Hold on,

What makes a government "legitimate"? They seemed to perform the functions of a government in Afghanistan. We contacted them when we wanted to ask the rulers of Afghanistan to turn over OBL.

You beat me to it lordjebus, i too am curious to see ehat endymon32 considers a legit government. we're all waiting

In addition the people in Guatonimo did not dress as soldiers to clearly identify themselfs thus voiding the protections that the Geneva Convention would have provided by disqualiffying their PoW status.

For one, they are recognised by the governed. Second the UN recognises them. I dont think either happened. If you think that the Taliban were the legitimate government of Afganistan, then I dont know what to tell you.

How do you think CIA operatives who are caputred should be treated? I seriously doubt they carry out their missions in full military attire. I think there's a point where the spirit of the Convention is being ignored and details are being used to justify actions which contradict what the Convention tried to establish.


SLM3

chances are if someone is pointing an AK at you there soldiers or guriellas(same thing). i too know that the CIA does not wear military attire unless it is clandestine

Bringing up the CIA is a good point because its one of those cases where the line gets crossed on both sides at once...

They ain't wearing fatigues but they're from a recognized country.. how would they get treated?

And the answer to that would answer many other questions.

As always, they *could* be executed as spies. Whether they *will* be shot is another matter, up to the people that captured them.

not too well probably killed on the spot. for some reason countries don't like other countries spying on them.

Endymon32 the Taliban was recognized by some of those who governed.

Silent Jay,

Yes, by other Taliban, not the other 99% of the people.

i'm talking other countries not afghani's.

here check this out here's your government recognising the Taliban although not all of them.

http://english.pravda.ru/world/2001/10/17/18351.html

the Taliban was recognised by three countries Saudi Arabia, The United Arab Emirates and Pakistan. Two of these countries are supposed to be allies of the US in the war on terror.

Yes, and they form the world opinion....

UM this says no such thing. First of all its talking about the government in the future. IT says that some moderates in the former taliban, MAY be included in the furture government. Sorry to burst your bubble, but a thorough reading may help your argument.

none the less they were still a recognized government.you only said by those that govern there was no mention of how many. How about the good ole allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia not exactly the attitude of a friend.

I thought only Pakistan had 'recognized' them.

"Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates were the only three countries that recognized Taliban as the legitimate government in Afghanistan after the militia captured Kabul in 1996."

"Although Saudi Arabia and the UAE broke their ties with the Taliban after the Sept. 11 attacks, they have maintained their links with Taliban leaders."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...4/204400.shtml

here's where i found this information. disregard the article it is old but the information who 'recognized' the Taliban is still relevant.

Three countries does not a UN make...

Three countries does not a legitimate government make...

Isn't the discussion about the taliban being recognized as a legimate government by three outside countries a bit unnessesary. I thought you where discussing the "unlawful combatants" and that's a status only recogized by the Bush administration.

that's because bush didn't know what to do when he captured these people. all these prisoners should be treated as POW's plain and simple, does this mean that all insurgents in Iraq are going to be classified as unlawful combatants at some point. they are all POW's they were caught in a war zone fighting a war Iraq Afghanistan both wars they are POW's.

you never said how many had to recognize them only that they had to be recognized, and by apparant allies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign...ions_of_Taiwan

I guess it's time to attack Taiwan as the United States does not officially recognize their right to govern the people of China (Which is what the people we call Taiwanese call their own country) They are obviously terrorists working against their peoples will (their people being citizens of the Peoples Republic of China, at least, according the the Peoples Republic of China)
We should sit idly by as the Peoples Republic of China attacks and incorporates Taiwan into their official governing structure.
Since, you know, there is no official government there.

Taiwan is not a legitimate country because China, and more importantly the United States does not recognize them as such.

(sarcasm drips from this post)

In fact, we label them as a "renegade authority" That sounds pretty terroristic to me.

another term made up by this administration

Another Superbelt, changing the topic moment. Brought to you by Burger King, where the Burger is King. Now back to the topic at hand....

Nah. I'm just showing how faulty your logic is when you say that certain nations aren't "valid"

Because why? Only 3 nations recognize it? Because the US has to recognize it? The UN?

The UN recognized Afghanistan. Afghanistan has been a constant member of the UN since 1946. Transition to the Taliban never changed that.

exactly first it had to be recognized, now we fin out three countries did in fact recognize it all of a sudden Endymon32 asks they form world opinion. in your opinion does the US have to recognize a government for it to be 'valid'. Endymon32 this last question is for you.



didn't sound like he was changing the topic at all or was the fact he brought up another made up term the issue?

Actually "renegade authority" was coined by the UN in regards to Taiwan.

i did not know that, you do learn something new everyday

did anyone see the trophy photo that was taken of saddam shortly after his capture? i only caught a quick blirb on Global but it showed saddam and an unidentified american soldier. Is this proper under the Geneva Convention or is it the same as the videotape? i say the US is using the Geneva Convention when it suits them and all photo's or videotape should never be shown.

It depends on if the photo was an action by the government or an action by an idividual soldier who took it upon himself. I haven't seen the photo in question which leads me to believe it was not very wiedly publisized. Just because a pows picture shows up on the news does not mean the government violated the geneva convention.... remember there are private orginzations and individuals also. If the media video taped a PoW the US would be hard pressed to stop them from publishing it since the US has a free press. The US would not be violating the convention in an instance like this. The same goes for this picture which sounds like a soldier took it upon himself to do and probably sent it home to his family who put it out for others to see. The government had nothing to do with it but I can be you the soldier is probably getting in trouble for it.

i'm still looking for the link to the photo it was shown on global news in Canada. not sure if it was a soldiers personal photo or not.

When Saddm was committing his most horrible crimes in 1982 and 1988 (mass gassing the Kurds), the west turned a blind eye to his crimes, and even suppoted him. I find it interesting that we are now clambering toward the moral highground about helping humanity. Im over the moon that Saddam has been caught, but lets not get historical amnesia.

exactly the US is trying to distance itself from all saddams war crimes. if he has a public trial can you imagine the secrets that will come out.

still looking for the pic