So is the practice of shipping prisoners of war long distances during a conflict. Britain, for example, sent German and Italian POW's to Canada during the World War II.

The Occupying Power may try accused persons before its own tribunals but no sentence may be passed without regular trial.

The Geneva Convention

But the United States administration now appears to have entered new legal territory and no-one is certain what the ramifications may be.

Apart from one prisoner - the US citizen, John Walker Lindh, who will be tried in a civilian court - it is not known what form of tribunal awaits the others.

So the question arises: what legal rules will operate as and when al-Qaeda and Taleban prisoners are prosecuted?

The best guide is a set of draft regulations drawn up by the Pentagon's lawyers, in consultation with the Department of Justice.

Tribunal composition

The tribunals are likely to be comprised of at least five military judges. Unlike court martial decisions, tribunal rulings would not be reviewable by civil courts.

Appeals would be allowed but would go before a separate panel of three military officers. Ultimate responsibility would rest with the president as Commander-in-Chief.

Does international customary law allow such provisions to be made? Again there is no definitive answer.

'American Taleban' John Walker Lindh will receive a civil trial

The Geneva Convention states that "The Occupying Power (and the US could claim that status in relation to Afghanistan) may try accused persons before its own tribunals but no sentence may be passed without regular trial".

Some of the features of a "regular trial" - such as the right of a defendant to appoint his own lawyer and for proceedings to be held mainly in public - may be met.

But whether a military commission set up by executive order can possibly guarantee the independence and impartiality of a regular trial is another matter.