometimes they are clandestine immigrants,so the expulsion itself is not illegal,sometimes they are not.In both cases however they are detained for long periods of time without charges.Are they all terrorist?Mmmmm

As far as I know under Geneva conventions partisans are allowed.And always if I recall correctly always under those conventions FAEs qualify as chemical weapons(not sure about this however). And by the way how many US soldiers have surrendered to them in anyway? 5?3?1? or most likely zero?

Give me an example of France expropriating some businness because it made too much profit.Most likely you are referring to the nationalizations which took place in many european nations.The idea was that some strategic activities,such as public transportation,and some heavy industries,such as steel plants, should have been under statal control.Now this policy is gone and the EU would not allow it in anyway.But I reiterate, give me an example.You will not be able to,as usual.

I have not said that quelling the extreme right is more important that quelling the extreme left.If anything political discrimination this is your problem,since you like the idea that leftists should be discriminated (the thread about starship troopers government).And as far as socialism goes,
give a look to the current italian prime minister.Small hint, he is a showbusinness entrepreneur who owns half of the nationwide television channels of the country and is going around proclaiming support for a war against Iraq.I guess he is a communist for your standards.Italy is in the mediterranean sea,where once there was the core of the roman empire,so do not say me you have not been able to locate it on the map (end of sarcasm).

You have (purposefully) failed to notice that I used the past.The KKK was allowed,till to 60's-70's to do whatever it wanted thanks to complacent local elected sheriffs,complacent local elected judges and your much vaunted juries.The FBI and federal courts were the only nuisance to them.
I challange you to prove that I am wrong.
As a matter of fact libels which criticize heavily the church circulate also and no one stop them.The idea that the right and the christian are persecuted here in Europe shows a level of ignorance which is beyond any conceivable limit.
For this reson I have included the geographical indication above,because from your statements you are obviously so ignorant about Europe that is it was not for your ancient history studies you would probably barely be able to locate it on the map.

And let us make a small mental experiment.Let us say that I live in the US.I write here that I want to nuke a US city.I do not have the means to procure a nuclear weapon,I am not the member of a terrorist organization
and probably I do not have even the desire to do such even if I could.
An FBI reads what I have written, tracks and arrest me.According to you probably I should be thrown is some prison camp until someone a few decades in the future will decide that the war on terror is over.Do you believe that it is fair? If yes this is worse than Mussolini government.
At least in the 30's I would have been put under a sort of trial before being sent to prison for a definite term.Apparently in your opinion this is just a luxury.So much for your much vaunted freedoms.I can understand why you claim to be a fascist.

Roosvelt for sending the NippoAmerican into concentration camps for the duration of the war is bad.Bush imprisoning middleastern immigrants without any charge is an hero.Speaking about double standards....

Face it.You are completely clueless about the EU.I know the US much better than you know the EU.

[Admiral Piett]

From the Geneva conventions.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, 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

Do the people detained at Guantanamo match these requirements?
Maybe,maybe not.Maybe some yes and others no.In any case I would not define a sign of american generosity not to shoot them on the place.The case is dubious at the best.

[Azeron]

Quick note on the geneva convention.

Al Queada is a non signator to the Geneva convention, nor do they abide by its rules, therefore all detaines in camp Xrays, including Moussoui are subject to summary execution by international law and custom.

They fall under the categories of stateless outlaws and pirates. Dressing up like civilians, and using civilians as human shields, is considered Perfidous under the geneva convention, and are again subject to summary execution for particpiation in such operations.

There is a crap load of precedence for this.

[Admiral Piett]

Are all of them Al Quaeda members? Or are some of them talibans, soldiers of a "legitimate" government?
As I said the situation could be complicated from a legal point of view.

[Pendragon]

Azeron, you are violating the basic rights and liberty of my lunch, by threatening to evict it from its current residnce in my stomach.

Thus your removal by force, lethal if needs be, is warranted you nutcase.

[Admiral Piett]

On a side note,the European commission is not the top of the EU.The european council,composed by the ministers of the governments of the members states is the most important body.The EU has an hybrid structure,
do not forget this.

[phongn]

Are all of them Al Quaeda members? Or are some of them talibans, soldiers of a "legitimate" government?
As I said the situation could be complicated from a legal point of view.

Exactly. Taliban troops would be considered those of the previous government and even if only one other country recognized it (Pakistan), they are entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention on POWs.

Al Quaida is not, but you cannot summarily execute troops without first confirming whether they illegal combatants or not.

[Azeron]

Its prima facia. (If you see it, thats it) They weren't carring arms openly, they weren't in any uniforms. And they really didn't have a central command structure. The taliban were non-signators to the Geneva convention, they did not abide by its rules. The taliban members are therefore subject to summary execution. THATS THE LAW. we cab dispatch them as we see fit.

Geneva convention is about war fighting between civilizaed countries, and discouraging certain tactics like those the terrorists use which increase hardship and put the civiian population in greater dangers.

Tha taliban were just a group of thugs no better than al queada. Thier fate should be the same.

As for Xray, I believe all members there are Al Quaeda (A foriegn army occupying another country)

[Admiral Piett]

Its prima facia. (If you see it, thats it) They weren't carring arms openly, they weren't in any uniforms. And they really didn't have a central command structure. The taliban were non-signators to the Geneva convention, they did not abide by its rules. The taliban members are therefore subject to summary execution. THATS THE LAW. we cab dispatch them as we see fit.

Geneva convention is about war fighting between civilizaed countries, and discouraging certain tactics like those the terrorists use which increase hardship and put the civiian population in greater dangers.

Tha taliban were just a group of thugs no better than al queada. Thier fate should be the same.

As for Xray, I believe all members there are Al Quaeda (A foriegn army occupying another country)

Are you sure that they were not carrying their weapons openly? In Afghanistan EVERYONE appear to go openly around with an AK-47.
Are you sure that they do not wear a sort of uniform?After all the Geneva convention does not specify that soldiers should wear redshirts,only some sort of mark,maybe a cap.
Are you sure that talibans do not have a central command structure,albeit aloose one?
Last are you sure that having the taliban "government" not signed the Geneva convention means that it does not apply to the talibans?
What is the paragraph of the Geneva conventions that say this?

Granted the talibans are thugs.You are however attempting to demonstrate
that they can be rightfully executed under international law.So far your case appear quite weak.

[Azeron]

If I recall it clearly states in chapter 1 many times that this is a treaty BETWEEN contracting parties. Otherwise armies may engage as they wish. The Geneva convention is a protocol for behaviour of engeging armies of other contracting armies. Its really to look out for the little guy.

The taliban siezed the weapons from hte general population.

THe taliban itself was a hodgepodge of gangs, warlords, and al queads itself.

In this context, the taliban cannot commit war crimes, and niether can bin laden. They have not agreed voluntarily to be made accountable for any of thier actions to any war crimes charter. Hence they fall under the stateless rouge, outlaw, barbarian, pirate classifications -- hence they are subject to summary execution, and the treatment at camp xray is better than they deserve.


look for yourself for further reference:
Geneva Convention 1950's redraft.
http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html

[Admiral Piett]

If I recall it clearly states in chapter 1 many times that this is a treaty BETWEEN contracting parties. Otherwise armies may engage as they wish. The Geneva convention is a protocol for behaviour of engeging armies of other contracting armies. Its really to look out for the little guy.

The taliban siezed the weapons from hte general population.

THe taliban itself was a hodgepodge of gangs, warlords, and al queads itself.

In this context, the taliban cannot commit war crimes, and niether can bin laden. They have not agreed voluntarily to be made accountable for any of thier actions to any war crimes charter. Hence they fall under the stateless rouge, outlaw, barbarian, pirate classifications -- hence they are subject to summary execution, and the treatment at camp xray is better than they deserve.

look for yourself for further reference:
Geneva Convention 1950's redraft.
http://www.asociety.com/geneva1.html

You have overlooked a small problem.If Afghanistan signed the treaty back in 1950 like it may well be then that the taliban government was still theoretically bound by that treaty.I am not an expert in this field but as far as I know previous international treaties are not automatically cancelled by the change of regime.Russia is still bound by Soviet Union era treaties after all.In the same way talibans were pobably theoretically forced to follow Geneva conventions.
So your case for the summary execution is still weak.

[Azeron]

Its not weak. The Taliban never acted in accordance with any treaty, so why would we think they were bound by any treety. they failed several key tests on how to conduct military operations, including not wearing a distinctive emblyomn, but also basing military resources using civilians for cover.

Even if they were signators, and all these were violations, the individual soidiers themselves would be put to death for these violations, since by doing so they eschewed the protections guarenteed by the Convention by not complying with them. Combatants who wore civlian clothes while conducting operations have been shot for a very long time -- hundreds of years. We have preceedence on this issue.

As you the detainment is wholely lawful, we can do what we wish to them. Besides your argument is the weak one, you still haven't grounded it any law. And these are Al Queada in Xray, not taliban. No aggreement on thier treatment, except to kll them.

[Admiral Piett]

What you say must be demonstrated.Under the Geneva conventions if there is any doubt they must be put under trial and then,if found guilty, they can be executed.Until that momement they are entitled the status of POWs.Also you seem to believe that the conventions must be renovated at every change of government.It is not so.
Maybe for some of them the fact that they did not follow the Geneva conventions was a fact that was evident when they were captured and so they should have been immediately executed on the spot(and do not think that I would protest against that) .Maybe for others an enquiry would be necessary.
What you fail to understand is that executing/mistreating people that could be POWs is not a step that can be taken lightly.After all an american pilot dropping a FAE bomb (whose use is placed under severe restrictions by the Geneva conventions) in the wrong place (a village for example) could be executed on the spot for the same resons you want to execute the talibans.It could set a bad record.

[Azeron]

In times when the geneva convention is not a binding articles between 2 parites, the rules of engagement imposed by thier respective governments on thier own forces are the only binding rules on combatants.

What you say must be demonstrated.Under the Geneva conventions if there is any doubt they must be put under trial and then,if found guilty, they can be executed.Until that momement they are entitled the status of POWs

when has that ever been true? Where is your legal documentaion, where does it say that in Geneva Convention? If a party is following the bylaws ad outlined in the Geneva convention, it is obvious to all concerned. When you are not, it is also apparent. I could think of no instance where the Taliban or Alqeada had a choice to either comply with the Genva Convention or not, they always choose not to. Including executing unarmed reporters for no reason.

The point is, is that in fact, what ever we do to these people, it is our choice. And it would be wise to be extremely harsh on them, for tha will deter combatants in the future from using cowardly, asymetrical tactics, putting innocent life in danger, to protect thier own.

Bin Laden and Co. thought they were pretty smart saying they didn;t have to abide by these convents and playing dirty. We need to show them, that playing dirty will get mud smeared all over there face.

Thats what happens when pricks play with the big boys.

[Admiral Piett]

Article 44.-Combatants and prisoners of war
1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.
2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing, however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in such situations, he carries his arms openly:

(a) During each military engagement, and

(b) During such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

What I said about the Geneva conventions is what I have interpreted from this section.Note that I am always referring to the talibans,the "legitimate" government of Afghanistan (or at least they have been offcially recognized by Pakistan as so),not to Al Quaeda,a terrorist organization.In practice they are all a bunch of bastards but for the specific problem we are discussing that it is hardly the point.

[Admiral Piett]

Including executing unarmed reporters for no reason.

When was an unarmed report executed by the taliban government?

[Azeron]

I think your logic maybe be a bit, what we call "backassward". You start with a position and then you justify it by cherry picking the Geneva convention.

In any respect, you still have to be a signator, and I beleive the Northern Alliance was the Successor government to the communist government. The taliban were revolutionaires, so under any circumstance they are not a contracting nation.

The section you are reffering to implies camaflauge uniforms, but still carry a distinctive bage or mark on it, such as your nations flag. You are reading a bit too much into it.

There were several instances during the afagn war when duly marked journalists were lined up and shot by the taliban.

If the taliban were intending to follow the Customs of war, and/or the geneva convention, then they would be in genreal compliance, but I can't think of, nor have I ever heard an instance in when they were in compliance and indictacted that they wished to be subject to the laws of war.

Trying to find a loophole after the fact is not going to save them. The provisional government in Afganistan has jurisdiction over the actions of the taliban, and can punish them as so.

Al Queada is our primairy concern, and make up our prisioner population at xray. By no possible reading of the Geneva convention, can you find a stateless transnational terrorist group which has commited one of the most perfidous violations of the articles of war on 9/11 guarenteed the protections accorded by the Geneva convention, a compact between STATES. (and rebelious groups who intend to abide by a RESPONSIBLE LEADER who commandsthe group to follow the rules of war)

Now please stop with this nonesense. Al Queada, and taliban are clearly not covered any protections. Its better this way. It will help deter otyhers from doing the same.

[oberon]

4)Give an example of stolen factories and business ran to the ground. You can't, can you?

Hey, I can. Boeing. In the US. Opened up some factories in China and S. Africa. OK, so they aren't being run out of business, but the taxation and levies against them that they get in Washington state are tending to make them, one of our largest employers, want to leave. [edit: they've already shut down a plant in Spokane] Not exactly what Azeron had in mind, now, was it?

[Admiral Piett]

.
There were several instances during the afagn war when duly marked journalists were lined up and shot by the taliban.

I missed this.It is quite strange because I am sure that a western journalist executed by the talibans would have received a lot of coverage by the press.
Or are you referring to journalists killed by what could have been simple robbers/deserters for all that we know?

[Admiral Piett]

I think your logic maybe be a bit, what we call "backassward". You start with a position and then you justify it by cherry picking the Geneva convention.

In any respect, you still have to be a signator, and I beleive the Northern Alliance was the Successor government to the communist government. The taliban were revolutionaires, so under any circumstance they are not a contracting nation.

The section you are reffering to implies camaflauge uniforms, but still carry a distinctive bage or mark on it, such as your nations flag. You are reading a bit too much into it.

There were several instances during the afagn war when duly marked journalists were lined up and shot by the taliban.

If the taliban were intending to follow the Customs of war, and/or the geneva convention, then they would be in genreal compliance, but I can't think of, nor have I ever heard an instance in when they were in compliance and indictacted that they wished to be subject to the laws of war.

Trying to find a loophole after the fact is not going to save them. The provisional government in Afganistan has jurisdiction over the actions of the taliban, and can punish them as so.

Al Queada is our primairy concern, and make up our prisioner population at xray. By no possible reading of the Geneva convention, can you find a stateless transnational terrorist group which has commited one of the most perfidous violations of the articles of war on 9/11 guarenteed the protections accorded by the Geneva convention, a compact between STATES. (and rebelious groups who intend to abide by a RESPONSIBLE LEADER who commandsthe group to follow the rules of war)

Now please stop with this nonesense. Al Queada, and taliban are clearly not covered any protections. Its better this way. It will help deter otyhers from doing the same.

When it comes to logic you are not exactly in a position of preaching.I have read this opinion in a newspaper,I have found it reasonable for very practical reasons and I have checked if it was backed by a source (a passage that you instead tend to miss).
Yes the Northern Alliance was the "legitimate" government most widely recognized at the international level.And the talibans would be revolutionaries.However they were succesful revolutionaries,controlling the capital,a the majority of the Afghan territory and gaining a certain level of international recognition (they have been recognized by Pakistan for example).In these cases the situation is not clearly cut from a legal point of view.To my knowledge it all comes down to the mundane degree of success(or at least this is the common opinion among experts if I recall correctly).A government which controls the territory and acts as a government can legitimate itself and become the legitimate government.Probably some jurists could debate the case at nauseam,since
this is a somewhat gray area.
I do not know if I am reading too much in it.Are you sure that the talibans
did not wear some recognizable marks?If I recall correctly they weared some particular turban.I might be wrong however,after all you are the taliban expert here
But this in effect is not the real problem.My preoccupation is that if you start to execute taliban prisoners there is the risk that someone ,in the next pissed country you decide to bomb as electoral propaganda for your great leader, might think that if the US can execute a taliban prisoner as a war criminal then an US pilot who drops cluster bombs could be considered
like you consider a taliban and thus (insert random name of slow and painful execution).To which according to you Azeron you would retaliate executing the prisoners in american hands.The thing can quickly become
rather,let's say, unpleasant.For this reason I recommend caution.

[Azeron]

Thanks for admitting the taliban were non-signators to teh geneva conevention and are not subject to the conditions.

I don't really care if they hate us more for it. I care if they fear us more for it. To date, these types of fundementalists have executed every prisoner they have come accross. whether in Cheneya,9/11, or afganistan.

So to say that they wouldn't execute them, they wouyld in any respect. So might aas well kill them too. Horribly after we properly humilate them for our propaganda machine.

[Master of Ossus]

Actually, Taliban troops did not execute some of their civilian hostages. Remember that big hostage thing at the start of the war? Those people survived for a week in Taliban hands without being shot.

The Taliban, however, did not sign the Geneva convention (they did not even exist back then), and they have never since signed it. They are not officially bound by its treatise, but they are probably morally responsible for its terms.