Jeroen: Hm. That sounds as if Secretary Rumsfeld is holding a double set of standards. The bombings by AQ were called "an act of war", the US launched a full-blown military operation (read: went to war) against Afghanistan for it, but once the people responsible are captured, they are not prisoners of war. It makes me wonder if this is an attempt to dodge some international treaty. My first guess is that by considering them non-military prisoners, they can be sentenced to death and executed, while executing prisoners of war probably is a violation of the Geneva Convention.
Jeroen Me: You know, Jeroen, I posted quite extensively on this topic, and _in detail_ on the legal status of Al Qaeda prisoners, referencing back to their real status under the Geneva Conventions. You never meaningfully rebutted any of those statements - nor, to be blunt, could you, since I was posting quite uncontroversial interpretations of the Geneva Conventions and international law. Among those posts was a fairly detailed description of _why_, under the Geneva and Hague Conventions, captured members of Al Qaeda are not prisoners of war. Either go back and rebut those statements with your own argument for why they should be considered POWs (when they clearly legally are not) or stop slandering the United States. Gautam
