So much for principles

I was really hoping that the US might practice what it preached in terms of freedom.

Neil :(

How does anyone expect the US to treat these combatants?? Are they not prisioners of war?? We should be treating them as such, and how can they be tried for war crimes until the war is over and all the crimes exposed??

they would just follow the Geniva convention to the "T" and treat these people accordingly. Of course that would mean all of the combatants out of uniform caught would have been executed years ago.

There is nothing wrong with making a captive "uncomfortable". Music? Air conditioning? Fear for their lives even? Humiliation?

Just don't beat them, don't put them in "the rack", and don't behead them, dragging their burned bodies through the streets like the scum would do to us if the rolls were reversed.

The captives have no protections provided by our constitution, and should get [b]nothing[/b] more than what is internationally accepted as the ground rules in the convention. Keep in mind the terrorists have repeatedly and consistantly not followed even this guide, but for some reason we don't hear any outrage over that?

And believe it or not, as such, they are entitled to more legal protections and "comforts" than prisoners of war, including the right to a swift trial.

As I said above (http://tinyurl.com/gd9zn), where convicted, no special treatment. Release them into the general prison population.

..... and that will depend on how you define this _____ that we're in. (I call it a war against an extremely dangerous Islamo Fascist enemy). If it's a "criminal action", so to speak, then one set of principle-based rules apply; if it's a "war", then another set of principle-based rules apply -- both of which would be in-line with a basic underlying principle that the country has followed for years.

And it depends on if you are of the mind-set of Osama bin Laden, thinking the USA is a paper tiger without the resolve for a long battle, or if you are willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy.

More later....

What makes us better, better than the extremists, better than the Nazi?s better than the Imperial Japanese?

IMO, it's our ability to make treaties like the Geneva Convention and stick to them. The Geneva Convention isn?t just a guideline on how to treat captured enemy combatants, it?s a statement of our principals. If we will sacrifice such principals just so we can pursue and punish our enemies how does that make you and me better than those who would behead in the name of the "religion of peace".

The terrorists you?ve captured, please keep in mind that most of them [b]are not members of Al-Qaeda[/b] but instead just Taliban fighters, regular soldiers. I did say [b]most[/b] not [b]all[/b].

Among them is one Australian, captured fighting for the Taliban and has no established links to Al-Qaeda. He has been denied access to Australian legal council, requests for an Australian trial have been denied and the latest treaty has almost ensured that he will not serve his sentence in an Australian jail.

You'll have to forgive me for this last rant but, that is one heck of a way to treat your ally.

There is an awful lot of talk about what to call the bad guys, what they do, what to do about them and with them. Perhaps some new words would help:

[b]neocombatant[/b] [i]n[/i] (2006) : a new kind of combatant who belongs to a neoarmy

[b]neoarmy[/b] [i]n[/i] (2006) : a new kind of army consisting of neocombatants that belongs to a neocountry

[b]neowar[/b] [i]n[/i] (2006) : a new kind of war where at least one army is a neoarmy

[b]neocountry[/b] [i]n[/i] (2006) : a non-traditional war-oriented political entity that operates like a parasite within the territory of one or more traditional countries. It has a neoarmy and fights a neowar.

[b]neocaptive[/b] [i]n[/i] (2006) : a neocombatant prisoner captured in a neowar

Many things are different for these neo----- things than for their traditional counterparts.

-----

Quoting from some of your posts here:

[i]"they are entitled to more legal protections and "comforts" than prisoners of war, including the right to a swift trial."[/i]

No way. They are neocombatants who are part of a neoarmy who are fighting for a neocountry. They are not merely criminals.

-----

[i]"Release them into the general prison population."[/i]

This is clever and innovative. But, where is your consistency about upholding American values? Prisoners in American prisons (such as pedophiles) who are at risk of being attacked by other prisoners are kept separate from the general prison population for their own protection. While it might be "fun", throwing them to the wolves would be decidedly un-American.

-----

[i]"I believe that calling our response to their actions a "war" dignifies these thugs in the eyes of other radicals and aids them in their recruiting."[/i]

Maybe. But, their leaders called it a war long before we did. They recruited a neoarmy way before our army was mobilized against them. Their stated objective is the destruction of the USA and goes far beyond a mere violation of criminal laws.

Call it neowar. It won't even be in their dictionary. While they are puzzling over it, a B-1 bomber can swoop in and surgically drop a few 2000 pound bombs on them. They won't even have time to say "oh neosh*t!".

-----

[i]"...As far as prosecuting those we have captured, again, don't dignify their status by calling them "prisoners of war."..."[/i]

The police capture criminals. The FBI captures criminals. Soldiers capture combatants and neocombatants. Most all of these neocombatants were captured by soldiers in a hot neowar zone. Some were captured by police in various places, but only because these neocombatants live and hide among civilians in their neocountries.

If these neocombatants acquire nukes and successfully bring mushroom clouds to the 10 largest U.S. cities on the same day, you can bet the U.S. military will be in charge from sea to shining sea for a long time to come. Then, all neocombatants captured inside the U.S. will be captured by the U.S. military, or by the police under command of the U.S. military. That would probably make the matter clearer for you, but I doubt it would make you smile more often.

-----

[i]"Treat them like the criminals they are. Charge them with murder, conspiracy, or other crimes."[/i]

What group of mere criminals commits mass murder conspiracy, has many thousands of members, has military-scale weapons, operates against us and our friends all around the globe, seeks nothing less than the complete destruction of the USA, and might actually succeed if we do not fight them with [i]our[/i] military?

They are not criminals. They are neocombatants.

During WWII, if police had captured Japanese or German enemy soldiers inside America preparing to blow things up, wouldn't you agree that they should have been turned over to the military? You don't really think they should have been arrested, put in jail, given lawyers, charged, tried, and convicted of civilian crimes, do you?

-----

[i]"it's about America being better than that"[/i]

America [i]is[/i] being better than the neocombatants. When they attack us and others, they indiscriminantly kill thousands of innocent civilians to accomplish their goals of terror, chaos, and destruction. When we attack them back, we are as precise and surgical about getting them as we can be.

The neocombatants behead innocent civilians, record it on video, and publish it on the web proudly for all to see. If any neocaptives are tried in military tribunals and are sentenced to death, I'm quite sure they will get a humane execution. And, it won't be published on the web.

-----

Corporate fraud is a crime. Robbing a bank is a crime. Murdering someone is a crime. Killing thousands of people at a time in an effort to destabilize and ultimately destroy a country is an act of war. Mere criminals don't recruit soldiers by the thousands and train and practice for attack in training camps.

The lack of clarity for some people is largely because these combatants do not fall cleanly into either of the traditional categories of "criminal" or "soldier". And their political affiliation does not fall into the traditional category of "country". It would be a lot easier if they did.

These guys are neocombatants.

P.S. If this lack of clarity continues much longer, perhaps our political leaders should use some of these neowords. And, perhaps we should enact new laws defining how we operate with neocombatants and neowar so that the old ones can be left alone. That might please a larger group of us.

P.P.S. Notice that I did not mention Iraq at all.

There currently is a very high muslim population in our prision system, and several studies about how it is a breeding ground. Just saw a documentary about it two weeks ago.

:^?

Who's custody are they in now? The elected Afghanistan government or ours? If ours, has their been a request for them to be released by the elected government?

With regard to the UN independent inspections, I agree you are right with regard to that. But, haven't they started since congress and the courts have overruled President Bush?

And the prisoners at Guatemala? Shoot, they have had more press coverage then the prisoners of Hanoi Hilton. They have better living conditions then they had in their home country, they have put on weight since the time they have been there. I do think these inspections should be allowed. I mean, seriously. How well are we spouse to treat them?

I do not think these individuals should be released. They will come back to fight us again, just like any prisoner of war. If for no other reason, to get captured so they can sit on their butt and put on weight. I don't think they should be tried, they are prisoners of war. Any tribunal's that occur should be done in the same context as the Nuremberg trials and Hussein's trial. Crimes against humanity.

9/11 was not just an attack against the United States. How many nationalities were included in the final death toll? I'm sure they were not all Anglo Saxon(white).

Can't remember who called it a neo war, but that is a good description. I can't come up with a better one, let's put it that way.

Dan

Why hasn't Nick corrected the typo in his title?
Has nobody pointed it out to him?
Has he not noticed?

just a wind up mf ;-)

It is not a good thing to try to prove how good you are by showing how bad someone else was. Hence your Gitmo/Hanoi Hilton example. I would wish to be better than that by choice not by default. This was the centre of my original argument.

By default Stalin was better than Hitler, neither of them I consider to be good people.

Now keeping the Afghans imprisoned past the end of the conflict is an extremely bad idea. They should be sorted into two groups, those who can be charged and those who are ordinary POW's. Those who can be charged (I do believe there are international laws that cover terrorism before 911) should be charged and given fair trial after the cessation of hostilities. Those who are ordinary POW's should be released after the cessation of hostilities.

Keeping those who were only fighting against an invader (yourselves) beyond the scope of the conflict would only serve to muster support for causes against you (and us by proxy).

Now in order to do this we must define the scope of the conflict or more to the point when will it end. IMO that is when the Taliban are defeated (defeated does not destroyed but beaten to the point where they can no longer pose a threat to an independent Afghan government). The Afghan conflict is not like the Iraq conflict, in Afghanistan the COW has popular support from a large section of Afghani's so the conflict is indeed winnable.

The soldiers of the Taliban are just that, soldiers (not the terrorists of al-qaeda). They want to go home as much as the next person and if they can etch out a meager living without destructive influences like the Taliban then we will have no problem, they will be content just to go on living, only when the dangerous can preach to the desperate there is a problem. With fathers and brothers in a foreign prison, there will be dangerous preachers and desperate people.

The remnants of the Taliban should be defeated by now but we grew complacent when GWB wanted to go to Iraq, we have ourselves to blame but now I have said that and in true British/Australian style lets just get on with the job at hand.

I'm not sure what you mean by "neo-war" but I have heard some Americans call it a "neocon-war" meaning neo-conservative as a derogatory term. When it was just Afghanistan I called it a necessary war, when GWB moved to Iraq I called it a stupid war.

on war, battles may be fought with tanks and smart bombs but wars are still fought with clubs as each side attempts to bludgeon the other beyond its ability to fight back.

Ya know, with regard to Afghanistan. I agree with you, there are two categories. Foot soldiers and terrorist's. Never really thought about it, but its a valid categorizing of combatants there.

With regard to your example of us trying the terrorist's and interning the POW's. The one thing I see in this is, the terrorist's are getting the better part of the deal. A combat soldier that is repelling invading armies(us) is subject to a longer intern if he is captured then say a terrorist. Why, because he is only a POW. It would be possible under how you laid this out for the POW to spend 10 years in a POW camp. And the terrorist to be released to the general public because he was found not guilty of terrorist activities. Ok, let's take that one step further though. The charged individual for terrorism is found guilty, and based on the laws of the country he is judged by. Is only sentenced to 1 year in jail. Again, the POW spends more time interned. Another question. The terrorist is found not guilty of terrorism activities, is he then returned to the POW camp or is he released or is he released? He was captured fighting us. Be he terrorist or not, that is another gun returning to fight us again if he is just released after trial.

Just a thought.

Dan

Wasn't aware. Last information I had about prison population was the usual high-profile stuff: White gangs, black gangs, Hispanic gangs.

I should have expected Islamic gangs as well.

As it has been going on for some time. The brits captured and tried IRA members, Israel has captured and tried Hamas members I fail to see a problem with the US trying Al-Qaeda members and throwing away the key.

Some countries that are sympathetic to their cause (not their plight) might complain but the majority would support it.

I can only surmise that you have not kept up with the news from Afghanistan.

You and GWB can wave all the "Mission Accomplished" banners you want but you're certainly not going to convince me that the Taliban forces are destroyed.

To the contrary, they are increasing their combative capabilities on a daily basis and being reinforced by volunteers from Pakistan.

You remember Pakistan, don't you? That is the country GWB stated was doing a good job on their side of the border; so good that the U.S. has presented them with between 4 and 6 Billion dollars in aid!

If you want to find the beginnings of the serious sacrifice of the principles on which the US was founded, you have to return to the mid-19th century when Lincoln became "dictator-in-chief" in response to the thoroughly legal Secession Acts of the Southern states. I won't dredge-up the illegal nature of the 14th amendment, yet.
Schools have been lax in educating people that the original founding of the "country" was based on a federation of states, local entities who possesssed the ability to control the smaller and far less functional Federal Government. It was designed this way because the Founding Fathers were extremely wary of the dictatorial central government that 20th and 21st century Americans have come to expect as "the design". But strong central government was never the primary focus of the Founding Fathers, moreover, their concern was the preservation of the rule of law in the states. If you'll look carefully, you'll find that three of the states in ratifying the Constitution reserved the right to secede if it [the central government] proved to be more controlling than they had given it the power to be. New York and Virginia were amongst the three making that stipulation.
Read the powers and limitations back in the Constitution - and you will find that the interpretation by more "liberal" courts over the years have moved us far, far away from the original intents. The courts are probably no less "liberal" now than they were in the 19th century, the drivers in certain political directions are just different. However, this means that they are no more accurate in their interpretation.
For example, there is no "separation of church and state" clause. There IS a stipulation that the Federal government will make no laws defining the practice of religion in the states. But all that means is that the Feds are to keep their hands off what the states decide to do, NOT that the states do not have the power to set their own standards. This comes from the days when the Puritans of Massachusetts were thoroughly upset by the evangelistic tricks of the folks from Pennsylvania - something that they don't teach much in schools these days, either.
We would be wise to read exactly what was said and understand it rather than rely on the interpretation of folks with their own agenda, eh?

The US COnstitution protects United States Citizens. It was put in place to protect us peons from the government as well as minority from the majority.
People in gitmo, and held at other places as "enemy combatants" have ZERO rights under the constitution. They have only tenuous rights under the Geneva convention due to them not being a regular army in an established nation operating under THEIR own laws. Since there is a government that was voted into place in Iraq these people are criminals intheir own nation, and enemy combatants in ours. they are NOT prisioners of war, since the Geneva convention only covers members of armed forces, not general citizens. When it comes to "getting information" from these people I am all for flushing Korans down the toilet, slathering them with pigs blood, parading them around naked or even hooking up their private parts to a generator. Not one frop of blood or money should be spent on these animals, and unless we kill them first, they will continue to try to kill us. that is their stated goal and I, for one, intend to do my best to see that I come out on top of this food chain. I will support anyone that fights on our side, and actively work against anyone who thinks we should "live and let live" along side these animals. Running away is a cowards way of getting out of a war. Appeasing the enemy is a cowards way into one.
Want to quote the bible at me? We were comanded to kill every one of them in "days of old" so go ahead and try that angle. It won't work
Will I be swimming against the tide here at TR with this attitude? Most likely. Will I care.. nope.

any active duty ship shall fly a commissioning pennant or flag showing both nationality and is property and regulated by owning nation from gang plank to anywhere onboard said ship