In article ,
Dave wrote:

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:26:33 +0100, Peter Wiley
said:

OK, how long, then?

A day?

A week?

A month?

A year?

2 years?

3 years?

5 years?

Perhaps the following excerpt from the opinion in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld may be
enlightening:

" The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture,
detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by "universal agreement and
practice," are "important incident[s] of war." Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S.,
at 28. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from
returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi,
Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002)
("[C]aptivity in war is 'neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely
protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of
war from further participation in the war' " (quoting decision of Nuremberg
Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int'l L. 172, 229 (1947)); W.
Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) ("The time has
long passed when 'no quarter' was the rule on the battlefield ... . It is
now recognized that 'Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of
vengeance,' but 'merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal
character.' ... 'A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a
simple war measure.' " (citations omitted); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d
142, 145 (CA9 1946) ("The object of capture is to prevent the captured
individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be
removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely, and
in time exchanged, repatriated, or otherwise released" (footnotes
omitted))."

............ except as you have admitted, these people aren't prisoners
of war and therefore none of the above is relevant.


And later in the opinion:

"Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in
Afghanistan. See, e.g., Constable, U. S. Launches New Operation in
Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500
United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new
arrivals); J. Abizaid, Dept. of Defense, Gen. Abizaid Central Command
Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004,
http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0430-1402.html (as visited
June 8, 2004, and available in the Clerk of Court's case file) (media
briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000
United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of
these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban
combatants who "engaged in an armed conflict against the United States." If
the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in
active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of
"necessary and appropriate force," and therefore are authorized by the
AUMF."

Ah. So there isn't a new Govt controlling Afghanistan, then? It's still
in the control of the Taliban as a political and military force?

Not.

PDW