The fact that he remained with a group of men who intended to engage US soldiers in a firefight when he had the opportunity to leave (probably still get detained anyways, for reasons already covered), and quite likely did engage the soldiers, pretty much proves that he was a Taliban fighter. A group that dresses like civilians when they fight, not like uniformed soldiers. If a low-level junior Mafiosi kills an French gendarme working with the Italian carabinieri on a raid on the Palermo safehouse the mob is operating out of, you would automatically give Guido POW status??? He's referred to as a soldier, the mafia historically was the de facto "government" in Sicily for many many years and still effectively controls huge sections of Palermo against the authority of the current government. If a Mexican Zeta kills an American DEA agent working with the Mexican army in raiding a drug operation, you'd give him POW status?? The Zetas control large areas throughout Mexico, and it founders were formerly Mexican SOF, so they used to wear uniforms, but dont anymore. Meets alot of the criteria your laying for the Taliban, don't it. Just because someone fight for a group, does that make them a soldier, if the group is a criminal enterprise?
That he would be treated as an honoured Taliban four years prior to the fight, which he could have avoided, goes to show the whole "he had no choice, he's a victim, he was forced into it" argument to be pretty flimsy (but since flimsy is all that you have, you've made good mileage with it). His older brother repudiated the family and co-operated with western groups fighting AQ & the Taliban. He could do it but Omar never could???? The kid had ZERO free will???
His terrorist pedigree is pretty well established - I don't feel the Taliban meet the criteria required to afford its members POW status. And that is really what the crux of this entire trial is about. The laws haven't kept pace with the situation on the ground.
Fuji, you have about 10% of the available information on this situation, yet you feel that you have all the answers to an extremely complex situation. I have much, much more information on the situation than you do; easily double the info you have, which only puts me at about 20% - and I feel thats not enough to make any kind of judgement on the legality of it. Plus, I'm not a lawyer the way you pretend to be.
Now, I've implied that you don't have a clue what you're taking about, and you've countered that it is actually I that don't understand the issue.
Lets have some fun with that.
Why don't you start a poll where our peers can judge who is a better source of actual information, not opinionated interpretation, on the A-stan situation - me or you, based on what we've respectively posted. Loser voluntary stays off TERB for a month....sort of a Terb version of "Survivor", except its a gentlemans agreement, (so when you lose it's not binding on you).
Waddaya say, sound like fun??
