[DigitalWarrior]

Without a defined enemy how do we know when to free the "detainees" (that sounds so.... Orwellian)? I saw yesterday on CNN that they might be "rewarded" for their "co-operation". Are we going to try to "re-educate" them (so that they know that radical Islam is bad)?

Seriously, I know this is a difficult problem. The people can't be "just let go", but what the hell are we going to do with them while respecting ourselves enough to stay within the guidelines of ethical behavior.

[Ed N.]

Guess you release 'em when the war is over, same as any other war. Can't tell when that event occurs? Oh well. It won't be the first time (or the last) that POWs die during captivity, waiting for the end of the war.

They chose this war, not us. They would gladly kill us, given the chance. If they die of old age in captivity, that's more mercy than they would show us.

Guess I'm really saying I find it hard to give a damn.

[greyhound]

If its anything like the "War on (some) Drugs", they'd better make themselves reeeaaal comfortable.

[dadman]

Are they POW's or detainees?
Where are they from? AStan?
Was there an official declaration of war declared against AStan?
Is the action in AStan "officialy" over?
Are they all AlQeada(sp)?
Exactly who and how many are being held at GitMo?
Is it right to have blackhole prisons?
Is it right to be against torture at home, but send prisoners/detainees abroad for "information retrieving"?
Can or will the same concepts of blackhole prisons and torture be practiced in the future in the USA?

[rock jock]

I have always been for releasing them immediately..........right into the sea. They might make it to an offshore ship, or swim to Castro's side. OTOH, I hear there's lots of sharks in them waters. :D

[powerstrk]

After spending a little time in Gitmo with 16,000 Haitians I can tell you to be on the wrong side of the wire would really suck. So I am all for letting them swim out. Just two small obstacles, 1. Lots of Blacktip sharks, 2. The entrance to the harbor is almost 2000 feet deep.:D

[spartacus2002]

You guys who have no sympathy for the guys in Gitmo need to realize that the issue isn't who is in there, but who could be in there -- namely, anyone who dissents too loudly or harshly.

No lawyers, no due process, no habeas corpus, it's literally lock 'em up and throw away the key.

Before you start in with the "oh, you aren't patriotic, you care too much about them than your fellow Americans," you need to realize that DOJ has already threatened in several cases "plead guilty in the court system or go to Gitmo as an enemy combatant."

[Stinger]

Release them right after the hanging.

Stinger :evil:

[Bruce H]

I really didn't see the need to transport them there in the first place. They should have questioned them where they found them and left them there. Now we have a problem of what to do with them.

[Standing Wolf]

No lawyers, no due process, no habeas corpus, it's literally lock 'em up and throw away the key.

They're not U.S. citizens, and as far as I'm concerned, that's all the difference in the world.

[Lone_Gunman]

They should have all been killed in Afghanistan.

Everyone, with exception of a small hard core group of liberals in the developed world, would be better off. The prisoners would be in heaven (or so they think), and we wouldn't have a bunch of murdering fanatics to tend to in Gitmo.

[Duncan Idaho]

How do we know when to free the prisoners in GitMoAs far as I am concerned, the minute they can no longer fog a mirror, they are good to go.

Blacktips gotta eat too.

[HBK]

I don't know why the hell we brought them over there. We should've just shot them where they stood in Afghanistan.

[dadman]

By Spart:
Before you start in with the "oh, you aren't patriotic, you care too much about them than your fellow Americans," you need to realize that DOJ has already threatened in several cases "plead guilty in the court system or go to Gitmo as an enemy combatant."

Our version of "sign zee papers", gulag, and Siberea.
Civilized nations and governments have accountability.

[telomerase]

>They should have all been killed in Afghanistan.

The US did kill thousands in Afghanistan. Of course, the people who planned and ordered the 9-11 attacks weren't among them. Can you see that killing a bunch of Afghan civilians, many of whom had nothing at all to do with any anti-American movement, might not be a great move in an anti-terror war?

Some of the Gitmo prisoners are there because our "friends" the ex-Soviet-backed Afghan warlords wanted to get rid of some people from the next village over. And maybe, just maybe, some of them are there because they really are Al-Quaida members with some proof against them.. in which case the Army shouldn't be afraid to drag them into court.

[Lone_Gunman]

telomerase:

I see your point.

But I still think they should have just been killed in Afghanistan.

[rick_reno]

It's easy - we should establish pig races, the one who can ride a pig to victory in some predetermined number of races gets to go free. He's rewarded with a set of water wings and allowed to swim back to whatever hellhole of a country we plucked him from.

[HBK]

THe people in Gitmo aren't Afghan civilians, they were Taliban fighters. THere were not NEARLY the number of deaths as expected. They got off light if you ask me. I'm sure there were German civilians killed in WWII, but I don't recall anyone bitching about it. Civilian casualties are a part of war. What part of "???? with the bull, you get the horns" do you not understand?

[Destructo6]

Some of the Gitmo prisoners are there because our "friends" the ex-Soviet-backed Afghan warlords wanted to get rid of some people from the next village over. And maybe, just maybe, some of them are there because they really are Al-Quaida members with some proof against them.. in which case the Army shouldn't be afraid to drag them into court.
Got some proof? Enemy combatants don't go to court unless they commit a crime while in POW camp. What do you want us to do, roll over?

[gunsmith]

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:-lwkNbY6ehEC:www.angelfire.com/ny5/tributequilt/nyc http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:VFSFDEgtFVIC:bozman.net/gif/NY_9_11_01.jpg http://www.marklowry.com/images/attack.jpg

[Ian]

I see.

We should kill surrendering enemy soldiers.
We should execute prisoners of war.
If we can't execute 'em, we should do whatever we can to humiliate them.

Have you all been watching too many History Channel shows on Imperial Japan, or what?:banghead:

[Sven]

OK, i'm angry again.

[gunsmith]

Free them after the neck-tie partyhttp://pages.ivillage.com/dinocarolb/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/NYfiremnraisingflag.jpg

[Mark Tyson]

Most of the prisoners are not US citizens. The couple who were took up arms against us in a foreign land, and have thus forfeited their status as US citizens. They were not arrested in New York, they were captured while under arms in a war zone. They should not be tortured or otherwise brutalized, but our first and foremost goal has to be to protect ourselves, and if that means they get permanent residence at Club Fed then so be it. We give life sentences for murderers, don't we?

"Killing a bunch of Afghan civilians"

Please.

We go out of our way to minimize the suffering of civilians. And don't try to tell me otherwise because I've seen it myself(and I don't mean on CNN). Civilians die in war - sometimes a lot of them, and the US military takes it VERY seriously. We go so far as to put JAG lawyers in targeting cells to approve or disapprove targets for deep strikes. We go so far that in the last war Apache choppers in Iraq failed to return fire when fired upon by Iraqis on the chance that they could hit the apartments behind the Iraqi rooftop gunners.

What are you going to do? It's war, it's chaos. Stuff happens. A lot of these countries deliberately use their civilians as human shields - look at those Fedayeen jerks hiding in schools, firing from behind civilian crowds, stashing weapons in Mosques and hospitals. Is anyone shocked? Of course not - look at who we're fighting. It's horrible, but what are we going to do? Tell our people to just sit there and wait to be picked off? Then when a bomb goes off course they truck in the camera crews to film the whole gory scene. We can't win.

When one side abrogates the rules of war the other side is under no obligation to abide by them. That doesn't mean we kill civlians indiscriminately or torture POWs, but it does mean that our first goal is to WIN and we're going to have to do what it takes. Sometimes it's going to be ugly - real ugly. If prisoners pretend to surrender and then open fire, well you know what? Don't let me hear any crying about us not taking prisoners anymore. My heart bleeds - really.

If our enemies had the power we have they would kill everyone in this country and they would cackle with glee while doing it. They are despicable, murdering, delusional, barbaric, death dealing terrorist scum who take pleasure in the misery and death of noncombatants. Ignorant kill-happy thugs operating on a mediaeval ideology that glorifies suicide and murder, they deserve to be wiped out to the last Jihadi.

edited to add: No, that last line is not an attack on Islam in general, which has many permutations, some good and some bad.

[Sergeant Bob]

Gunsmith, thanks for the pics. People need to see those a little more often.

Mark Tyson, no need for a disclaimer. Everything you said was perfectly clear. It's a pity there are those here who need one.

[Lone_Gunman]

Ian,

It is my understanding that the people held in Gitmo are not known to be part of an organized national army, and are therefore not POWs.


They are our enemies. They would kill you if they had the chance.

Yes, I really believe that.

[WT]

LTJG Everett Alvarez USN was held as a POW by North Vietnam for 8-1/2 years. The prisoners in Gitmo have been there less than 2.

I think they can spend some more time there.

[DigitalWarrior]

I do not believe the real questions are being answered. The questions are:

1: What are their rights? Rights are not granted by the constitution, but rights belong to all humans (if you like to believe "endowed by their creator").

2: How will we know when to let them go? I think a man proves how civilized he is by how he acts under duress. We are in a real pickle but we can extract ourselves honorably.

3: Who goes in? If you say no American citizens, then should Americans be stripped of their citizenship for supporting terrorists. Who is a terrorist? Was the IRA composed of terrorists? Was George Washington a terrorist? What about Gen. Lee? What about Grant marching to the sea? What if the American IS a terrorist?

4: Would another country be wrong for imprisoning/executing our citizens without a fair trial? I know it happens, but are they wrong for doing it? It seems that two wrongs will never make a right. Just two wrongs.

[DigitalWarrior]

I suppose that I should give an answer that I believe.

First the whole concept of terrorism is a heap of double-think. Terrorism is the only action an enemy organization that is small can take against a larger conventionally superior enemy. It is guerilla warfare in the logical extreme, just a set of tactical thinking.

War is the act of punishing a crime committed by the state, by holding all of the members of the state accountable. Sometimes the ruling party can easily be seperated from the members of the state, so that the damage is inflicted primarily upon the rulers.

A terrorist organisation that is without a state sponsor needs to be treated like an international crime organization. They are merely murderers. Funding international crime organizations is criminal (I am not a lawyer, but I am certain it is).

Islamic fundamentalist terror should be brought into the light. Prosecute it like any other criminal act. If terrorists are sheilded by a state, then make war with the state for harboring criminals.

I am hoping that others will critisize my thoughts, because good thought like good government should stand in the face of critisism.

[Lone_Gunman]

DigitalWarrior, I will give you my opinion on your questions...

Your questions are somewhat moot. These people are our enemies. They would kill us if they had the chance. We should have killed them when we had the chance.

We still have the chance by the way.

Sure, they have rights, I won't dispute that. And I dont think they should be tortured, mistreated, or held under inhumane circumstances.

They should have been killed in Afghanistan.

[DigitalWarrior]

Gunsmith: I hope that you do not feel that I am attacking you or the importance of this event, but it is a poor argument you set forth. This appeal to emotionalism is the tactic the anti-rights folks use to sieze firearms. If I show you picture after picture of dead and wounded children, graduation photos of people who committed suicide, and baby pictures of children who were killed with a gun, I would not expect that argument to stand on its own. I would however like to see a good argument.

I can show you pictures of other camps in other times to say why I fear GITMO, but I would prefer to ask sound questions. Maybe I will get good answers.

Many others: You who advocate killing the prisoners, would you support your (rather extreme) solution with a rational argument? I also want to know if you beleive that is it impossible that one day you will be a prisoner in a similar camp for antisocial extremists. Why?

[Lone_Gunman]

In simple terms, they want to kill us. We don't want to die. So we kill them instead.

I guess that is not great philosophy, but it is a good working solution to the problem.

Yes, one day I may be killed in a camp for anti social extremists. I hope not though.

[DigitalWarrior]

Lone Gunman: The questions I ask would only be moot if they were already dead. I do not think that word means what you think that word means. If the answer to my question could change the future it is certainly not moot.

It is true that they would have killed Americans given the chance, but the history of accepting POWs indicates that it is not a crime. Please back up your assertion that we should have killed them. I believe that we COULD have killed them, and that would have been honkey-dorey, but saying we should have massacred them wholesale after they surrender is an extreme position I would be interested to see.

Killing prisoners of war is generally unacceptable. I am certain that the American Public would have been upset had Jessica Lynch been captured interrogated then shot through the left eye. I understand that our enemies do things like that, but isn't that why they are our enemies?

For an illustration of a moot point see
They should have been killed in Afghanistan.

[Lone_Gunman]

Digital Warrior,

Perhaps your questions were not moot, at least if we didnt kill them.

Are they POWs?

I thought only soldiers could be POWs?

[DigitalWarrior]

In simple terms, they want to kill us. We don't want to die. So we kill them instead.

Actually I think that it is great philosophy. I have the right to exist, you don't have the right to change that, so I will do whatever it takes to preserve my life.

Am I correct in interpreting this as you supporting the wholesale slaughter of POWs?:confused:

[DigitalWarrior]

I would think that if they are "captured enemy combatants", then they would be called POWs by plain and simple folk, such as myself.

If I am wrong in my classification, please tell me what they are now. Certainly not criminals, criminals get lawyers.

[Lone_Gunman]

I dont think enemy combatants are soldiers.

I dont think they are extended the same protections as soldiers when they are caught; at least I don't think there is any international agreement that would allow for that.

I guess know on knows what they are exactly, but what they should be is dead.

[DigitalWarrior]

What are you going to do? It's war, it's chaos. Stuff happens. A lot of these countries deliberately use their civilians as human shields - look at those Fedayeen jerks hiding in schools, firing from behind civilian crowds, stashing weapons in Mosques and hospitals. Is anyone shocked? Of course not - look at who we're fighting. It's horrible, but what are we going to do? Tell our people to just sit there and wait to be picked off? Then when a bomb goes off course they truck in the camera crews to film the whole gory scene. We can't win.

War is chaos, I certainly don't argue that. I am also willing to argue that humna shields in a warzone are being used as a defensive weapon and should be destroyed the same way we would destroy an Armored Personnel Carrier. They may be women and children, but they are certainly not innocent. I do not complain about us not taking more prisoners, in fact I am amazed that we take as many as we do.

Prisons are not chaos. They must be the model of order. We must have plans or recognize our need for them in a prison of war/criminal prison. I would be less worried if the Executive branch said "we know there is a problem, and we are looking into it".

I appreciate the need for secrecy on other things, but not the justice system!

[Lone_Gunman]

Dig Warrior,

If they are our enemies (which we know is true)

If they would do us harm (which we know they would)

If we are not bound by international law to spare them (which we are not)

Then why are we not morally and philosophically justified in killing them?

In fact, why are we not obligated to kill them?

[DigitalWarrior]

You bring up a good points.

Point three is not important to me. I would like to say that I do not believe international law to have any bearing on moral issues. If ninety-nine poeple out of one hundred believe that two plus two equals five, they are still wrong. If they believe an immoral thing to be moral they are just as wrong.

The first two points are good ones, but not complete thoughts.
Since the organization they were defending with was our enemy, and the defender of my enemy is my enemy, if they no longer defend it are they still our enemy? How do we know that they would still do us harm (back up the assertion please)?

We certainly are morally obligated to kill a person determined to kill us. However, I believe that each individuals intentions must be proved in order to warrant the execution.

Thinking of actually lining one hundred people up on the edge of a pit naked, then using machine guns to tear their flesh without each one being proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt makes me want to :barf:.

I fear for our country's soul.

[Duncan Idaho]

I am certain that the American Public would have been upset had Jessica Lynch been captured interrogated then shot through the left eye. Jessica Lynch had the guts to suit up, and show up for a war. She wore her uniform, and by all accounts, she did that uniform's honor, and her country's honor, proud.

Please spare me the nonsense of comparing these animals in moth-eaten rags with her.

The vermin incarcerated at GitMo revere death. The theologians they worship state that suicide for the sake of Allah is a sacrament. It is incumbent upon them (the death-cult nuts) to fulfill this sacrament. My best hope for them is that they get about the business of their unholy communion with all alacrity. My only regret in this matter is that I am not currently able to assist them.

Here is hoping that the blacktips have fresh carcasses to gnaw on this evening. :rolleyes:

[Shalako]

DW,
Why not just let them go then? How much more dangerous would the world be if some 2,000 angry jihadists were returned to the ranks of the couple 100,000 (million, billion?) or so that are already out there. Let em go. Then watch them carefully through the gun sites with the finger on the trigger.

I'd prefer that the folks who want to extinguish America just stand up and get theirs. Everyone else we could just leave the heck alone. But they called the dance and its not one with clear goals, intentions, players, or reasons. You want us to dance with them to our tune or theirs?

Mr Ballroom, meet Mr. Moshpit. Enjoy!

[DigitalWarrior]

Duncan: First I have to say I love that book (Dune). Having gotten that out of the way, emotional posturing is not the way to communicate half-informed pseudo-ideas. I am about to play a game that is gonna infuriate you. But it might make you think. I am inspired by the game mad-libs.

Detainee's Name had the guts to suit up, and show up for a war. He fought for God, and by all accounts, did his Lord honor, and his country's honor, proud.

Please spare me the nonsense of comparing these Infidels with him.

You are incarcerating a group of people on individual charges Duncan, and would make them pay individual prices. This is morally reprehensible. If they are guilty, give them individual trials, and mete out individual punishments.

I am no theologian, but IIRC, christians as a religious policy love martyrdom too (get a lot of saints that way). Would it be correct to execute Catholics for their beliefs?

[DigitalWarrior]

Let me clarify. I certainly do not believe we should let them go now! But I was asking specific questions, that I do not believe have been answered.

Shalako: The danger would not be statistically increased by much at all. But I don't like gambling with my life, and I will not gamble with yours. If we can prove they will continue to fight they should not be released.

In the end I fear that it is less destructive to Liberty to have guilty people go free because I could not prove it, than to have innocent people jailed because they could not prove their innocence.

If in our persuit to destroy evil, we become evil, has not evil won?

[1goodshot]

I hope they never get out.

[telomerase]

...Then it's all the more important not to treacherously kill them. If you train your enemies that they literally CAN'T surrender and get mercy even when they want to, is that going to make you more likely to win? Or is that going to make them fight like WWII Japanese (i.e. in a somewhat different fashion than, say, the late Iraqi army?)

There are practical reasons for being the good guys.

[JimP]

Hee goes the "bunny-huggin". Do you really think we would go through the expense and difficulty of transporting them around the world if they were merely "dissidents"? These are some really bad dudes. They continually state that their entire goal in life is to kill Americans. They continually threaten to kill the guards and make every attempt at doing so when given the chance. They kill women, children, men, animals, - it doesn't matter to them. I suggest you folks who advocate letting them go free actually go down there and take a shift at guarding them. They are stone-cold murderers who cannot be let free to re-engage with their terrorist mates. Lets get rid of the terrorist organizations, get rid of the structures and support, and then have the debate as to what to do with these animals.

[telomerase]

>Lets get rid of the terrorist organizations, get rid of the structures and support,

We're all in favor of that here; no one on this board is against killing terrorists (or bunnies, for that matter, though that seems a bit OT). The problem is that some of us seem content to kill a few powerless Afghan villagers (some of whom had no connection to terrorism at all; even the Army admitted that and released a few ridiculously old geezers) rather than deal with the people who actually fund large terrorist groups, i.e. the Saudi royals, the CIA, etc. If you're afraid to face the powerful when it's legal, I hate to think what you'd be like under an openly totalitarian government.

Now on the other hand if there is evidence that these people committed terrorist acts against Americans, then let's let the world see the evidence (and while we're at it, we can show them all the WMDs that the Iraqis "could launch on 45 minutes notice"). Otherwise we're just creating more terrorists by using terrorism ourselves, and losing our own liberties in the process.

[DigitalWarrior]

>Lets get rid of the terrorist organizations, get rid of the structures and support.

This statement made me want to indulge in sarcasm. I will resist the urge.

I do have several questions about the above statement. First it seems as if that is what we have been trying to do since 9/11. Are we closer to meeting that objective?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am willing to bet you thought YES. Now for a critical thinking exercise. How much closer are we? Do you have a percentage? Do you have a rough guess? I fear that we have gone 200 miles down a road that is infinitely long. I believe that we have done alot, but we are not significantly closer to the goal. I think a war on terrorism is a war without end.

I am all for destroying killers. But we have declared a war on killing.

[gunsmith]

so they may kill more innocent New Yorkers?
so they can execute their own mothers,sisters & wives?
they should have killed themselves before capture,if they don't like gitmo
they can leave...as long as it's in a body bag.
as a general rule I
am against letting people kill me and against capital
punishment as well.
so I guess that they must stay there till they die.
it's not at the top of my priorities really,I
have not thought about it and as far as the soul of the USA
I feel we should embrace the 10 commandments and teach them
in public schools and our soul would be fine.
My main concern is stopping the nazi style gun laws
that are keeping innocent NY'ers and Californicators
from defending their lives and their country.
the 2nd amendment is under attack
and the people who are attacking it are paving the road
to GENOCIDE I am in favor
of fighting genocide and the policies that promote it.
gitmo detainees are not even on my radar
the hate America crowd can look out for them

[HBK]

Well said, gunsmith.

[Mark Tyson]

I would argue that the detainees are not entitled to POW status under the rules of land warfare - see FM 27-10, or see the portion I posted in another thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35932

Now, that doesn't mean we can do anything we like with them. There are a number of problems with putting them on trial. Who were they captured by, Northern Alliance/United Front forces or US/British/Canadian forces? Were they Al Qaeda or were they Taliban? What were the circumstances of their capture?

[DigitalWarrior]

AM I SPEAKING ENGLISH???? I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN MAKE MYSELF CLEARER!!!!!

I certainly do not believe we should let them go now!

Having said that; I want to ask again


1: What are their rights? Rights are not granted by the constitution, but rights belong to all humans (if you like to believe "endowed by their creator").

2: How will we know when to let them go? I think a man proves how civilized he is by how he acts under duress. We are in a real pickle but we can extract ourselves honorably.

3: Who goes in? If you say no American citizens, then should Americans be stripped of their citizenship for supporting terrorists. Who is a terrorist? Was the IRA composed of terrorists? Was George Washington a terrorist? What about Gen. Lee? What about Grant marching to the sea? What if the American IS a terrorist?

4: Would another country be wrong for imprisoning/executing our citizens without a fair trial? I know it happens, but are they wrong for doing it? It seems that two wrongs will never make a right. Just two wrongs.

[gunsmith]

noNEVER EVER RELEASE THEM,UNLESS THEY ARE LIKE SWISS CHEESE
full of holes and in a plastic bag:evil:

they have alot more rights then they gave to the WTC victims.
they have the right not to be killed unless they attempt escape.
nothing more (imho)

We are in a real pickle

really? they are the ones in gitmo,they are in a pickle
if we make them swiss cheese (see above)
then they will be a sandwich:neener:

3: Who goes in? If you say no American citizens, then should Americans be stripped of their citizenship for supporting terrorists. Who is a terrorist? Was the IRA composed of terrorists? Was George Washington a terrorist? What about Gen. Lee? What about Grant marching to the sea? What if the American IS a terrorist?

As Bob Dylan's girlfriend Lynn R would say,"if you have to ask you wouldn't understand" 4: Would another country be wrong for imprisoning/executing our citizens without a fair trial? I know it happens, but are they wrong for doing it? It seems that two wrongs will never make a right. Just two wrongs.

we are holding them for trial,just not a speedy one...
when the "war on terrorism" is over they will have a fair trial...
:evil:

but as Bob Dylan said "it really doesn't matter anyway"

[Duncan Idaho]

Having gotten that out of the way, emotional posturing is not the way to communicate half-informed pseudo-ideas. There is nothing "psuedo" about the ideas. They are well established parts of martial law. If you were a warrior (other than in the digital sense) you would be aware of them. Please refrain from couching your ignorance of such things as something other than ignorance, by directing insults toward me. Detainee's Name had the guts to suit up, and show up for a war. He fought for God, and by all accounts, did his Lord honor, and his country's honor, proud.Name one prisoner captured in uniform that is currently being held at GitMo. Name one. You are incarcerating a group of people on individual charges Duncan, and would make them pay individual prices. This is morally reprehensible. If they are guilty, give them individual trials, and mete out individual punishments.Please :rolleyes: I am no theologian, but IIRC, christians as a religious policy love martyrdom too (get a lot of saints that way). Would it be correct to execute Catholics for their beliefs?You are no theologian. That much is correct. Tell me. Which saint is the patron saint of murder-bombers? Which saint is the patron saint of hijackers? Which saint achieved sainthood by murdering innocents????? :rolleyes: :uhoh: :barf:

As posted earlier by Mark TysonFrom FM 27-10 Law of Land Warfare, chapter 3:

61. Prisoners of War Defined

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

======[from same section as above]======

(6) Inhabitants of a nonoccupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading force, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

===================

80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

=================
These entries are a basic synopsis of the Geneva Convention(s) of which we are signatories.

In essence, those who rely on savage attacks on innocents, and who subsequently choose to slink away in their dirty pajamas/moth-eaten rags/etc., may find that there is a terrible price to be paid.

The moral of the story is that being a filthy death-cult nut in farthest Trashcanistan, doesn't really pay.

[DigitalWarrior]

Moderators: I realize that at the end of this post I walk the line, but I do not have a better way to answer that Duncan's particular request. If there is a problem, please remove the offending portion, or PM me and I will do it myself, whichever is easier for you.

Gunsmith: Thank you for answering clearly. You would have us try them sometime in the future. You do not feel that they have any rights. You feel that you know who terrorists are, but cannot explain it, and that is good enough for you.

I don't agree, because I remember the consequences of Cicero's actions. In regards to the question of who is a terrorist, my personal feelingas are "If you can't explain it, it propably doesn't make sense ."

Duncan: First I want to apologize for my indulgance in vitriol. I try to hold myself to higher standards than that. I failed.

Let me field your critisism of me. In respect to my status as a warrior, see my sig. I feel that thought requires actions be taken. I am ready to act upon my convictions. I am not a professional soldier. I do not know the laws of war. Because I am aware of my ignorance, and hoped to correct it, I solicited that quote from Mark Tyson. I stand in awe of the modern soldier's ability to communicate unerringly with his fire-team/squad/platoon, as well as his mastery of the international laws of war. I certainly couldn't do it better.

I am no Theologian, but Theologians tend to concern themselves with the ideas of right and wrong in respect to their belief system. They can often explain different facets of reality that I may not have considered fully yet. I respect that about them. I try not to hold beliefs, because I think that "If I can't explain it, it propably doesn't make sense".

I am ignorant of many things. I feel no shame in this, because knowing my ignorance allows me know what to correct. I am human, I make mistakes, admitting that allows me to correct them.

I believe that appealing to a sense of indignation is the foundation of a very weak argument. In the same way that less than a complete thought is a sentence fragment, an Idea that is not fully flushed out is a pseudo-idea (or if you prefer, a vague prejudice).

My favorite thing you said was Name one prisoner captured in uniform that is currently being held at GitMo. Name one.

Well my friend, If I knew where to get a list of the prisoners being held, I would be considerably less concerned. If you point me towards a list and the corresponding charges against them (and more information relating to the circumstances of their capture would be nice, but not necessary), I will gladly check to see if any of them were uniformed.

The state of their clothing is immaterial. Poor people fight the best they can with what they have. We did in the American Revolution and the Civil War.

If I need to remove this next part I have no problem with that.

"We believe with our heart and confess, with our tongue that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one God... creator, maker, ruler and provider of all things, corporeal and spiritual, visible and invisible. We believe that one and the same God is author of the Old and the New Testaments" - Profession of Faith

Numbers, Chapter 33: 50.Where the Lord said to Moses: 51.Command the children of Israel, and say to them: When you shall have passed over the Jordan, entering into the land of Chanaan, 52.Destroy all the inhabitants of that land. Beat down their pillars, and break in pieces their statues and waste all their high places, 53.Cleansing the land, and dwelling in it. For I have given it to you for a possession. 55.But if you will not kill the inhabitants of the land: they that remain shall be unto you as nails in your eyes, and spears in your sides. And they shall be your adversaries in the land of your habitation. 56.And whatsoever I had thought to do to them, I will do to you.

I do not want to start a religious debate, because that has nothing to do with the four questions. I just wanted to show that it is possible to see a Religious person who kills civilians as having a mandate from god.

[DigitalWarrior]

I understand that we cannot force people to tell us their name but, come come on, how hard is it to count?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=3517653&thesection=news&thesubsection=world

[HBK]

I am really not too concerned about those ******bags detained at Gitmo. Rights? As far as I'm concerned they don't have any rights. I'm more concerned about the American citizens they killed or planned to kill.

[Duncan Idaho]

The state of their clothing is immaterial. Poor people fight the best they can with what they have. We did in the American Revolution and the Civil War.Nonsense. You asked about their status. The guidelines describing their status have been posted for you. You choose to ignore them.

See more at: Ignorance: Main Entry: ig·no·rance
Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
: the state or fact of being ignorant

People that have been captured to date while in uniform, have been afforded all of the protections due a soldier. The rest of the pig-:cuss:ing rats are on their own.

[DigitalWarrior]

I was actually asking "what are we going to do" or possible "what should we do". The other thread had to do with what they are legally.

You are correct about their clothing being important in determining their status according to the geneva convention. I choose to ignore them here, because they say "not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment", which is as clear as mud. It implies a (fair) trial and a punishment which is not specified (execution OR imprisonment).

I have admitted ignorance. It makes learning possible.

Ig"no*rance\, n. [F., fr. L. ignorantia.] 1. The condition of being ignorant; the want of knowledge in general, or in relation to a particular subject; the state of being uneducated or uninformed.

Ignorance is the curse of God, Knowledge the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. --Shak.

If the UN showed up on your doorstep tomorrow, where would you get your uniform (unless it is already in your wall-locker).

I do not know, what did the official Taliban uniform look like?

[Bill Adair]

Very thought provoking questions.

First off, lets not confuse these terrorists, with any previously known form of armed resistance against occupation or invasion, identify them as honorable military combatants, nor classify them as Muslims, or human beings. They are none of the above.

There is only one way to describe terrorists, and that is criminally insane!

Rights are bestowed upon citizens of a just society, and the criminally insane terrorists do not deserve, nor are they entitled to, the same rights accorded law abiding citizens, or foreign combatants of any nation.

The true insanity is according the criminally insane like terrorists any rights at all, other than the inalienable right to life, and only if they have not been convicted of capital crimes, for which the death penalty is the usual punishment.

Innocence by reason of insanity, is societal insanity in it's truest form! It ignores the suffering and rights of the victims, flys in the face of justice, costs society dearly to administer, and ensures that the criminally insane will live to kill again.

There is only one disposition for terrorist prisoners, and that is life in a special prison for the criminally insane. Preferable on an island thousands of miles from civilization, where they will be occupied full time providing food and water for survival. Give them tools to cultivate crops or kill each other (which ever suits them), and materials to build shelters. Monitor the surrounding waters by satellite to prevent escape or rescue, and wait as long as necessary for the gene pool to minutely cleanse itself.

Suicide bombers are the worst form of terrorism, and the only way to combat suicide bombers, is to eliminate the gene pool from which they evolved. Let every potential suicide bomber know that he/she will likely kill or imprison their entire family in the process, and see how many are still willing to come forward to eliminate their parents, siblings, and their own children, along with their innocent victims. If hatred and murder are taught in their churches and schools, let their clergy and teachers join them.

Barbaric? Not in view of the alternatives. Let's just call it measured and necessary response, because nothing less has been effective.

Bill

[Mark Tyson]

The uniform issue is complicated - here's more from the Army's FM 27-10 (Law of Land Warfare), chapter 3:

======================

64. Qualifications of Members of Militias and Volunteer Corps

The requirements specified in Article 4, paragraphs A (2) (a) to (d), GPW (par. 61) are satisfied in the following fashion:

a. Command by a Responsible Person. This condition is fulfilled if the commander of the corps is a commissioned officer of the armed forces or is a person of position and authority or if the members of the militia or volunteer corps are provided with documents, badges, or other means of identification to show that they are officers, noncommissioned officers, or soldiers so that there may be no doubt that they are not persons acting on their own responsibility. State recognition, however, is not essential, and an organization may be formed spontaneously and elect its own officers.

b. Fixed Distinctive Sign. The second condition, relative to the possession of a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance is satisfied by the wearing of military uniform, but less than the complete uniform will suffice. A helmet or headdress which would make the silhouette of the individual readily distinguishable from that of an ordinary civilian would satisfy this requirement. It is also desirable that the individual member of the militia or volunteer corps wear a badge or brassard permanently affixed to his clothing. It is not necessary to inform the enemy of the distinctive sign, although it may be desirable to do so in order to avoid misunderstanding.

c. Carrying Arms Openly. This requirement is not satisfied by the carrying of weapons concealed about the person or if the individuals hide their weapons on the approach of the enemy.

d. Compliance With Law of War. This condition is fulfilled if most of the members of the body observe the laws and customs of war, notwithstanding the fact that the individual member concerned may have committed a war crime. Members of militias and volunteer corps should be especially warned against employment of treachery, denial of quarters, maltreatment of prisoners of war, wounded, and dead, improper conduct toward flags of truce, pillage, and unnecessary violence and destruction.

65. The Levée en Masse

If the enemy approaches an area for the purpose of seizing it, the inhabitants, if they defend it, are entitled to the rights of regular combatants as a levée en masse (see GPW, art. 4, par. A (6); par. 61 herein), although they wear no distinctive sign. In such a case all the inhabitants of the area may be considered legitimate enemies until the area is taken. Should some inhabitants of a locality thus take part in its defense, it might be justifiable to treat all the males of military age as prisoners of war. Even if inhabitants who formed the levée en masse lay down their arms and return to their normal activities, they may be made prisoners of war.

=====================================

Very complex stuff. I would say that they have rights not to be tortured, humiliated, right to exercise their religion, etc. But I have no doubt that as soon as they are released they will go right back to their Jihad against us. Individual trials would be difficult. Who caught them? US forces or United Front? Will witnesses be tracked down for each one? If some are citizens of Saudi Arabia or Russia (the Chechens) should they be sent back there for trial?

I don't have the answers. We have to muddle through as best we can, try to met out some rough justice while also trying to be humane and respecting the rule of law. We did so with the Nazis - we should do so here as well.

[DigitalWarrior]

Thank you so much, two very provoking ideas.

First:
Terrorists are not honorable, I agree, and the trial verdict of insane means that they will be held until they are sane. I think that this is a good solution. I think that there is a real good solution here if we can surmount two problems. First, who is a terrorist? Second, what are the moral ramifications of determining what thoughts a person may be permitted to have. We need to be VERY specific, in order to not have this be applicable to non-terrorists (dissidents of other types). I think that there is a difference that needs to be defined (I think that there is a difference) between Osama, and a Taliban fighter, and Revolutionary soldier.

Second:
I like the Idea of killing the whole family of suicide bombers just for pure thinking outside the box value. I thought (propably wrong, certainly not complete idea) that the Isrealis were bulldozing the homes of suicide bombers. That just seems to piss them off more. It is an inhuman problem, and may require an inhuman solution. Yet, I still find myself recoiling from that solution. But it still makes sense. It is easy to sacrifice ones self for a conviction, but it is not easy to sacrifice your baby sister too.

This may be irrelevant, but how would the target populations view us after we do that a few times. Wouldn't it be ironic if the United States discovered that the only way you could have the fractious populations of the middle east live in peace, was to rule using Saddam Hussien's methods?

[CZ-100]

When the vultures are done picking on their Carcass..:fire:

[Duncan Idaho]

If the UN showed up on your doorstep tomorrow, where would you get your uniform (unless it is already in your wall-locker).I have given the U.N. no reason to show up on my doorstep. Should they break the threshold of my home uninvited, they will be gunned down as would any other common criminal. I do not know, what did the official Taliban uniform look like?Picture a neolithic death-cult nut barbarian dressed in dirty rags, and there you go.

The purpose of defining uniform items/hierarchy of command/etc. is to limit the mistaken killing of innocents in battle. Real men and women come to battle in an identifiable fashion. The Taliban/Al-Qaeda/et al. choose to slink around and lash out at the unaware from beneath the cribs of their own children. They desperately want to be able to blend back in with the bystander barbarians the moment they encounter a target that can fight back.

THEY chose their own fate. I would say let them live with it, except I would prefer that they die with it.

[gunsmith]

Gunsmith: Thank you for answering clearly. You would have us try them sometime in the future. You do not feel that they have any rights. You feel that you know who terrorists are, but cannot explain it, and that is good enough for you.

I meant that G.Washington and our fallen brothers
in the Civil War were certainly not terrorist and that if
you can not understand the difference between them and
a "neolithic death cult" & if you require an explanation then you would not be able to understand the difference between terrorist & Soldier.
As far as the I.R.A, DO You mean the "real IRA" ,The I.N.L.A, I.R.A?
I have lived in Ireland and as far as I can tell,in those groups
you have some freedom fighters some drug dealers some terrorist
and a whole lot of British double agents making cash for their secret
Swiss accounts.
Both sides need to get over their hangovers and drink tea instead of
beer,get real jobs,get off the dole.
The British & Irish Gov'ts continue to deprive their people
of basic God given rights (like RKBA)
Both Ireland & England have gotten used to being
helpless sheep who wouldn't want a gun in their house....
I like it over there but it's a pain in the butt being an American in Europe
if you love your God given rights

[GinSlinger]

Where was the concern for uniforms, badges, etc during the Soviet invasion? I remember the coverage of Soviet "slaughter". I remember the administration at the time and others being quite upset about the same kinds of things that several members of this discussion are condoning. I doubt that most of the detainees are Al-Q; rather most are Taliban of some sort. Conspiracy is an international crime. In a conspiracy the right hand does not have to know what the left hand is doing. Therefore, demonstrate that these detainees were sanctioned by the rulers of Afghanistan, and that Al-Q was being shielded in Afgh and it seems that you prove conspiracy. Take 'em to court.

GinSlinger

[DigitalWarrior]

Did you know that the germans considered jews to be subhuman? That is why I find any argument that rests upon the dehumanization of a group is highly suspect. If in the definition of the problem you show bias, it often taints results.

Gunsmith: I was trying to be nice, because I prefer not to argue with record-players. I will be more frank this time. If you cannot back up an opinion with an argument, I do not respect your opinion in any way. If you cannot back up an opinion, you will never know if that opinion is wrong. If you cannot find that your opinion is wrong, you will never grow to understand more.

If you recall the scientific method the first step is to ask a good question. Questions are the basis for human knowledge. Questions create.

Why is it that asking a question means that I cannot understand. From my current understanding, the difference between a terrorist and a soldier is that a soldier wears a uniform. That is the only difference I have heard. Do you know another?

Why does that question threaten you?

Duncan:
The thread with you has veered OT, but it is still a good discussion. I will start a new thread,please join in, so that you may continue teaching me.

[gunsmith]

I did not say "they have no rights"
they have the right not to be killed.
This single right has been granted to them by being locked up
courtesy of the Red White & Blue.
A soldier follows the rules of engagement given him by
his or hers C.O's and his/her conscience.
(When I was in basic,millions of yrs ago I was told it was illegal to
follow unlawfull orders i.e
your not allowed to kill
a bunch of children cowering in a ditch etc.)
A terrorist primary target is the civillian population.
like what you see in WTC, Indonesia & Israel.
Personally I find it repugnant,this compulsion to
fret over the "rights" these psychopathic, misogynistic,genocidal,
misanthropic jerks.
Did you know that the germans considered jews to be subhuman?
Really? wow! Did you know the Germans had the same gun laws
that are in effect in CA & NY?
and that Nazi's used the same propaganda against Jews as they did
against the USA?
That the same propaganda used by the Nazi Party is eerily similar to the
propaganda seen at every "peace" demo in San Francisco?
Do YOU KNOW THAT?
Do you care?Gunsmith: I was trying to be nice, because I prefer not to argue with record-players.
Oh!???
I am soooooo sorry I am not as erudite and sophisticated
as yourself.
Y'see I got my g.e.d at FT Gordon
and have either been working or pursuing chica's
around the globe and I somehow have missed out
on the whole "ivory tower" thing that you critical thinkers
find so crucial to banter about the finer points of the rights
of mass murderers...
oh btw :rolleyes:

[DigitalWarrior]

Rights are not granted. They are inherant to being human. I learned this on this board. This board is reponsible for alot of my critical thinking ability.

[Devils Advocate] A terrorist's primary target is actually the economic engine of the war machine slaughtering his people and occupying his country. [/Devils Advocate]

Yes I know that and it scares me. It wasn't Berkley Bliss-ninnies who passed the Patriot Act. Sad fact is I think that Nazi Propoganda is similar to all propoganda advocating following someone elses judgement. Other groups are inspired by Nazi Control. Their thinking goes "if we just had that level of activism and structure we could make the world a better place". I know and it scares me. It is one of the reasons I started this thread.

My friend, Do not concern yourself with pieces of paper. They do not define your limits. Be inspired to do better. http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/facts/ or possibly http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/alincoln.html I realize they amy not be popular on this board, but I dont think anyone would have called them uneducated. I despise the Ivory tower because it distances thinkers from reality.

Citical Thinking means thinking and critisising. I bet you would never guess that I haven't stepped foot on a college campus from my spelling (LOL).

[Derek Zeanah]

Haven't really been following the thread, but this caught my eye:The second condition, relative to the possession of a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance

How does this fit with regard to MARPAT BDU's? "Recognizable at a distance" is considered a bad thing, and that's the reason for camo uniforms, camo vehicles, camo nets for vehicles, etc.

Do our soldiers wear anything that qualifies as a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance?" If not, can we legitimately claim protection under these same paragraphs?

Just a passing thought.

[Hangman]

Lone_Gunman: "It is my understanding that the people held in Gitmo are not known to be part of an organized national army, and are therefore not POWs.

"They are our enemies. They would kill you if they had the chance."




Then how come some of em got let go?

;)

[Duncan Idaho]

Do our soldiers wear anything that qualifies as a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance?" If not, can we legitimately claim protection under these same paragraphs?Yes, they do. When in BDU's, they wear rank insignia at minimum. The insignia are non-glare, but they are indeed visible.

There are myriad other differences as well. So many that I will refrain from listing them all here. Quite frankly I am just too sick and disgusted to want to bother anymore. One huge difference that I will list though, is that our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines do not as a group duct tape explosives to each other, disguise themselves, get onto buses loaded with children, and self-immolate while committing multiple murders.

There was a time in this country when that sort of thing didn't need explaination. God how I long for those days.

[Bill Adair]

Duncan,

Unfortunately, these terrorists are not human beings in any sense of the word. We are dealing with the cruelest, most barbaric, criminally insane psychopaths, this world has ever seen, and to treat them humanely is ludicrous.

They are like an incurable virus, killing indiscriminately and without concern for the aged, women, or children, and like a virus, should be eliminated from the earth along with the source of their mentally defective genes.

Until we come to our senses and go after the roots of this evil, they will continue to inflict pain, suffering, and death upon those who value life too dearly to react effectively.

They are counting on our being humane as a defense.

Bill

[Duncan Idaho]

They are counting on our being humane as a defense.I know it all too well. That is why I pray every day, that the death-cult nuts will mistake me for one that would be naively humane.

Here is hoping that one day my prayers will be answered.

[DigitalWarrior]

Uniform issues are taken care of in another thread. A poll called uniforms in war.

I guarantee that no one in GitMo
duct tape explosives to themselves, disguise themselves, get onto buses loaded with children, and self-immolate while committing multiple murders
Because if they had they would able to be held in a 4"x4"x8" box. LOL

Hey Duncan, unquestioning obedience is bad. Always. Native American genocide. Slavery. Holocaust. Picture these words used in other contexts.

There was a time in this country when that sort of thing didn't need explaination. God how I long for those days.

[DigitalWarrior]

I recognize that terrorists need to be killed. WT pointed me towards GWB's Executive Order of November 13, 2001. We have taken care of how terrorists are to be treated.

I do not think that the average Taliban foot-soldier is a collaborator. But I don't know because THE CHARGES AREN'T PUBLIC!

If we don't give them individual trials, then we find the prisoners guilty as a group.

MadLibs take 2

Unfortunately, these JEWS are not human beings in any sense of the word. We are dealing with the cruelest, most barbaric, criminally insane psychopaths, this world has ever seen, and to treat them humanely is ludicrous.

They are like an incurable virus, killing indiscriminately and without concern for the aged, women, or children, and like a virus, should be eliminated from the earth along with the source of their mentally defective genes.

Until we come to our senses and go after the roots of this evil, they will continue to inflict pain, suffering, and death upon those who value life too dearly to react effectively.

They are counting on our being humane as a defense.

Anonymous Evil German circa 1943

[Duncan Idaho]

Hey Duncan, unquestioning obedience is bad. Always.Yes, it is bad. Not being able to tell good from evil is far worse though. Not having - and not really wanting to have - any sense of history is worse as well. For instance: I do not think that the average Taliban foot-soldier is a collaborator. But I don't know because THE CHARGES AREN'T PUBLIC! The "average Taliban foot-soldier" isn't being held in GitMo. If you can't figure out why that is, nothing I could ever say would help you out on understanding why. MadLibs take 2 MadLibs ad nauseam notwithstanding, the problem with your liberal moral relativism is that you fail to acknowlege that your comparisons between the Holocaust, slavery, etc. are false comparisons. Blacks (in slavery), and Jews (in pogroms and the Holocaust) were the #%*%ing VICTIMS!!!!!!! They weren't the attackers!!!!!!!!

GET IT? NO? QUITE FRANKLY, I DIDN"T THINK YOU WOULD. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[Derek Zeanah]

Yes, they do. When in BDU's, they wear rank insignia at minimum. The insignia are non-glare, but they are indeed visible.

Your eyes are better than mine were then. When I was in, I couldn't ID rank from more than 5-10 paces unless they were an officer with shiny insignia on their headgear. In my mind, that's not "at a distance" (unless you mean a very short distance.)

I wonder if this definition is one that we want to cling to in the 21st century...

[p35]

Some people have alluded to this, but I want to say it clearly:

Some prisoners have already been sent home from Gitmo because they were, in essence, nobodies who were in the wrong place at the wrong time and got grabbed up. I doubt they're the only ones- in a war situation it makes sense for the Army to grab up anyone in sight and sort them out in a calmer, more secure environment. The question here is how we sort out the rest of the actual terrorists from the ones who were minding their own business and will do so in the future. It's pretty mindless to say "kill them all", as many have done- we can't, and shouldn't, kill every Afghan, and would only hurt our own security if we tried. I'm also not sure that every Taliban soldier is primarily anti-American- up to 9/11, most of them were focused on fighting Afghanistan's internal civil wars, and before that the Soviets, with our support.

So, we need a process to sort out actual terrorists from nobodies. No one who has watched the performance of the Justice Department over the last ten years or so can believe that they are capable of doing it honestly or fairly without outside supervision. Thus we find ourselves back at the point of holding public trials for prisners at Gitmo. I don't care a whole lot what happens to actual terrorists at Gitmo, but we do need a way to sort out the real terrorists from the nobodies.

[DigitalWarrior]

Derek, If you check out the Uniforms in combat poll then your mind will be eased by knowledge, mine was. Wearing a helmet that has a distinctive shape from that of normal civilian headgear meets the requirements explicitly.

Awesome, we agree that unquestioning obedience is always bad. We are getting somewhere.

Moral Equivilency is bad, but is less bad because it may be corrected by thought, if the subject is not unquestioningly obiedient.

Do you agree with:
1. In order to be able to tell the difference between one thing and another you have to use judgement.
2. In order to have good judgement you must have knowledge and understanding of the truth that you are judging.
3. In order to gain knowledge and understanding of truth, you may use questioning and hypothesising to illuminate reality.

Where is the magic knowledge fountain that I can goto to know that will tell me without a shadow of a doubt that
The "average Taliban foot-soldier" isn't being held in GitMo.
If there is no such fountain, why do you speak about my questions so derisively? Am I supposed to accept it unquestioningly? I am being totally serious. You say it so confidently, I assume you have uncomprimising knowledge that this is true.

Proof (as close as exists in the public realm) on the fact that it is not only high-ranking Taliban/ Al Queda officials in GitMo.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060303/content/gitmo_prisoner__not_angry_at_us_.guest.html Right wing critisism (i was surprised to see this)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/12/02/attack/main531326.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,941876,00.html (I know children are still dangerous, but they are not high-ranking Taliban organizers.)

You are almost right with the critisism of my use of the Jewish Holocaust to illustrate unthinking adherence to dogma. If we are talking about criminals who have been proven guilty of murder/attempted murder/conspiracy to murder, we must kill them, because they attacked us. Until it is proven, it seems that there is still an unanswered question of guilt.

We are victims of attack, no doubt. But are they, as individuals, guilty of our attack? When will we decide?

[Bill Adair]

DW,

I'm highly offended by your misquote of a part of my previous message!

You patently substituted religion (JEW), for my use of the term terrorist, and bestow a totally different meaning in the process!

I clearly stated in that (and previous) messages, that terrorists are criminally insane, and are in no way connected to any religious, ethnic, military, or national groups. Yet you imply that I condone religious persecution, and further insult me, by attributing the quote to the nazi movement.

If you choose to use quotes from my postings in the future, please try to keep them in context.

Thank you.

Bill

[DigitalWarrior]

There is a game I played when I was young called mad-libs. It was played by substituting different words in place of what was intended to be there. There were some rounds where the results just didn't make any sense. Others you could swear would have been uttered by someone. I had played the game earlier with Duncan. I recently played with you. I am truely sorry if anyone thought that you said that. I did not intend to damage your reputation. I thought that placing the changes words in bold would make it even clearer.

Having said that, I will clarify on why I find Mad-Libs to be a good sanity-check. If your enemy can use almost the same words to defend an action you loathe, you are not presenting a solid argument. I am careful because I understand that it is true "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Though perhaps I misunderstood your post. If you meant that after proving individuals guilty, we should treat them inhumanely, I might agree. If you think that they should be guilty until proven innocent or worse, then I think you either have not fully considered that position (ignorant) or are a fool.

(sometimes explenetives are warranted but still not used in polite company)

Bill look at this.
They are like an incurable virus, killing indiscriminately and without concern for the aged, women, or children, and like a virus, should be eliminated from the earth along with the source of their mentally defective genes

What does that make you think?

[Duncan Idaho]

If there is no such fountain, why do you speak about my questions so derisively? Am I supposed to accept it unquestioningly? I am being totally serious. You say it so confidently, I assume you have uncomprimising knowledge that this is true.[HEAVY SIGH]You probably have a point. I was raised in an environment where people devoid of common sense usually died young in a farm equipment accident. Sadly, the world is artificially safer now, and so less herd thinningtakes place. OTOH sometimes (in a less than lucid moment) even the best of us cannot see the forest for the trees.

As such, every now and then I need to be reminded that common sense is the most scarce commodity on planet Earth. And that sometimes, even those that may have it, may have misplaced it or something.[/HEAVY SIGH]

I'll assume for a moment that perhaps you just misplaced yours, and extend this appeal to your common sense - again assuming that you find it.

If you were an intelligence officer in Trashcanistan, and it was your sworn duty to secure and detain the most rabid, vile, and barbaric death-cult nuts the world has ever known, and you were aware that the facility provided to recieve them consisted of a limited number of berths, would you:

A) Grab the nearest disheveled Trashcanistanis at random, box them up and ship them off.

B) Employ all of the training and native talent - that one would possess in order to be an intelligence officer in the first place - in order to make reasonably certain that you will have in fact done your DUTY to the absolute best of your ability.

C) In addition to doing all of "B", also employ ALL of the intel assets available to you, care of the greatest and most technologically advanced nation that the entire history of the world has ever known, e.g. the ability to intercept electronic communications, exploit satellite/aerial imaging, ,etc., etc., etc...

I wonder if this definition is one that we want to cling to in the 21st century...One point inferred, but not implicit in the "recognizable at a distance" clause is the idea that a soldier in BDUs is still recognizable as such at a great distance. If, on the other hand, instead of MARPATs they were to wear (in a western country) jeans, a t-shirt, and a pair of Nikes, they would be in violation of the spirit of the clause.

Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Hamas et al. never do anything other than to wear the clothing native to their environs. For example, on the morning of 9/11 was Mohammed Atta and/or any of his fellow animals, dressed in the fashion of a Wahabist fanatic, or were they dressed in casual/business American garb?


And as Digital Warrior has pointed out:Wearing a helmet that has a distinctive shape from that of normal civilian headgear meets the requirements explicitly.

For those waiting/hoping for a public trial, your attention please.

The prisoners were taken in a battle-zone. They do not meet the requirements set forth for the protection of legitimate prisoners of war. They will be tried in military tribunals in which none of the intelligence information that would aid Al-Qaeda et al. in knowing what we do, and do not know about them, will be leaked to the public.

So save your breath, cyber or otherwise.

Here's hoping that the blacktips eat very well, very soon. :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire: :fire:

[DigitalWarrior]

It is kind of funny how everyone I've talked to agrees that common sense is in short supply, but everyone I've talked to also believes they have it (myself included). At least some of us must be wrong.

Duncan, you seem to have faith that government intelligence officers are dilligent and fair. You trust them.

I do not have faith in intelligence officers. Waco and Ruby Ridge are two instances where I think intelligence officers did not perform correctly. I would not put it past them to make mistakes again. I posted links to some mistakes which were caught and corrected. We KNOW that the process was not always correct. I think the birth of tyranny begins with trusting government officials to do the right thing, and not checking up on whether they are doing it.

I was wrong about the geneva convention status of the detainees. Can we morally enforce the penelties that are expressed in those laws, on people who didn't know them? Or perhaps to them an AK47 has a distinctive shape that distinguishes them from civilians.

Did you know that if we traded places 80-90% of THRers who responded said that there were circumstances that they would ignore the geneva convention? Are they immoral?