Can it be true? Obama orders Miranda Rights for Foreign enemies!!!

[Tech_Esq]

no we have jailed people with no trial at all and I never said it was journalist that we imprisoned did I.
And if you don't see the hyprocrisy that is your problem.

So you are saying that North Korea is in a war with us captured US journalists and jailed them without a fair trial?

Because we're having a war with the people that we are capturing. So if you are trying to make an apples to apples comparison, all the parties in your analogy need to stand in like stead to each other.

giving the fact we are only at a seize fire with North Korea and occupy their border I would say we are war with them . And I said people are bitching about the fact they did not get a fair trial, I never once gave my opinion on the subject.
And if we want to seperate ourselves from the people we are at war with then yes we should give are prisoners of war a fair trial otherwise we are no better than who we are fighting.

That would be a "cease" fire. A seize fire would require corrective action and my be caused by excessive heating of the barrel during firing. As a matter of fact I haven't given my view on the women taken prisoner either.

So, your current claim is that there is no possible way to tell the difference between the United States of America and a group of thugs who routinely behead people unless we fairly try the ones of them that we capture.

That seems prima facie like a silly statement to me. But, let's poke it with a stick and see what happens.

"We should give are (sic) prisoners of war a fair trial"

Well, if a country we were at war with attempted to try our prisoners of war we would be fit to be tied and hell hath no fury! You don't try prisoners of war unless they committed a war crime of some sort.

"otherwise we are no better than those we are fighting"

To the contrary, you can't point to one single prisoner we've beheaded. (We'd have to be doing that to be "no better"). As far as what we are actually doing, if we keep prisoners in accordance with the Geneva Conventions for the duration of hostilities and never charge them with anything, then we are treating them as we would a POW.

Do you have a problem with that?

 

[Nik]

That's exactly the question I put to NIK earlier in this thread. Bush created an enemy combatant category not recognized by the Geneva Conventions. He then treated them "pretty much" like POWs, with a tinge of criminal. I see no reason to be bound by that. We can just go with what Geneva gives us.

If they are POWs we need to hold them until the end of hostilities. (However long that is).

Or, treat them as unlawful combatants and try and execute them for war crimes. (Just being an unlawful combatant is a war crime.)

That still leaves a few people in limbo, but the vast majority will be cleaned up that way.....It's a good start.

Being an unlawful combatant is a war crime? Really? Says who exactly?

Look at what you just wrote.

Surely such an esteemed lawyer such as yourself wouldn't rely on wordplay to make a point, eh? Surely you also know that a "war crime" is a term of art, and is not merely anything against humanitarian law, yes?

See Article 37 GC

Any evidence that these illegal combatants posed as civilians?

Besides the fact that expecting the geneva conventions to apply to enemy combatants is really, really stupid. The term enemy combatant was created by Bush to create a set of people whom the geneva conventions don't apply too. Its pretty absurd to then turn around and say these set of people must follow the geneva conventions. And, by the way, if the geneva conventions do apply to them, you don't get to summarily execute them no matter what.

 

[Nik]

In a story by Stephen F. Hayes in the Weekly Standard, The Obama Administration has ordered the FBI and CIA to give terrorists anywhere in the world the Rights of an American Citizen, they must be read their Miranda rights.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

QUESTION?
Has he turned foreign terrorists & enemy combatants into American citizens on the battlefield? Are we the American taxpayer to pay for these enemy combatants attorneys?

Obama is on video during the campaign season specifically stating that HE WOULD NEVER DO THIS. Is this story true?


Miranda Rights for non-American Terrorists

you know what I think is funny is people are bitching about those two journalist not getting a fair trial in North Korea and being sent to prison but we do the same thing here and it is alright. If we want to seperate ourselves from countries like North Korea we need to give them a fair trial and do suck things as read them their miranda rights otherwise we are no better than North Korea.

We jailed journalists after a sham trial?

Really? I missed that.....link?

No, we just jailed people after no trial at all. Hundreds of them, actually.

 

[Luissa]

So you are saying that North Korea is in a war with us captured US journalists and jailed them without a fair trial?

Because we're having a war with the people that we are capturing. So if you are trying to make an apples to apples comparison, all the parties in your analogy need to stand in like stead to each other.

giving the fact we are only at a seize fire with North Korea and occupy their border I would say we are war with them . And I said people are bitching about the fact they did not get a fair trial, I never once gave my opinion on the subject.
And if we want to seperate ourselves from the people we are at war with then yes we should give are prisoners of war a fair trial otherwise we are no better than who we are fighting.

That would be a "cease" fire. A seize fire would require corrective action and my be caused by excessive heating of the barrel during firing. As a matter of fact I haven't given my view on the women taken prisoner either.

So, your current claim is that there is no possible way to tell the difference between the United States of America and a group of thugs who routinely behead people unless we fairly try the ones of them that we capture.

That seems prima facie like a silly statement to me. But, let's poke it with a stick and see what happens.

"We should give are (sic) prisoners of war a fair trial"

Well, if a country we were at war with attempted to try our prisoners of war we would be fit to be tied and hell hath no fury! You don't try prisoners of war unless they committed a war crime of some sort.

?

Sorry Cease Fire, got my words mixed up! And I never said it was you who was upset. And isn't North Korea doing just as you say, since we are still at war with them so therefore they already put the prisoners through a trial under wartime and I would say we are alittle pissed about this. And to North Korea they did commit a war crime of sorts.
And my opinion is those journalist should have known where the border was, not saying they deserve to go to prison but they should have been alittle more responsible.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Being an unlawful combatant is a war crime? Really? Says who exactly?

Look at what you just wrote.

Surely such an esteemed lawyer such as yourself wouldn't rely on wordplay to make a point, eh? Surely you also know that a "war crime" is a term of art, and is not merely anything against humanitarian law, yes?

See Article 37 GC

Any evidence that these illegal combatants posed as civilians?

Besides the fact that expecting the geneva conventions to apply to enemy combatants is really, really stupid. The term enemy combatant was created by Bush to create a set of people whom the geneva conventions don't apply too. Its pretty absurd to then turn around and say these set of people must follow the geneva conventions. And, by the way, if the geneva conventions do apply to them, you don't get to summarily execute them no matter what.

I'm sure there is. As I'm sure you are aware, every case has its own merits.

I never said anything about "enemy combatants" except that it was a concept that Bush came up with and I see no reason why we should be bound by that concept. See above.

You cannot be outside of Geneva. If there are hostilities, you are something under Geneva. If these irregular troops do not fit within any privileged combatant definition, then they are unprivileged or perfidious. Which would depend on the circumstances of each.

It depends what you mean by summary. I just meant not taking a long time (like the 10 - 20 years it normally takes us to carry out the death penalty). Whether execution is always the sentence, again depends on the case. However, unprivileged combatants are to be tried under the laws of the nation holding them captive. We do have the death penalty under federal law. So, they may be tried and found guilty of an offense for which the penalty is execution. Given what happens on the battlefield, it seems more likely than not that the person being held probably committed some crime for which capital punishment would be allowed.

I believe it would be appropriate to try that person near the spot where the crime occurred and not in an American courtroom 8,000 miles from where the events occurred. Realistic appeal would seem to be somewhat limited by the nature of crimes.

 

[Tech_Esq]

giving the fact we are only at a seize fire with North Korea and occupy their border I would say we are war with them . And I said people are bitching about the fact they did not get a fair trial, I never once gave my opinion on the subject.
And if we want to seperate ourselves from the people we are at war with then yes we should give are prisoners of war a fair trial otherwise we are no better than who we are fighting.

That would be a "cease" fire. A seize fire would require corrective action and my be caused by excessive heating of the barrel during firing. As a matter of fact I haven't given my view on the women taken prisoner either.

So, your current claim is that there is no possible way to tell the difference between the United States of America and a group of thugs who routinely behead people unless we fairly try the ones of them that we capture.

That seems prima facie like a silly statement to me. But, let's poke it with a stick and see what happens.

"We should give are (sic) prisoners of war a fair trial"

Well, if a country we were at war with attempted to try our prisoners of war we would be fit to be tied and hell hath no fury! You don't try prisoners of war unless they committed a war crime of some sort.

?

Sorry Cease Fire, got my words mixed up! And I never said it was you who was upset. And isn't North Korea doing just as you say, since we are still at war with them so therefore they already put the prisoners through a trial under wartime and I would say we are alittle pissed about this. And to North Korea they did commit a war crime of sorts.
And my opinion is those journalist should have known where the border was, not saying they deserve to go to prison but they should have been alittle more responsible.

With NK, I think it is a bit different. First, I'm not sure about the facts of the case (nor do I think anyone is). The claim by NK is that the women went over the Yalu River to the NK side and did something (as yet undisclosed) bad to them. I have also heard that it is possible that NK agents went to the Chinese side of the border and abducted the two women. So, that part is not clear to me.

I think it would be much more apples and apples if we were talking about actions taken on the DMZ. For instance, if we were conducting a combat patrol in the DMZ (which we do regularly) and we killed several NK Army forces (which happens all the time). Then, somehow, they took our troops prisoner (which almost never happens). In that case, we would have a somewhat like situation.

I think what people are most angry about with the NK situation is that the charges against the women were never made known. There was no real defense for them. And, the sentence seems unduly harsh given what we know. (There is also the issue about whether they were ever in Korea of their own volition and that this all comes in the context of them throwing a three year old type hissy fit with Atomic tests and missile "tests" so there is some thought that this is all just another political move and these women are just pawns).

 

[Luissa]

That would be a "cease" fire. A seize fire would require corrective action and my be caused by excessive heating of the barrel during firing. As a matter of fact I haven't given my view on the women taken prisoner either.

So, your current claim is that there is no possible way to tell the difference between the United States of America and a group of thugs who routinely behead people unless we fairly try the ones of them that we capture.

That seems prima facie like a silly statement to me. But, let's poke it with a stick and see what happens.

"We should give are (sic) prisoners of war a fair trial"

Well, if a country we were at war with attempted to try our prisoners of war we would be fit to be tied and hell hath no fury! You don't try prisoners of war unless they committed a war crime of some sort.

?

Sorry Cease Fire, got my words mixed up! And I never said it was you who was upset. And isn't North Korea doing just as you say, since we are still at war with them so therefore they already put the prisoners through a trial under wartime and I would say we are alittle pissed about this. And to North Korea they did commit a war crime of sorts.
And my opinion is those journalist should have known where the border was, not saying they deserve to go to prison but they should have been alittle more responsible.

With NK, I think it is a bit different. First, I'm not sure about the facts of the case (nor do I think anyone is). The claim by NK is that the women went over the Yalu River to the NK side and did something (as yet undisclosed) bad to them. I have also heard that it is possible that NK agents went to the Chinese side of the border and abducted the two women. So, that part is not clear to me.

I think it would be much more apples and apples if we were talking about actions taken on the DMZ. For instance, if we were conducting a combat patrol in the DMZ (which we do regularly) and we killed several NK Army forces (which happens all the time). Then, somehow, they took our troops prisoner (which almost never happens). In that case, we would have a somewhat like situation.

I think what people are most angry about with the NK situation is that the charges against the women were never made known. There was no real defense for them. And, the sentence seems unduly harsh given what we know. (There is also the issue about whether they were ever in Korea of their own volition and that this all comes in the context of them throwing a three year old type hissy fit with Atomic tests and missile "tests" so there is some thought that this is all just another political move and these women are just pawns).

don't we have prisoners in Gitmo where we have never disclosed what they did or where it is unclear what they even really did. And I also think North Korea is using them as a pawn but I also think it was stupid move on their part and they will answering to China I believe real soon.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sorry Cease Fire, got my words mixed up! And I never said it was you who was upset. And isn't North Korea doing just as you say, since we are still at war with them so therefore they already put the prisoners through a trial under wartime and I would say we are alittle pissed about this. And to North Korea they did commit a war crime of sorts.
And my opinion is those journalist should have known where the border was, not saying they deserve to go to prison but they should have been alittle more responsible.

With NK, I think it is a bit different. First, I'm not sure about the facts of the case (nor do I think anyone is). The claim by NK is that the women went over the Yalu River to the NK side and did something (as yet undisclosed) bad to them. I have also heard that it is possible that NK agents went to the Chinese side of the border and abducted the two women. So, that part is not clear to me.

I think it would be much more apples and apples if we were talking about actions taken on the DMZ. For instance, if we were conducting a combat patrol in the DMZ (which we do regularly) and we killed several NK Army forces (which happens all the time). Then, somehow, they took our troops prisoner (which almost never happens). In that case, we would have a somewhat like situation.

I think what people are most angry about with the NK situation is that the charges against the women were never made known. There was no real defense for them. And, the sentence seems unduly harsh given what we know. (There is also the issue about whether they were ever in Korea of their own volition and that this all comes in the context of them throwing a three year old type hissy fit with Atomic tests and missile "tests" so there is some thought that this is all just another political move and these women are just pawns).

don't we have prisoners in Gitmo where we have never disclosed what they did or where it is unclear what they even really did. And I also think North Korea is using them as a pawn but I also think it was stupid move on their part and they will answering to China I believe real soon.

There may be. To be perfectly honest I haven't been one of the people trying to find out why every single person in Gitmo is there. I know there continues to be a substantial chunk of people there that it has been determined they can be released, but no country will take them. So, they are there as a victim of circumstance. Nobody intends to charge them with anything. Of the remainder, my understanding is most we captured on one battlefield or another. And lastly, there is another substantial chunk that were not captured on the battlefield but were captured in pursuit of the war against terrorism. That is people like financiers, facilitators and other back-end support people who work with the terror networks to make them go.

My point through all of this is that we should not "try" people we capture on the battlefield. (Unless they have committed a war crime). I would be far more comfortable treating them as POWs. We capture them and hold them until hostilities end.

For people captured in non-military circumstances, we have a choice to make. If we want them to convict them of a crime, then we should have the FBI build a case against them, arrest them and try them. If we want them because they can give us intel, then we should have the CIA grab them up and interrogate them until they give us the intel we need.

Now that leaves an open question. What do we do with those people? Let them go? Kill them? Let them go under circumstances that would guarantee their death? (i.e. tell the bad guys they cooperated with us).

This last place is where you have to understand there is national survival at stake. This really isn't a game. Bad things will have to happen, but we should agree how they will happen and what will happen.

 

[Nik]

Look at what you just wrote.

Surely such an esteemed lawyer such as yourself wouldn't rely on wordplay to make a point, eh? Surely you also know that a "war crime" is a term of art, and is not merely anything against humanitarian law, yes?

See Article 37 GC

Any evidence that these illegal combatants posed as civilians?

Besides the fact that expecting the geneva conventions to apply to enemy combatants is really, really stupid. The term enemy combatant was created by Bush to create a set of people whom the geneva conventions don't apply too. Its pretty absurd to then turn around and say these set of people must follow the geneva conventions. And, by the way, if the geneva conventions do apply to them, you don't get to summarily execute them no matter what.

I never said anything about "enemy combatants" except that it was a concept that Bush came up with and I see no reason why we should be bound by that concept. See above.

You cannot be outside of Geneva. If there are hostilities, you are something under Geneva. If these irregular troops do not fit within any privileged combatant definition, then they are unprivileged or perfidious. Which would depend on the circumstances of each.

"Unlawful" combatants aren't covered under Geneva. You can describe them as privileged or unprivileged, but unlawful isn't a term they use.

It depends what you mean by summary. I just meant not taking a long time (like the 10 - 20 years it normally takes us to carry out the death penalty). Whether execution is always the sentence, again depends on the case. However, unprivileged combatants are to be tried under the laws of the nation holding them captive. We do have the death penalty under federal law. So, they may be tried and found guilty of an offense for which the penalty is execution. Given what happens on the battlefield, it seems more likely than not that the person being held probably committed some crime for which capital punishment would be allowed.

You mean if you mean the actual definition, or something else you just made up?

Summary execution is a term of art. From wiki:

A summary execution is a variety of extrajudicial killing in which a person is killed on the spot without trial. Summary executions are practiced by police, military, and paramilitary organizations and are associated with guerrilla warfare, terrorism and counterinsurgency.

They are, by definition, extrajuducial. Hence my very strong reaction against the suggestion.

I believe it would be appropriate to try that person near the spot where the crime occurred and not in an American courtroom 8,000 miles from where the events occurred. Realistic appeal would seem to be somewhat limited by the nature of crimes.

It depends on the nature of the crimes, of course. And there is no reason Americans need to try most of these individuals they can, and often are, be handed over to the Iraqis.

 

[Nik]

With NK, I think it is a bit different. First, I'm not sure about the facts of the case (nor do I think anyone is). The claim by NK is that the women went over the Yalu River to the NK side and did something (as yet undisclosed) bad to them. I have also heard that it is possible that NK agents went to the Chinese side of the border and abducted the two women. So, that part is not clear to me.

I think it would be much more apples and apples if we were talking about actions taken on the DMZ. For instance, if we were conducting a combat patrol in the DMZ (which we do regularly) and we killed several NK Army forces (which happens all the time). Then, somehow, they took our troops prisoner (which almost never happens). In that case, we would have a somewhat like situation.

I think what people are most angry about with the NK situation is that the charges against the women were never made known. There was no real defense for them. And, the sentence seems unduly harsh given what we know. (There is also the issue about whether they were ever in Korea of their own volition and that this all comes in the context of them throwing a three year old type hissy fit with Atomic tests and missile "tests" so there is some thought that this is all just another political move and these women are just pawns).

don't we have prisoners in Gitmo where we have never disclosed what they did or where it is unclear what they even really did. And I also think North Korea is using them as a pawn but I also think it was stupid move on their part and they will answering to China I believe real soon.

There may be. To be perfectly honest I haven't been one of the people trying to find out why every single person in Gitmo is there. I know there continues to be a substantial chunk of people there that it has been determined they can be released, but no country will take them. So, they are there as a victim of circumstance. Nobody intends to charge them with anything. Of the remainder, my understanding is most we captured on one battlefield or another. And lastly, there is another substantial chunk that were not captured on the battlefield but were captured in pursuit of the war against terrorism. That is people like financiers, facilitators and other back-end support people who work with the terror networks to make them go.

Lets be honest. They aren't a victim of circumstance, they are a victim of the United States. We captured them, purposefully, told countries they were evil, terrible terrorists until we *whoops* found out many were innocent. Then, surprise surprise, nobody wanted to take them. Honestly, we should just integrate some into the US.

My point through all of this is that we should not "try" people we capture on the battlefield. (Unless they have committed a war crime). I would be far more comfortable treating them as POWs. We capture them and hold them until hostilities end.

Except this is a ridiculous standard which is merely a way to justify holding people indefinitely. When exactly do hostilities against an idea end?

For people captured in non-military circumstances, we have a choice to make. If we want them to convict them of a crime, then we should have the FBI build a case against them, arrest them and try them. If we want them because they can give us intel, then we should have the CIA grab them up and interrogate them until they give us the intel we need.

What makes you think the CIA is better at interrogating people than the FBI?

Now that leaves an open question. What do we do with those people? Let them go? Kill them? Let them go under circumstances that would guarantee their death? (i.e. tell the bad guys they cooperated with us).

This last place is where you have to understand there is national survival at stake. This really isn't a game. Bad things will have to happen, but we should agree how they will happen and what will happen.

Our national survival isn't at stake. Its really not. The US has been around for a long time, we are the most powerful country in the world. Hell, someone could nuke New York and we'd still be around.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Surely such an esteemed lawyer such as yourself wouldn't rely on wordplay to make a point, eh? Surely you also know that a "war crime" is a term of art, and is not merely anything against humanitarian law, yes?




Any evidence that these illegal combatants posed as civilians?

Besides the fact that expecting the geneva conventions to apply to enemy combatants is really, really stupid. The term enemy combatant was created by Bush to create a set of people whom the geneva conventions don't apply too. Its pretty absurd to then turn around and say these set of people must follow the geneva conventions. And, by the way, if the geneva conventions do apply to them, you don't get to summarily execute them no matter what.

"Unlawful" combatants aren't covered under Geneva. You can describe them as privileged or unprivileged, but unlawful isn't a term they use.




You mean if you mean the actual definition, or something else you just made up?

Summary execution is a term of art. From wiki:



They are, by definition, extrajuducial. Hence my very strong reaction against the suggestion.

I believe it would be appropriate to try that person near the spot where the crime occurred and not in an American courtroom 8,000 miles from where the events occurred. Realistic appeal would seem to be somewhat limited by the nature of crimes.

It depends on the nature of the crimes, of course. And there is no reason Americans need to try most of these individuals they can, and often are, be handed over to the Iraqis.

As I'm sure you've discovered by now, "unlawful combatant" is a term that has been used over the last century to describe certain categories of armed contestants on the battlefield. It was excluded from the Geneva Convention for whatever reason. Instead, it appears that the GC decided to force everyone into one or another category. Given that choice, AQ fighters appear to be either "perfidious" under Article 37, depending on the circumstances. Or, unprivileged. If they are the former, it is a war crime by definition. If they are the latter and have committed some crime under the US Code, then they are criminally liable under our laws.

As for "summary," what can I say. I didn't just get out of law school. I don't practice law. So sometimes I actually speak in the vernacular and not the technical. I was not trying to use a term of art when I said summary.

I was really thinking of Afghanistan not Iraq. I suppose we could give the Iraqis custody of those AQ fighters we catch in Afghanistan, that would present a sort of perverse justice. I bet they'd like to get their hands on some of those guys.

 

[Tech_Esq]

don't we have prisoners in Gitmo where we have never disclosed what they did or where it is unclear what they even really did. And I also think North Korea is using them as a pawn but I also think it was stupid move on their part and they will answering to China I believe real soon.

There may be. To be perfectly honest I haven't been one of the people trying to find out why every single person in Gitmo is there. I know there continues to be a substantial chunk of people there that it has been determined they can be released, but no country will take them. So, they are there as a victim of circumstance. Nobody intends to charge them with anything. Of the remainder, my understanding is most we captured on one battlefield or another. And lastly, there is another substantial chunk that were not captured on the battlefield but were captured in pursuit of the war against terrorism. That is people like financiers, facilitators and other back-end support people who work with the terror networks to make them go.

Lets be honest. They aren't a victim of circumstance, they are a victim of the United States. We captured them, purposefully, told countries they were evil, terrible terrorists until we *whoops* found out many were innocent. Then, surprise surprise, nobody wanted to take them. Honestly, we should just integrate some into the US.



Except this is a ridiculous standard which is merely a way to justify holding people indefinitely. When exactly do hostilities against an idea end?

For people captured in non-military circumstances, we have a choice to make. If we want them to convict them of a crime, then we should have the FBI build a case against them, arrest them and try them. If we want them because they can give us intel, then we should have the CIA grab them up and interrogate them until they give us the intel we need.

What makes you think the CIA is better at interrogating people than the FBI?

Now that leaves an open question. What do we do with those people? Let them go? Kill them? Let them go under circumstances that would guarantee their death? (i.e. tell the bad guys they cooperated with us).

This last place is where you have to understand there is national survival at stake. This really isn't a game. Bad things will have to happen, but we should agree how they will happen and what will happen.

Our national survival isn't at stake. Its really not. The US has been around for a long time, we are the most powerful country in the world. Hell, someone could nuke New York and we'd still be around.

Hey, we processed how many people through Gitmo? About 750 or 800? We've got like 250 left. We think maybe 50 are still there and "didn't do anything" too serious. You understand the difference between "not guilty" and innocent. At least you should. I wouldn't assume that these are all poor victims of circumstance. I would be more surprised to find any one of these people had NOTHING whatever to do with any terrorists than the reverse. They played a part, it wasn't a big part. We thought they might have more information, we don't think so any more. Now we're done with them. This is the last question I asked in my post above. Ok, we got what ever info out of them, now what do we do with them?

When do hostilities end? I don't know that we've had a hard time figuring that out in any other war. Why would we with this one? For people relevant to the Iraq battlefield, we are very near that time. I would have the government of Iraq and the government of the US officially designate a cessation of hostilities for the purposes of establishing that as a legal divide. But I don't think it's too hard of a concept. Same goes for Afghanistan. They are still fighting. Well, Vietnam lasted a long time too. Capt. Red McDaniel was held captive by the NVA for over 8 years and he wasn't the first guy captured. So what it's a long time. Go amend the Geneva conventions if you don't like it.

What makes you think the FBI is better than the CIA? I don't think that's the point. The FBI has a jurisdiction and so does the CIA. What I set out for each of them falls within their jurisdiction.

And lastly, that's where you and I differ. You happily go along thinking nothing could possibly happen to the good ole USA. It will always be around. I labor under no such misconception. We have a constantly mutating enemy in the current terror networks. If we leave it alone, it would surely regenerate to even more dangerous proportions. We refuse to defend our borders. So there is no reason why they cannot come here to do what they would like. You talk about nuking NYC. Big deal. I could paralyze the country and cause an economic collapse worse than 9/11 with between 20 and 50 decently trained snipers. How hard would it be to infiltrate them here?

All it would take is a sniper team like the DC snipers operating in the 10 largest cities. When they finally get caught, replace them with another team. The resultant turmoil and panic would be horrific. See, it really doesn't take that much.

Aside from that, while we are engaged in this exercise, don't think our Nation-state rivals are biding their time waiting for us to be done. They are making moves to our detriment every single day. To the degree we are too tied up to deal with them, so much the better. It is always existential. If you don't understand that, I would suggest you don't really understand what's going on.

 

[Nik]

"Unlawful" combatants aren't covered under Geneva. You can describe them as privileged or unprivileged, but unlawful isn't a term they use.




You mean if you mean the actual definition, or something else you just made up?

Summary execution is a term of art. From wiki:



They are, by definition, extrajuducial. Hence my very strong reaction against the suggestion.




It depends on the nature of the crimes, of course. And there is no reason Americans need to try most of these individuals they can, and often are, be handed over to the Iraqis.

As I'm sure you've discovered by now, "unlawful combatant" is a term that has been used over the last century to describe certain categories of armed contestants on the battlefield. It was excluded from the Geneva Convention for whatever reason. Instead, it appears that the GC decided to force everyone into one or another category. Given that choice, AQ fighters appear to be either "perfidious" under Article 37, depending on the circumstances. Or, unprivileged. If they are the former, it is a war crime by definition. If they are the latter and have committed some crime under the US Code, then they are criminally liable under our laws.

As I explained before, being an unprivileged combatant is NOT a war crime.

I was really thinking of Afghanistan not Iraq. I suppose we could give the Iraqis custody of those AQ fighters we catch in Afghanistan, that would present a sort of perverse justice. I bet they'd like to get their hands on some of those guys.

Then exchange Afghanis for Iraqis and you get the same result.

 

[Nik]

There may be. To be perfectly honest I haven't been one of the people trying to find out why every single person in Gitmo is there. I know there continues to be a substantial chunk of people there that it has been determined they can be released, but no country will take them. So, they are there as a victim of circumstance. Nobody intends to charge them with anything. Of the remainder, my understanding is most we captured on one battlefield or another. And lastly, there is another substantial chunk that were not captured on the battlefield but were captured in pursuit of the war against terrorism. That is people like financiers, facilitators and other back-end support people who work with the terror networks to make them go.

Lets be honest. They aren't a victim of circumstance, they are a victim of the United States. We captured them, purposefully, told countries they were evil, terrible terrorists until we *whoops* found out many were innocent. Then, surprise surprise, nobody wanted to take them. Honestly, we should just integrate some into the US.



Except this is a ridiculous standard which is merely a way to justify holding people indefinitely. When exactly do hostilities against an idea end?



What makes you think the CIA is better at interrogating people than the FBI?

Now that leaves an open question. What do we do with those people? Let them go? Kill them? Let them go under circumstances that would guarantee their death? (i.e. tell the bad guys they cooperated with us).

This last place is where you have to understand there is national survival at stake. This really isn't a game. Bad things will have to happen, but we should agree how they will happen and what will happen.

Our national survival isn't at stake. Its really not. The US has been around for a long time, we are the most powerful country in the world. Hell, someone could nuke New York and we'd still be around.

Hey, we processed how many people through Gitmo? About 750 or 800? We've got like 250 left. We think maybe 50 are still there and "didn't do anything" too serious. You understand the difference between "not guilty" and innocent. At least you should. I wouldn't assume that these are all poor victims of circumstance. I would be more surprised to find any one of these people had NOTHING whatever to do with any terrorists than the reverse. They played a part, it wasn't a big part. We thought they might have more information, we don't think so any more. Now we're done with them. This is the last question I asked in my post above. Ok, we got what ever info out of them, now what do we do with them?

Again, check out the case of the Uighurs. There is very little, if any, doubt that they ever had anything to do with terrorism. I understand the difference between not guilt and innocent. The Uighurs are innocent.

When do hostilities end? I don't know that we've had a hard time figuring that out in any other war. Why would we with this one?

Because we are at war with an idea.

For people relevant to the Iraq battlefield, we are very near that time. I would have the government of Iraq and the government of the US officially designate a cessation of hostilities for the purposes of establishing that as a legal divide. But I don't think it's too hard of a concept. Same goes for Afghanistan. They are still fighting. Well, Vietnam lasted a long time too. Capt. Red McDaniel was held captive by the NVA for over 8 years and he wasn't the first guy captured. So what it's a long time. Go amend the Geneva conventions if you don't like it.

This seems like an incredibly silly standard. Some of the people held in Guantanamo are Al Qaeda members. They weren't fighting for Iraq, and once Iraq is stabilized they won't suddenly not have a cause to fight for.

What makes you think the FBI is better than the CIA? I don't think that's the point. The FBI has a jurisdiction and so does the CIA. What I set out for each of them falls within their jurisdiction.

Well if we are talking about GITMO, its unclear exactly whose jurisdiction that falls under. Is it part of the US or not?

And lastly, that's where you and I differ. You happily go along thinking nothing could possibly happen to the good ole USA. It will always be around. I labor under no such misconception. We have a constantly mutating enemy in the current terror networks. If we leave it alone, it would surely regenerate to even more dangerous proportions. We refuse to defend our borders. So there is no reason why they cannot come here to do what they would like. You talk about nuking NYC. Big deal. I could paralyze the country and cause an economic collapse worse than 9/11 with between 20 and 50 decently trained snipers. How hard would it be to infiltrate them here?

Sure you could.

All it would take is a sniper team like the DC snipers operating in the 10 largest cities. When they finally get caught, replace them with another team. The resultant turmoil and panic would be horrific. See, it really doesn't take that much.

You think a bunch of people getting sniped is going to cause billions and billions in economic loss?

Aside from that, while we are engaged in this exercise, don't think our Nation-state rivals are biding their time waiting for us to be done. They are making moves to our detriment every single day. To the degree we are too tied up to deal with them, so much the better. It is always existential. If you don't understand that, I would suggest you don't really understand what's going on.

Our rival states are trying to undermine us, not trying to wipe us out of existence. Its not existential, it very rarely is.

 

[ChuckD]

If that article is true, it is kinda scary. Not because of the rights given to foreign U.S. enemies, but of the global control that Obama is beginning to exert. At this rate, he will be President of Earth by 2012

 

[Tech_Esq]

Lets be honest. They aren't a victim of circumstance, they are a victim of the United States. We captured them, purposefully, told countries they were evil, terrible terrorists until we *whoops* found out many were innocent. Then, surprise surprise, nobody wanted to take them. Honestly, we should just integrate some into the US.



Except this is a ridiculous standard which is merely a way to justify holding people indefinitely. When exactly do hostilities against an idea end?



What makes you think the CIA is better at interrogating people than the FBI?



Our national survival isn't at stake. Its really not. The US has been around for a long time, we are the most powerful country in the world. Hell, someone could nuke New York and we'd still be around.

Hey, we processed how many people through Gitmo? About 750 or 800? We've got like 250 left. We think maybe 50 are still there and "didn't do anything" too serious. You understand the difference between "not guilty" and innocent. At least you should. I wouldn't assume that these are all poor victims of circumstance. I would be more surprised to find any one of these people had NOTHING whatever to do with any terrorists than the reverse. They played a part, it wasn't a big part. We thought they might have more information, we don't think so any more. Now we're done with them. This is the last question I asked in my post above. Ok, we got what ever info out of them, now what do we do with them?

Again, check out the case of the Uighurs. There is very little, if any, doubt that they ever had anything to do with terrorism. I understand the difference between not guilt and innocent. The Uighurs are innocent.



Because we are at war with an idea.



This seems like an incredibly silly standard. Some of the people held in Guantanamo are Al Qaeda members. They weren't fighting for Iraq, and once Iraq is stabilized they won't suddenly not have a cause to fight for.



Well if we are talking about GITMO, its unclear exactly whose jurisdiction that falls under. Is it part of the US or not?



Sure you could.

All it would take is a sniper team like the DC snipers operating in the 10 largest cities. When they finally get caught, replace them with another team. The resultant turmoil and panic would be horrific. See, it really doesn't take that much.

You think a bunch of people getting sniped is going to cause billions and billions in economic loss?

Aside from that, while we are engaged in this exercise, don't think our Nation-state rivals are biding their time waiting for us to be done. They are making moves to our detriment every single day. To the degree we are too tied up to deal with them, so much the better. It is always existential. If you don't understand that, I would suggest you don't really understand what's going on.

Our rival states are trying to undermine us, not trying to wipe us out of existence. Its not existential, it very rarely is.

Have to pick it up next time Ralph....it's time to go. Have a good weekend.

 

[Terry]

I don't have time to argue with people who are stuck on stupid. I have to go now.

Well stop looking in the mirror and yapping and start debating with real people. Better yet, get educated. You're current intellect looks like you might have not even graduated grade school...

Tell you what oh smart fat one since you think you have all the answers and are so right about everything, why don't you apply for a JOB with Obama's team. *rolls eyes*

Again, I trust our Troops, and think we should untie their hands and let them do their job!

 

[Nik]

I don't have time to argue with people who are stuck on stupid. I have to go now.

Well stop looking in the mirror and yapping and start debating with real people. Better yet, get educated. You're current intellect looks like you might have not even graduated grade school...

Tell you what oh smart fat one since you think you have all the answers and are so right about everything, why don't you apply for a JOB with Obama's team. *rolls eyes*

Again, I trust our Troops, and think we should untie their hands and let them do their job!

So you think Abu Ghraib was A OK, right? Since you trust our troops so much?