A Supreme Court Hamdan Guide

[Hurin_Rules]

Oh, Hurin my lad, your like a babe lost in a wood. The Taliban were not a legally constituted militia. If you disagree then what is the source of the legality? Afghanistan was not a sovereign nation. The U.S. did not recognize the Taliban regime. Few nations did.

Again, incorrect. Afghanistan was and remains a sovereign nation, regardless of whether the US decides to extend diplomatic relations to it or not. And yes, Afghanistan was and remains a party to the Geneva Conventions. The Taliban clearly fall under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention as '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'; they are thus to receive the full protections of Prisoners of War. Moreover, the US attack on Afghanistan clearly constituted an international armed conflict of the type governed by the Conventions. Customary international humanitarian law also applied (although the US has and continues to violate it).

A request: Please don't sidetrack this thread by making your usual argument that only democracies are sovereign nations again. It is a radical position shared only by very few and will completely strangle the thread. The writers and signatories of the Geneva Conventions do not share your position, and I think we can have a good discussion on this issue without that red herring thrown into the mix. I'll obviate the need for such sterile excursions by removing the word 'sovereign' from my claim that 'Afghanistan was a sovereign nation'. I think we can all agree that 'Afghanistan was a nation'.

Finally, even 'unlawful combatants' are entitled the right to humane treatment, as defined in articles 27 and 37 of the fourth Geneva Convention, as the International Committee of the Red Cross has noted: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0...849_Dorman.pdf