Afghanistan-Int Law and Afghan prisoners-Who prosecutes suspects?

i'm not sure what the answer is

I can see it now.....

Iraq and Afghanistan wanting Canada, the United States and other coalition countries to hand over coalition soldiers to submit to their legal system for alleged crimes against their country and people because of the war.

Not a wise precedent to initiate or policy to make in my opinion.

yes that would be real bad policy.

The suspects weren't Taliban.... There seems to be some possibility that Hekmaytar, though not "Taliban", does sympathize with the cause: 

Hekmatyar, a Pashtun from Kunduz, is legendary as the Mujahideen commander, whose disagreement with Rabbani and Masoud over the formation of a Mujahideen government in the early 1990s led to the razing of Kabul. Their conflict was central to the anarchy that developed in the country, providing the fertile ground in which the Taliban movement emerged. Hekmatyar has ideologically been close to the Pakistani Jamaat-i-Islami, a more progressive strain of radical Islamic thought than the Taliban. Hekmatyar opposed the Taliban when they emerged, though many of his commanders later defected to them. He was eventually forced to flee Afghanistan, finding refuge in Iran. After September 11, 2001, Hekmatyar immediately opposed America’s war in Afghanistan, turned around and took the side of the Taliban, and proclaimed a Jihad against the U.S., returning to Afghanistan where he found a base in the unruly Pashtun-populated southeastern provinces of Afghanistan, from Kunar to Paktia. These provinces were his old power base in the 1980s, and serve the same purpose again.

At present, Hekmatyar has recast himself in the role as a magnet of Pashtun dissatisfaction in Afghanistan. He is pursuing a clear Pashtun nationalist agenda, seeking to appeal to the things Afghans have always loathed and often risen up to fight against: foreign occupation, foreign troops, puppet governments, violations of Pashtun traditions.Central Asia-Caucasus Institute  John Hopkins University.

Thanks for this clarification nanute:)

Most welcome ACP. There are some voices out there that think coming up with a solution with regard to captured enemy combatants and terrorists, is PC.  Summarily dispensing with justice, military or otherwise, and swift execution is the method of choice for dealing with the "enemy."

If captured on the field of battle, in the course of engagement, prisoners should be subject to Military Justice. The larger problem is what to do with suspected combatants or terrorists. This is the area that has so many on the right, "clutching the pearls." Innocent until proven guilty is passe', and scorned as some type of evil left wing conspiracy that gets equated with sympathizing with the enemy. I'd love to dispense with justice and kill the bastards just as much as the next guy. But, I'm not willing to give up my morality or sense of right and wrong to condone vengeance in the name of justice. Call me old school, call me a radical leftist, (not you ACP), I don't care how my thoughts are labeled. I'm sticking with my principles until the absolute moralists, and authoritarians have taken over and come breaking down my door.

Thanks for this Roy.   I would think though that these measures, in the case of the Taliban, would require a declaration of war.  In all likelihood the invasion was legal under Article 51 under the UN Charter.  That is debateable though.

I think both of you make valid points.  After 2003 when the UNSC authorized NATO to take all necessary action in assisting the Afghan Interim authority, to take all necessary measures, the mandate became clear.  Up to that point, I think, the action was on a slippery slope. 

Canada had one battlegroup (battalion size) under command of U.S. Forces in early 2002.  The Canadian Government at that time claimed that the invasion of Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN.  This action was more of an attempt to satisfy the Bush Administration for snubbing them over the Iraq invasion.

Sure smacks of political grandstanding by the opposition.

As you well know, the Taliban are not recognized as soldiers and do not fall under the Geneva convention, secondly to try them in  Canada under our current cultural Puppy and Kisses laws and lefty grandstanding by media, special interest groups, opposition politicans would most likely see these guy spend little time in jail, and when they get out they would be given a welfare cheque, housing and Canadian Citizenship, cause Canada does not send criminals back to their homeland in Afghanistan where the chance of torture or death is likely.

I say let their own country deal with them, after all who are we to chastise another culture and their way of doing things, especially when we let them practice some of their barbaric traditions when they are living in Canada, certainly smacks of hypocrisy when they can do it here in Canada, but we scream bloody murder when they do it in their own country.