Afghans pressed to explain release of Abdullah Ghulam Rasoul

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Skynet, Mar 12, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  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. No brainer really, so the Yanks got their assessment wrong.

    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. 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. I'm not sure that it would be lawfull.

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

    Teleban formed de facto Afghan government and its militants carried rms openly, had own chaun of command and so on.

    Indeed what they do?
     
  6. 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?