It's simply that my Mudcat name is troll with a lower case "t". If you don't care how your name appears, that's your business. Most of the oldtimers on the Forum know me but I don't get out much anymore.

In WWII the captured soldiers were interrogated and then released as per the terms of the Geneva Convention. If they were not wearing uniforms but were firing on Allied forces, they were shot on the spot.

As I said before, these enemy combattants do not fall under the protections afforded soldiers under the Geneva Convention; no uniforms, etc.

So just what Human Rights have they been denied?

You said,

"Well, which is it? aiding and abetted the terrorists? or innocent of terrorist activity?"

I should have thought that that was obvious. Those who had no discernable terrorist connections were released. The others who were released may have had connections to either al Queda or the Talliban but it was felt that they had no intel worth pursuing and that holding them would serve no good purpose.

It would now appear that this was a bad decision since some of them ( I don't know the numbers) have rejoined terrorist groups and have been active in them. We know this from bodies that we have been able to identify and from captured prisoners. You may be sure that the Afghan Govt. will not be as gentle as we were.

Charge them? Yes. But with what? They were captured on the battlefield. What was their role? Why were they there? These questions have to be answered before they can be charged and tried.

And who should try them? A military tribunal or a US District Court? They are not entitled to the same constitutional protections as American citizens. John Walker is a case in point. As an American citizen, he got the same protections that you or I would recieve.

As far as the presumption of guilt is concerned, they were caught in the company of known antigonists of this country, and were captured during or directly after attacks on American troops.

If it looks like a duck...

troll