How do you know which ones have valuable intelligence until you ask?
You dont of course, but if these prisoners truly have no rights, they could have been gunned down in Afghanistan, they could be executed now etc…
Paranoid conspiracy theories about empire building make for great talking points in your social circle, but you’ve provided zero evidence for your assertions. Why did we start our empire-building in Afghanistan anyway? I’d think we’d be better served heading straight for Saudi Arabia.
And why would a nation bent on building an empire allow the people to vote? Doesn’t make much sense. I’m curious if you’d consider the military bases we maintain in Germany as another sign of our empire-building. As an aside, please provide us with an acceptable plan for dealing with a nuclear North Korea. Bribing them didn’t work the first time.
I love the use of quotations around the word terrorist. You probably consider them freedom fighters or minutemen or some such nonsense. They’re blowing up their own countrymen for goodness sake. What do you have to do to be considered a real terrorist these days? As for keeping track of homegrown terrorists, I’m all for it. I suppose you’re very busy writing letters to your congressmen in support of the Patriot Act.
Why do you keep referring to the people in the Middle East as brown people? And you put it in quotation marks like you’re quoting somebody but you’re the only one in this thread who’s used that phrase. Your intent to paint your opponents as racist is hollow and pathetic.
“What can they do? Kill us?” Yes, exactly. Please elaborate on what we’re doing to ourselves that is far worse.
And when are we going to start seeing some benefits from stealing all that oil. I’m still paying $2.50 for a gallon of gas.
I don’t see how, given these criterias & the circumstances in which most of these people were captured, you can label them belligerents
I specifically didn’t take a side. Just posted the stipulations and potential reasoning behing the gov’t actions.
Sure they could and in Nazi Germany or the Soviet gulags, that’s exactly what would happen. But despite M.E.T.'s closely held beliefs, we do not work that way.
And I love that tagline. Where is it from? If you type that phrase into Google, it comes back with a slowtwitch post. Interesting.
so basically they can be POWs if they wear a uniform.
Don’t ask me. Ask the people who wrote the rules. I just posted them to assist you in your knowledge of the actual facts.
but if these prisoners truly have no rights, they could have been gunned down in Afghanistan, they could be executed now etc…
Read the actual Geneva conventions and you’ll see that these prisoners could just be executed now and we would be within the international law. They aren’t soldiers of Iraq so they have no basis to be called POWs.
Now how we as a nation should treat these people is a different story.
I should probably give vitus979 credit for the tagline…
We hung Major Andre within a few days (and maybe even hours) of his being captured out of uniform because that made him an unlawful combatant even though he was an officer in a recognized military unit. This decision was entirely in accord with the law of war that has prevailed for quite some time and that is incorporated into the Geneva Convention. But, maybe you believe that the man that decided to apply the laws of war in this way is a war criminal as well. You can find his picture on the dollar bill and quarters from 1998 and before.
The disctinction between treatment of unlawful combatants that are captured and POWs is incredibly important. POWs are soldiers fighting in a recognized military force that has a command and control structure. Such soldiers fight other soldiers. Such soliders do not intentionally target civilians. Such soldiers are subject to discipline by their own military if they break the laws of war.
The Taliban and similar organizations that deliberately violate the recognized laws of war should not be treated the same as the military of a nation state that tries to follow the rules of war. By contrast, the overwhelming majority of the Wehrmacht did fight according to the laws of war. This is why they were considered POWs when captured. We released such POWs when the conflict was over unless there was a reason to try them as war criminals.
But, even if these detainees were POWs instead of unlawful combatants, the primary change would be that we could not interrogate them. We would still have the right to hold them until this conflict was over. They should not be given hearings unless they could prove that they are US citizens. We have already made mistakes by releasing some of them as they have gone right back to the fighting. But, if you disagree, maybe we can release them at your home and you can take care of them.
I don’t know what new world order you are goose stepping to, but if you want to go back to the US Revolution to find instances to define enemy combatants, take this into consideration: based on your definitions, would the colonialists have been terrorists, especially the town militia? They were highly successful against the British due to guerilla tactics, and only occasionally/rarely stood against them in the traditional field of battle (nevermind what revisionist history “The Patriot” sought to portray).
Colonialists: occupying (then) British land. British decide to take back what is theirs. Colonialists resist, using whatever means necessary. 18th century terrorists?
Philosophical/religious ideals aside, from a strictly geographical standpoint, how were the Taliban any different? They were/are a religious movement based around certain tenets of fundamental Islam. Good guys–not at all, but we would have left them mostly alone if 9/11 hadn’t happened–their support of Al Queda was their downfall, not the 10+ years of religious/sociological persecution of the Afgahn people (and if you want to go way back in history to Reagan/Bush I, I can make a pretty successful argument that the rise of the Taliban was in direct correlation to our assistance in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan & the messy aftermath).
Back on point:
-
Taliban had just as much of a command/control structure as our colonial militia. As did the Viet Cong. Just because they are against us, does not lessen their rights under Geneva.
-
Your point: soldiers don’t target civilians. Shall we revist our actions in Vietnam?
-
The Taliban and similar organizations that deliberately violate the recognized laws of war Please give me an example of them doing this during the battles that resulted in the surrender of the Guantanemo prisoners. I’m sure there is one, but that is like painting all US military guards with the same brush due to Pvt England’s indiscretions.
-
But, even if these detainees were POWs instead of unlawful combatants, the primary change would be that we could not interrogate them. No shit. Why do you think Bush Co. is so intent on keeping them w/o rights. Slippery slope time.
-
They should not be given hearings unless they could prove that they are US citizens. I agree with you (assuming that this is what the Geneva convention mandates), however I’m fairly certain that the Geneva convention allows for outside neutral parties to examine & interview the prisoners–which Bush Co. absolutely does not want to happen (on any large scale that is). Also, Geneva convention also covers war, not conflicts. Per Bush, Mission Accomplished was a couple of years ago…or was he wrong (again)?
Try reading the conventions before you start spouting off.
You don’t read very well do you: (assuming that this is what the Geneva convention mandates)
.
Somewhat unfortunately, I feel their treatment is largely warranted and appropriate. No doubt, of all the detainees there are some parties more directly connected with terrorist operations than others. However, I would suggest that all of the parties detained are, at the very best, accessories to terrorism.
Have their human rights been violated? Absolutely.
Has the U.S. broken and bent laws to detain and imprison them. Almost certainly.
Is it justified? Yes, unfortunately it is.
Was it the smart thing to do. Yes, unfortunately it has been.
The paradigm of modern combat and asymmetrical war evolves faster than unweildy legislation and lengthy diatribes on how best to handle warfare “humanely”. It is an absurd debate. The very nature of terrorism holds as one of its most effective weapons our often outdated adhesion to a quaint morality. Terrorist do not subscribe to this. Remember, we are dealing with a culture who used execution as half-time entertainment at soccer games.
The people interned at Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Delta are extremely dangerous. Given the chance, they would willfully conduct murder without regard for human rights. They are quite clearly the enemy of the United States, and free and decent people everywhere.
It is good to take their welfare seriously and examine their treatment. That is important. It differentiates us from them.
A sad and unfortunate by-product of this conflict is the necessity of Camp Delta. In the odd progression of history we know it not likely righteous, but it is necessary.
Was the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki an abhorent act willfully commited by our country? Certainly. But the extradinary circumstances dictated it as the lesser of a number of evils.
For all those who cry “unfair” for the men imprisoned at Gitmo: I am sorry, war is a dirty, ugly, nasty affair that does not consult the rule books.
Just a comment…
There seems to be a lot of armchair quarterbacking going on. Everyone involved should keep in mind where they get the information they hold as fact*.*
The media doesn’t tell the whole story and if you haven’t lived it than you have no idea.
Michael
PS Good discussion overall though…interesting to say the least.
Wow, a realistic & non-biased assesment of the situation. Good post.
Maybe we could work out a deal to send them to North Korea. Kim Jung Il is known to be a specialist in the prison business. Particularly since ours are apparently not accomodating enough. That whole country is a prison. We have them show up on a boat full of humanitarian rice, and then the boat leaves without them.
If they were tried, wouldn’t a large percentage of them be convicted of offenses that carry a death sentence? Is this what people really want?
Major Andre was hanged because he was a spy. The same as Nathan Hale.
My question is if we close the prison what do we do with the prisoners?
That’s an excellent question.
On the other hand, are we planning on keeping them locked up forever?
We should implant them with “Order 66” in their subconscious and release them back to the Middle East
.
"The people interned at Guantanamo Bay’s Camp Delta are extremely dangerous. Given the chance, they would willfully conduct murder without regard for human rights. They are quite clearly the enemy of the United States, and free and decent people everywhere. "
Since the normal prison system has locked up innocent people before, I’m afraid that I am not as confident as you are that everyone imprisoned is a threat to the Western way of life.
Guantanemo is an effective propaganda tool - unfortunately it is more effective for the wrong side. I think it is hurting the reputation of democracy more than it is helping.
I’m not in favour of just freeing them but I would like to see a more transparent process determining the real terrorists from the cannon fodder.