Virnibot has detected a misspelling or incorrect use of grammar in your comment.
OK so it seems /u/AIDS_Warlock wants to shut any criticism of the US down as well as spreading a lot of misinformation and misguided reasoning. I honestly can't be bothered replying to every one of his replies so I will collect some here for a single point of refutation.
For reference I will say I am an Australian Citizen as this obviously has an effect on my viewpoints and biases.
Firstly we need some background as there is alot of misconceptions flying around.
Before the US invaded Afganistan after september 11 Afganistan was essentially under the governance of the Taliban. The Taliban is a LOCAL political movement in Afganistan (with some bleed over into Pakistan). When the US invaded Afganistan they were the agressors. Afganistan, that is at the time, the Taliban, did NOT attack the US. The US has claimed that they were at war with "terrorism" without getting into too much technicality here for the sake of this I will just say this means Al Queida the organisation. The Taliban were harbouring Al Queida but that doesn't mean the Taliban are terrorists any more than the Lebanese government are terrorists.
/u/AIDS_Warlock got one point right here;
Um, the Taliban represented Afghanistan, are you claiming that they didn't prior to 2001?
This was correct, the Taliban were the defacto government before 2001.
So this man was a member of the Taliban's miltary force, which was, at the time, the defacto government of his country. 9/11 happens and the US invade in an attempt to destroy Al Qeuida as well as remove the Taliban so they can put in a government who is pro US and anti-Al Queida. The US invade and successfully drive the Taliban out of many parts of Afganistan gaining defacto control of the country. They occupy the country for a while then hand it over to a new democratic Afghan government. Now that there is another government who the world essentially supports and recognises as the state of Afghanistan this has turned into what is essentially a civil war, with the Taliban as the rebel forces.
What does this mean for Taliban who have been captured? Firstly, given that this man is in Guantanamo this means the US deemed him to be an "unlawful enemy combatant". It also means that after the US handover he was no longer a POW, the war had finished. Like in any other conflict he would be released. However the US mistook him to be a member of Al Quieda, thus he was never deemed to be a POW. If he was captured AFTER the Afghan government took over he should of been handled as a civilian and tried as such. Just like an american who tried to fight the US government of US soil would.
The man is a prisoner of war, that does not require a conviction.
So he is still a prisoner of war, he was fighting for the Taliban. When the US and Taliban are no longer at war, he can go free. Simple.
No, it's not. Do you think it would be ridiculous to hold German PoW's if the war took over 10 years? Again, this isn't a criminal law issue. You don't charge them with anything if they were fighting for the Taliban. They are literally prisoners of war.
So are you arguing someone fighting for the Taliban wasn't a lawful enemy combatant. Please cite your source when German PoW's were freed before the conclusion of the war, thank you.
This is all incorrect. He was NOT classified originally as a POW he was also NOT classified a lawful enemy combatant.
Technically the US is NOT fighting the Taliban, by technically I mean legally. Legally the Government of Afghanistan is fighting the Taliban. Why does this matter? It matters because it means that POW's should not be rendered to the US but to the government of Afghanistan to try them as their legal system and constitution outline. The people the US were putting in guantanamo were NOT high ranking Taliban, they were Al Queida. The reason they took them is they claimed they were at war with this organisation. If this man is not Al Queida and was just a Taliban foot soldier he should be given to the government of Afghanistan to deal with through their legal system. The war between the US and the Taliban IS over. It was over once the US handed power to the Government of Afghanistan, legal power I mean.
Do you think the US is not fighting the Taliban? Or that the Taliban isn't fighting the US? Is that your argument?
lol again, please show me the peace treaty between the taliban and the US. Still waiting.
The war is over? Please direct me to the peace treaty between the Taliban and the US. Thanks
Again, what peace treaty was signed between us and the Taliban?
Again this is all rediculous. You sign a peace treaty with a nation, not an organisation. The thinking that there is a war ongoing is correct. The thinking that this is a US war is incorrect, it is a civil war or an insurgency against the government of Afghanistan. This is more similar to the IRA in Ireland, where they were tried under the CIVIL legal system of the UK when caught.
So what does all this mean? In my eyes it shows the danger of the US thinking it is OK to declare war on an organisation, then to declare all of its members "unlawful enemy combatants". The geneva convention should still apply to these people, there are many legal reasonings showing this to be the case. The retort is usually, its war, what else are you doing to do. Well what any reasonable western country would do within their own borders. That is use their legal system to try the members for crimes, if they are in a different country the US will have to work with that country to achieve its goals. This is how it works with criminal gangs and organisations who are clearly anti-government.
The fact that the US thinks they have the right to invade a countries sovreignty, even when not asked, and try someone against US laws is rediculous. I'm sure the US would have something to say if KSA started kidnapping US citizens and trying them for criminal offeces such as rediculing the Kingdom. These is multiple instances of the CIA nabbing people from the street inside of europe. There are very good reasons why the US constiution is the way it is, this also applies to most developed countries. Our legal systems exist to protect us against both each other and the government. When a government believes that are above the legal system, even in regards to non citizens you are already on the slippery slope. I hoped the West was better than this after all the big talk that proceeded WWII.
You wrote miltary which should have been military
You wrote alot which should have been a lot
<3 Good day Courtesy | Of | User Virnios