I am far from sympathising with Al-Caeda mutionus prisoners but since I was not there this time to see the truth with my own eyes, the following scenario can easily be imagined and I am sure that was what really happened.
The fighters did surrender after NA and we guaranteed their lifes and decent treatment. Even they did not get explicit reassurances (which I am sure they did), taking someone prisoner in exchange for their stopping of fighting implies that much.
We know that NA are murderous bastards that hate pretty much everyone else (US included). So they were very likely to mistreat prisoners because many were of different ethnicities and general hatred for Taliban.
I don not think that our two (at least) CIA operatives behaved like lambs either if they share 1/10 of the sentiment present on this board.
So the prisoner uprising may have easily been provoked by mistreatment rather then planned in advance.
Why the heck try to smuggle a weapon to the prison to stage an uprising and be bottled up without hope of escape if you could use teh same weapon in the field to achieve same glorious death in the name of Allah?
As for the prisoners not subject to Geneve convention, I doubt that such distinction as explained to them before they were offered to surrender.
BTW - one person's criminal is another's freedom fighter.
Would George Washington troops in 1776 be subject to hanging after they were offered surrender?
In short, if prisoners are not convenient, you do not have to take them. If you need prisoners, take them by force rather then offer them mercy.
You can spare some bloodshed by deceiving people and then mistreating them, but it only works once.
The next bunch that we face will likely remember the Afghanistan lessons and fight to the death - costing us more blood. As Sun-Tsu said - "always leave the enemy a way to save himself".
Besides, once you start total "take no prisoner/kill prisoners" war, it is hard to argue for unlawfulness of killing civilians.
P.S. I sad "this time" in the first paragraph because there is some relavant experience on afghan prisoners that I am sure is repeated in this case.
Shortly after beginning of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, soldiers of both sides did their utmost not to get into enemy's hands alive.
Is it rational and sencible exchange - torturing prisoners to death at a cost of your own soldiers that are bound to fall into enemy hands? How many american lives is it worth to torture a thousand afghan prisoners? In my opinion one is too many.
You can argue that we do not suffer any casualties or prisoners in Afghanistan but neither did russians when we captured it.
It's occupying that proved to be difficult. Or living with the concequences afterwards. As Soviet Union and US both learned, those guys have no problem coming to us where we live.
miko
