Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What can the US legally do with Mullah Omar?

Options
  • 07-01-2002 7:45pm
    #1
    The Gopher
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,004 ✭✭✭


    Not alot in my opinion.What can they actually charge him with?In other wars the leaders had usually comitted war crimes they were clearly involved in-e.g Hitler,Milosevic,Saddam if he was ever caught etc.But the fact is that it isnt known if Omar actually ever ordered his men to kill civillians.And the Taliban didnt have anything directly to do with Sept 11.So on what grounds will he be held?
    If this is more legal than political dont move this to humanities as I wont be able to participate,hence my signature.:)


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    I thought he was a joint Al-Quida member as well? I'm sure they will think of something like "P!ssing off the US".

    What about the ambassdor to pakistan? What would they hold him on?


  • Options
    #3
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,404 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Originally posted by Hobbes
    What about the ambassdor to pakistan? What would they hold him on?

    Crossing the border (Pakistan - Afghanistan) illegally?

    Quastion: is he not protected by the Vienna Convention (while he was in Pakistan anyway)?


  • Options
    #4
    shotamoose
    Registered Users Posts: 1,411 ✭✭✭shotamoose


    They could charge him with jaywalking. or riding a motorbike without a license.

    Won't they also find it hard to identify him, given that there's only two fuzzy pics of him in existence?

    Anyway didn't the US government recently introduce this new 'military court' which doesn't require any, y'know, evidence or transparency or anything. He'll be tried by a jury of his peers, if by peers you mean American soldiers.


  • Options
    #5
    Hobbes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,264 ✭✭✭✭Hobbes


    Originally posted by Victor


    Crossing the border (Pakistan - Afghanistan) illegally?

    Except that he didn't really? :)

    I have read in a couple of news storis that the US is calling the people they captured "Battlefield detainees" instead of POW's so they don't have to follow the geneva convention. This has to be a joke?!

    Although the fact they are keeping them in an area that has 0 chance of outside monitors getting in makes it a bit suss.


  • Options
    #6
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    More importantly, they are not prisoners, and are not inside the US, and are therefore not subject to US civil law.

    They are, however, detained by the military, in a military base, on foreign soil.

    My guess is that this may allow military "justice" to be used, except that being a military issue in one of the US's most strategic military bases, there are already sufficient grounds to deny the public information.

    Couple this with the Pentagon going on record yesterday as saying that they will no longer discuss who they have captured, what the status of those people is, who they are still looking for and where they are looking, and so on, and you have a very discomforting situation from a human rights perspective.

    I'm not saying that anything will be done which is a breach of these people's human rights, but I'm concerned that all the pieces are being lined up in just the right way for this to happen.

    jc


  • Advertisement
Advertisement