Mullah Omar: Taliban Rules and Regulations

[tequila]

Not sure if this has been posted before, but FRONTLINE has a translated copy of Taliban rules and regulations as promulgated by Mullah Omar here.

[OfTheTroops]

Wow. What can I say? This really demonstrates the nature of conflict Message V. Message as well as Soldier V. insurgent. The message rules the battlefield of the "hearts and minds."

[M-A Lagrange]

What is interesting in that message, out of the dimension of heart and mind battle, is that it is a rejection of the Geneva Conventions just as the laws passed by USA and the denial of war prisoner status.
I have not finish yet to go through it completely but it refers to Sharia as the unique law applicable in peace and war. One of the things in the Geneva Convention, part from the fact that it is a western rule born and breed regulation, is that it already recognises the Sharia as a concrete and important contribution to regulating war.

This does not cover just propaganda VS propaganda but shows the capacity of the enemy to take a decisive strategic move on the legitimacy battle field through challenging West morality in its conduct of war.
It also shows, somehow that the enemy is trying to close the second phase of Mao in revolutionary war. Promulgating laws and regulation to unify insurgents is coming just at the moment the coalition is breaking apart. We may have here also the proof of two possible evidences:
- Either the Taleb are on the verge to fall and are completely disorganised with a lost of legitimacy inside the population they are trying to “protect”. Which could be the case.
- Or the Taleb are strong enough to pass from disorganised groups conducting non coordinated guerrilla wars, each of them separately, to a united group under one command that is feeling capable to conduct a “conventional war phase”.
In both cases, the challenge is not only on the ground, it is also on the conduct of war. Taleb have been capable to shift the counter insurgency legitimacy battle field from governance to the symbols of legitimacy. In front of the positive approach of rights rule of law, they are capable to come with a tool with the apparence of rule of law based on a different referent with a negative understanding of it. But Sharia is one of the most important referent in the history of law.
THAT IS SCARY.

[jmm99]

We have some interesting detainee provisions, do we not:

Section 2

Regarding Prisoners

7 - If a local or foreign enemy is captured, they should be taken to the provincial authority immediately. The provincial authority will make a decision what to do with the captured enemy.

8 - When you capture drivers, contractors or soldiers, releasing them for money is prohibited. The provincial authority has the right to use him for a prisoner exchange. If someone wants to guarantee him, he needs to talk to the provincial authority. If the prisoner is a higher anking p erson then the IMAM assistant has the right to make a decision regarding his future.

9 - If an Afghan National Army member (ANA) is captured by the Mujahidin, the IMAM or IMAM assistant will make the decision whether to kill him, to use him for a prisoner exchange or to exchange him for money. If the captured person is converted to Islam, then the IMAM will exchange him if the captured person gives permission but there should be a pledge that he will not convert back to the infidels.

10- If the Mujahidin take people hostage and they cannot take them to their place for any reason and the hostage are infidel fighters or they are govemment workers, then the Mujahidin have the right to kill them. If the Mujahidin are not sure that the hostages are infidel fighters or government workers, then they have no right to kill them, even if this means the hostages must be freed.

11- lf an ANA or Afghan National Police member (ANP) surrender to the Mujahidin, they should not be killed. The Mujahidin should take care of them very well, no matter if they come with or without a weapon.

12- If the Mujahidin judge or the provincial authorities sentence a captured enemy to death they cannot kill him until the IMAM or IMAM assistant gives permission.

Apparently, there are three modes leading to detention, etc. - captures, hostages and surrenders. I wonder if hostage (part 10) is an exact translation.

-------------------------
M-A Lagrange:

Please provide your legal argument for your assertion that "the laws passed by USA and the denial of war prisoner status" constitute "a rejection of the Geneva Conventions".

Bonne chance

Mike

[M-A Lagrange]

I went through the document I tried to look at which articles are actually respecting the Geneva Convention and which are not.

Be careful, some articles are mix: as S2 Art9

In accordance with Geneva Convention
S1 art 2, 4,.
S2, art 8, 9, 11
S3 art 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20*
S7 art 36, 41
S11 art 50, 51,
S13 art 64

Not in accordance with Geneva Convention
S2, art 9,10,
S3 art 13, 19, 20*
S 7 art 36, 41

*I suspect traduction error or imprecision.

What I think is interesting is the negative approach of Law and Right in that document. Where a western document will say that authority has competencies to judge such issues, they go by that issue cannot be judge by any other authority. (see S9 art 43 as example).

Mike, we can argue long time and you know that. There is whole bunch of layers working on that at ICRC.
Unfortunately, I am not in position (I do not have access to all my material) to come with illustrated argument. But the detention of terrorist without status, either or comon right or prisoner of war is a denial of the Geneva Convention.
Also, the absence of compensation for the individuals that were not recognised guilty of any crimes. This is in opposition with Geneva Convention. I would say Geneva Convention it self (1949) and the 4th protocol on civilian populations.

My point is that if you want to take for strategic base of you legitimacy the rule of law then you have to apply rule of law. If you declare that Rule of Law is what you promote, then you have to apply it also.
If you start, even one time to argue that you will not apply the Geneva Convention to one category of population and purposely do it without legal frame work then you create a precedent. In Anglo Saxon law, if I do not mistake, the custom prime on the law. So if you introduce a new custom then you create a new legacy. That you may or may not formalise by a normative act as a law. But still you do introduce a legal practice and then endorse it.

[jmm99]

Well, we could argue or we could discourse - my preference is for the latter.

We are probably coming at this from two different viewpoints: you from an Euro-centric viewpoint; I from a US-centric viewpoint. We should discuss those viewpoints.

The name Lagrange is "French", so may I posit that your legal foundation is in French Code Law or something similar ? It helps to know a little background as to legal knowledge.

In certain areas, Euro-centric law and US-centric law provide different answers to the same question. That they are "different" does not mean that either answer is wrong. Both answers may be right because of different constitutional structures - and the position of international law in those structures. Since I am sworn to uphold the US Constitution, that is the major constraint on my legal analysis. I happen to accept that constraint.

I'll think about how to present this in a brief, cohesive manner. A lot of the issues you seem to be interested in have been covered (at least to some extent) in War Crimes and its links - now approaching 400 posts in 20 pages.

Regards

Mike