Afghans pressed to explain release of Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul

#1
From The Times
March 13, 2009
Afghans pressed to explain release of Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul

Michael Evans, Defence Editor and Catherine Philp, Diplomatic Correspondent

The Afghan Government was asked last night to explain why it released a former Guantánamo Bay detainee who has gone on to mastermind attacks on British troops in Helmand.

Patrick Mercer, Conservative chairman of the Commons counter-terrorism subcommittee, said it was extraordinary that a man of his record could be freed to go back to his old ways. Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul, who operates under the nom de guerre Mullah Abdullah Zakir, has been in charge of Taleban attacks in the province since early last year when he was released from prison in Kabul.

He had been transferred there from Guantánamo in December 2007 after a US review board deemed him no longer a threat. Taleban sources have since told The Times that he was a senior commander at the time of his capture in 2001 and that the Afghan authorities should have known that.

Mr Mercer said: “The Americans presumably let him go from Guantánamo Bay in order for him to be kept in custody in Afghanistan. We need to know why the Afghan authorities released him.”
More on the link
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5898261.ece
 
#2
He had been transferred there from Guantánamo in December 2007 after a US review board deemed him no longer a threat
No brainer really, so the Yanks got their assessment wrong.

Mr Mercer said: “The Americans presumably let him go from Guantánamo Bay in order for him to be kept in custody in Afghanistan.
Really? We can't legally hold him so will you? Pretty far fetched.
 
#3
Mr.Rasoul could be declared a POW long ago and be kept in prison in the USA further (and dozens other militants as well).

It would be absolutely legitimate, lawfull and practrical solution.
 
#4
KGB_resident said:
Mr.Rasoul could be declared a POW long ago and be kept in prison in the USA further (and dozens other militants as well).

It would be absolutely legitimate, lawfull and practrical solution.
Actually, from what I read in the Geneva convention, this guy could be more acurately be classified as a spy, which under convention can be simply shot.

Had they just taken these guys out back and 2 tapped them the heat from it would have passed a while ago.

I'm curious, what do these guys do with captured american and british soldiers?
 
#5
ghost_us said:
KGB_resident said:
Mr.Rasoul could be declared a POW long ago and be kept in prison in the USA further (and dozens other militants as well).

It would be absolutely legitimate, lawfull and practrical solution.
Actually, from what I read in the Geneva convention, this guy could be more acurately be classified as a spy, which under convention can be simply shot.
I'm not sure that it would be lawfull.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Teleban formed de facto Afghan government and its militants carried rms openly, had own chaun of command and so on.

ghost_us said:
Had they just taken these guys out back and 2 tapped them the heat from it would have passed a while ago.

I'm curious, what do these guys do with captured american and british soldiers?
Indeed what they do?
 
#6
KGB_resident said:
ghost_us said:
KGB_resident said:
Mr.Rasoul could be declared a POW long ago and be kept in prison in the USA further (and dozens other militants as well).

It would be absolutely legitimate, lawfull and practrical solution.
Actually, from what I read in the Geneva convention, this guy could be more acurately be classified as a spy, which under convention can be simply shot.
I'm not sure that it would be lawfull.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hague04.asp

Article 1.
The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following conditions:

To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;


To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;

To carry arms openly; and

To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


In countries where militia or volunteer corps constitute the army, or form part of it, they are included under the denomination "army."
Teleban formed de facto Afghan government and its militants carried rms openly, had own chaun of command and so on.

ghost_us said:
Had they just taken these guys out back and 2 tapped them the heat from it would have passed a while ago.

I'm curious, what do these guys do with captured american and british soldiers?
Indeed what they do?
One could argue that the Taliban was itself an occupying power and not a local militia or government. There are a whole other set of rules for that alone.

Satisfying one requirement doesn't allow you a pass for all of them. First off, they do not carry a distinctive uniform or emblem that distinguishes them from any other civilian.

Do I really need to address the "...conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war".

And lastly, what do Russians know about humane treatment of POWs?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top