Geneva convention

[Guest Juvydriver]

CNN has reported that the White House is applying the Geneva Convention to the Taliban soldiers but not the al Qaeda fighters.  Personally, I think this is a good move.  The Taliban soldiers were part of a recognized governmental army, while the al Qaeda fighters are basically nothing more than hired assassins.

 

Good decision, says I.

 

Juvy

[Guest DrTom]

It the right decision, though I don't think we necessarily need to apply it to them.  Since only three countries in the world recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, I'm sure we could get away with not calling them governmental soldiers.

 

I'm not advocating their mistreatment; I just don't think we should confer on them a status they never earned and certainly don't deserve.

[Guest J*ingus]

I think all of the men in Guantanamo Bay are classified as Al Qaeda fighers and not Taliban soldiers, which renders it mostly a moot point.

[Guest AaronMarco]

CNN has reported that the White House is applying the Geneva Convention to the Taliban soldiers but not the al Qaeda fighters.  Personally, I think this is a good move.  The Taliban soldiers were part of a recognized governmental army, while the al Qaeda fighters are basically nothing more than hired assassins.

I agree with the literal interpretation of the Geneva Convention on this matter.

[Guest KingOfMen]

It the right decision, though I don't think we necessarily need to apply it to them.  Since only three countries in the world recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan, I'm sure we could get away with not calling them governmental soldiers.

 

What other government was there though?  We also gave them $14 million for cleaning up the heroine trade.  We may not have "officially" recognized them, but they were the only government in the country.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What other government was there though?  We also gave them $14 million for cleaning up the heroine trade.  We may not have "officially" recognized them, but they were the only government in the country.

 

 

 

Well, let's say, for a moment, that we recognize the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan for the past few years (we didn't, but let's hypothesize).

 

The Geneva Conventions STILL don't apply since Afghanistan wasn't a signatory in the first place, to the best of my knowledge (we know the Taliban did not sign anything agreeing to abide by the Conventions).

                             -=Mike

 

...Treaties only are relevant to signatories---which is why the ABM Treaty actually ceased to be enforceable when the USSR collapsed.