[txradioguy]

"I believe that in order to have POW status, you need to be captured in uniform to be considered an enemy combatant."

So does taht mean all of the Taliban we captured in Afghanistan are NOT really POW's? They were not wearing uniforms.

[monocle]

The issue is not whether someone is a POW, but whether that someone would be entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention.

[Squantos]

Depending on your version/definition of what a "uniform" is....... black PJ's were enough for a VC as is the Talibans dress code such a ID for them ....thus uniformity. Iraq military had/has a defined uniform yet Saddassed Insane wasn't in it. As Dick-Tator In Chief it's a moot issue anyway......he's gonna hang.....be he soldier, statesman, sissy or spy he's a dead POS as soon as they milk his mind of madness.

[Flint]

"So does taht mean all of the Taliban we captured in Afghanistan are NOT really POW's? They were not wearing uniforms."

That is exactly right, you got it. That is why they can be held at Gitmo without giving them POW status. They are enemy combatants, not POW's.

[El Gato]

They were not wearing uniforms.

True, but that isn't strictly necessary. An armband or some other common piece of clothing serving to ID them as members of the opposing forces will do under the international rules governming such things, IIRC.

[chudogg]

Historically, insurgents who do not have uniforms would wear a arm band with some kind of symbol showing that they are insurgents. This is stipulated in the fourth Geneva Convention (which we aren't even a signatory to). The Taliban and Al Qaeda don't do that, and most Iraqis (except some instances with the Fedayeen) dont that either.

[JasonC]

No, it doesn't work that way. See 119.

[piasa]

Some Taliban wore identifying clothing, and many carried arms openly, avoiding civilian areas or evacuating them. Those can be afforded POW status and most were, even if by the book they may or may not quite meet the standards. Those who did not abide by the basic expectations of Geneva, however, are not lawful combatants and we are not obligated to consider them POWs.

Unlike al Qaeda, the Taliban did go through the trouble of providing identifying documents for many of their personnel, most of their personnel carried arms openly, and they did have a defined chain of command which could be held accountable. Unlike al qaeda terrorists, the Taliban government is able to claim its people and provide a contact through which the captors and the Red Cross could exchange information with the Taliban authorities.

A full uniform is not necessary; headgear can be sufficient or insignia, carrying arms openly, and upon capture the presentation of identifying documents and their REAL NAMES to the captors is a must. The men must be identifiable from civilians to even be considered POWs, and must have leaders who claim them.

Indeed, al Qaeda members typically refuse to give their real names but operate under alias; this makes them unlawful combatants. It also violates the obligations of a POW.

Al Qaeda tends not to come forward to label their 'troops' because al Qaeda counts on the peacetime justice system to foolishly treat them as common criminals, and so informing the world that the guy who was just captured was Colonel so-and-so in al Qaeda would end up getting him convicted. In wartime, however, this behavior puts them at a disadvantage because their personnel do not have the protections a soldier or militiaman would have. With al Qaeda, there is no recognized authority who can be held accountable for the prisoner's actions, no one to legally step forward to take responsibility for the prisoner, or take delivery of him upon his release.

This excludes them from consideration as POWs.