There's a shocking military scandal that you may not know ab

[PersonGuy]

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court? Is it not written in your constitution that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?

These aren't people they just picked up off the street. "Hey you have tan skin and a beard come with us." It doesn't work like that. These are individuals for whom they have intelligence indicating they have committed or are about to commit an offense justifying their detainment. Whatever techniques they use are not to coerce a confession out of an otherwise innocent individual. They are used to gather additional information from a person who they know is a dangerous individual (and please don't ask me to define dangerous we're all adults here).

Example.

A cop is walking down the street and observes two men stabbing a female. On approach he recognizes the suspects as two men who have been serial raping and killing females in the area. He draws his weapon, identifies himself, and attempts to affect an arrest of the two men (he's justified in shooting them both but let's say he doesn't). Upon placing the first male into custody his accomplice runs off. The officer places the suspect into his car and takes him into an abandoned warehouse in the area. He asks the first male where the second male ran, and where he'd be hiding. Don't forget they are serial rapists and killers, their main function in this world is to repeat these acts over and over. The first male refuses to cooperate. The officer repeats the question followed with a blow of his nightstick to the guy's knee; however he still refuses. This action is repeated again, and again, and again, until finally he obtains the exact location of the other murderer.

Was the officer justified in his actions or should he have brought him in for questioning and done things completely by the book?

As far as I'm concerned there's only one proper answer. We don't live in a perfect world, and so perfect tactics are a luxury we cannot afford.

 

[Old Baldy]

What I was laughing at just now is your implication that all those Gitmo detainees might be as innocent as babes in the woods!

That may or may not be true, but don't try to suggest to us that Gitmo does NOT have some very very dangerous people in it! :smack:

I am not suggesting they are innocent. All I'm saying is, according to the international law, and your constitution, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", and "everyone has the right to a fair trial". I presume those are some of the "fundamental American values" (an expression someone used earlier in the thread). The moment you start denying those rights to whoever the person may be, you are in effect going against your fundamental values.

Now see Ali, there is that naive attitude liberals have.

What the heck is the soldier to do? Gather evidence as if it is a civil matter and hand it over to some prosecutor about 7 guzillion miles away?

They are SOLDIERS not LEO's.

I'm just baffled at the silliness of making soldiers into LEO's and having them worry about civil proceedings and evidence gathering.

The soldiers will not bother with that, they will kill the "detainee" right where he sits or stands. No doubt about it IMHO.

How can you liberals not see this??!! They don't have the time or realistic ability to gather evidence as you would in a civil proceeding. It's just NOT POSSIBLE Ali.

In other posts it became apparent to me that you are WAY smarter than I am Ali. Yet you fail to understand the problem with making soldiers into LEO's.

Also, on the battlefield, you are realistically not considered innocent until proven guilty. I mean, come on now!!?? :freak:

In Bryan's question, if I'm the soldier and know the liberals back home want me to gather evidence like I'm an LEO and go through all those hurdles, etc., I shoot him where he sits for pete's sake. If he surrenders, I accept that and let the chips fall where they may if I'm able to handle a prisoner of war and get him back to base. If not, he's dead.

 

[The Gardener]

I'm curious about something. Let's say you're an American soldier in Afghanistan, and you happen to come across a sleeping Muslim man in one of those famous Tora Bora caves who is armed to the teeth: he has an AK-47, and tons of ammunition with him. He has lots of C4 explosive and detonators with him, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher, and numerous other pieces of military hardware. But he's just there SLEEPING. You haven't actually seen him shooting at Americans. When you wake him up, he claims (through an interpreter) to be a "friend of America", and says he means no harm to you.

That's such a red herring of a reply... OF COURSE a POW is a POW and we have the right to detain them under rules of war. That's not the point. The point, in my mind, is HOW do you know that the detainee was actually picked up off a combat zone? How do you know that these detainees are completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, and whose presence was just "inconvenient" for the occupation forces for one reason or another?

Case in point... they are detaining US citizens and holding them INDEFINITELY with NO ACCESS TO LAWYERS. In the YouTube below is an example of them picking up a kid somewhere in the Midwest and, for all intents and purposes, "dissappearing" him:

[youtube:2w6p3z6d]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFVQ0HZz2mc[/youtube:2w6p3z6d]

Now, whether this kid really and truly has ANYTHING to do with subversives is not the point... the POINT is that there is NO VISIBILITY into the process, which is an abhoration that we should all be ashamed of.

Sorry, folks, but that's NOT RIGHT. Period. As much as a few of you above like to defend these detention policies, at some point you need to call a spade a spade and realize that this whole detention infrastructure is rotten to the core. If they can screw around with domestic US citizens, they are probably taking even more carte blanche with foreigners.

 

[ali777]

How do you know they are so dangerous? Have they been tried in an independent court? Is it not written in your constitution that everyone is innocent until proven guilty?

These aren't people they just picked up off the street. "Hey you have tan skin and a beard come with us." It doesn't work like that. These are individuals for whom they have intelligence indicating they have committed or are about to commit an offense justifying their detainment. Whatever techniques they use are not to coerce a confession out of an otherwise innocent individual. They are used to gather additional information from a person who they know is a dangerous individual (and please don't ask me to define dangerous we're all adults here).

Example.

A cop is walking down the street and observes two men stabbing a female. On approach he recognizes the suspects as two men who have been serial raping and killing females in the area. He draws his weapon, identifies himself, and attempts to affect an arrest of the two men (he's justified in shooting them both but let's say he doesn't). Upon placing the first male into custody his accomplice runs off. The officer places the suspect into his car and takes him into an abandoned warehouse in the area. He asks the first male where the second male ran, and where he'd be hiding. Don't forget they are serial rapists and killers, their main function in this world is to repeat these acts over and over. The first male refuses to cooperate. The officer repeats the question followed with a blow of his nightstick to the guy's knee; however he still refuses. This action is repeated again, and again, and again, until finally he obtains the exact location of the other murderer.

Was the officer justified in his actions or should he have brought him in for questioning and done things completely by the book?

As far as I'm concerned there's only one proper answer. We don't live in a perfect world, and so perfect tactics are a luxury we cannot afford.

The scenario you describe doesn't apply. The police officer in question would lose his job if he did what you tried to justify. There are no ifs and buts, the police officer would be kicked out. It's that simple. You also have to remember that information extracted illegally is not valid in the civil courts.

I understand what you are saying. You are making excuses for using violence against certain criminals. However, you have to understand that that's what the terrorist do as well. They fight for a cause they believe in, and for them their dirty tactics are justified because they don't have other channels to work with.

Just like the police officer who you described can not take the law into his own hands, the US can not take the international law in its own hands... Once you stop crossing the line, where do you stop?

 

[ClayShaw]

Ali: I think you'll find a substantial reduction in enemy combatants captured in battle from here on out because, with the new rules on prosecuting detainees using civilian courts and procedures, those "detainees" will be killed on the battlefield.

Ever heard of the term "unintended consequences"? (Lefties can be so friggin' stupid and naive that it is mind boggling.)

Whether that's right or wrong is irrelevant because that is what will happen IMHO.

No, forget about my usage of "IMHO" because that is what will happen!!

Stupid like Bush? Stupid like Reagan? Stupid like Palin? Quayle?
There are plenty on the left who have less than half a brain (Kucinich, anyone?), but we have the good sense not to try to put them in the White House (with the possible exception of Carter).

 

[ClayShaw]

What I was laughing at just now is your implication that all those Gitmo detainees might be as innocent as babes in the woods!

That may or may not be true, but don't try to suggest to us that Gitmo does NOT have some very very dangerous people in it! :smack:

I am not suggesting they are innocent. All I'm saying is, according to the international law, and your constitution, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", and "everyone has the right to a fair trial". I presume those are some of the "fundamental American values" (an expression someone used earlier in the thread). The moment you start denying those rights to whoever the person may be, you are in effect going against your fundamental values.

Now see Ali, there is that naive attitude liberals have.

What the heck is the soldier to do? Gather evidence as if it is a civil matter and hand it over to some prosecutor about 7 guzillion miles away?

They are SOLDIERS not LEO's.

I'm just baffled at the silliness of making soldiers into LEO's and having them worry about civil proceedings and evidence gathering.

The soldiers will not bother with that, they will kill the "detainee" right where he sits or stands. No doubt about it IMHO.

How can you liberals not see this??!! They don't have the time or realistic ability to gather evidence as you would in a civil proceeding. It's just NOT POSSIBLE Ali.

In other posts it became apparent to me that you are WAY smarter than I am Ali. Yet you fail to understand the problem with making soldiers into LEO's.

Also, on the battlefield, you are realistically not considered innocent until proven guilty. I mean, come on now!!?? :freak:

In Bryan's question, if I'm the soldier and know the liberals back home want me to gather evidence like I'm an LEO and go through all those hurdles, etc., I shoot him where he sits for pete's sake. If he surrenders, I accept that and let the chips fall where they may if I'm able to handle a prisoner of war and get him back to base. If not, he's dead.

And here is that arrogant, I know better than you (I know which God you should pray to, who you should marry, which color people should have which rights, etc.) attitude that got the Republicans booted out of office.
Civil proceedings? Is someone planning on asking the US military to bring these people back so we can sue them? Criminal maybe... but civil?
What makes you think soldiers will just shoot people, instead of taking them prisoners? My friends who served did not enjoy killing. I have a hard time imaging them killing someone as a way of taking a shortcut.
The problem with Gitmo is not that we're holding POW's. Far from it. Its that we're hiding them.
Its also customary to hold POW's until the end of the war, and then have some sort of prisoner exchange. The problem is, GWB figured it would be cool to declare war not on a state or a non-state actor (such as al-Qaeda), but on a tactic. How do you defeat a tactic??? Even if we were to somehow eliminate al-Qeada, eta will still exist, the Tamil Tigers will still exist, the IRA will still exist, Hezbollah will still exist, etc. etc.
That was, in essence the one smart thing GWB did. He clearly wanted powers that go far beyond the US presidency. Wiretapping US citizens without a court warrant (a clear violation of the 4th amendment) is a perfect example. So what you do is, declare a war that can never end (a war against a tactic) and then give yourself all sorts of insane war time powers.

 

[ClayShaw]

However, offshoring work to you? That's stretching it. There are lots of countries that don't want to get involved in your battles, but they get carried into it regardless.

Too true. The US's allies don't get to enjoy those 'special relationships' for nothing.

Don't bother!!! This thread is as pointless as the discussion of Soccer-vs-American Football-vs-Aussie rules football.

Ever heard of the term "unintended consequences"? (Lefties can be so friggin' stupid and naive that it is mind boggling.)

The main problem isn't that we are stupid, but that you are treating us like stupid.

Obviously some of you support the use of necessary evil to fight the other evil.

However, when you invade countries in the name of human rights, democracy, equality, etc, the least you can do is recognise those concepts yourself. Otherwise, it's pure hypocrisy, the whole thing doesn't have credibility.

What I was laughing at just now is your implication that all those Gitmo detainees might be as innocent as babes in the woods!

That may or may not be true, but don't try to suggest to us that Gitmo does NOT have some very very dangerous people in it! :smack:

I am not suggesting they are innocent. All I'm saying is, according to the international law, and your constitution, "everyone is innocent until proven guilty", and "everyone has the right to a fair trial". I presume those are some of the "fundamental American values" (an expression someone used earlier in the thread). The moment you start denying those rights to whoever the person may be, you are in effect going against your fundamental values.

Iraq had nothing to do with democracy/equality/human rights, etc. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" sounds cool, but its just a name.
Anyone claiming that America invaded Iraq for the benefit of the Iraqis is not to be taken seriously.

 

[Bryan]

That's such a red herring of a reply... OF COURSE a POW is a POW and we have the right to detain them under rules of war. That's not the point. The point, in my mind, is HOW do you know that the detainee was actually picked up off a combat zone? How do you know that these detainees are completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, and whose presence was just "inconvenient" for the occupation forces for one reason or another?

HUH?? It's not the least little bit a "red herring". I want to know (and STILL want to know, since he hasn't bothered to reply) how far Ali would actually go with the detainees from Afghanistan. Does he really believe that a prisoner like I described is "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law? What if it's the prisoner's word against all the extreme circumstantial evidence surrounding him (weapons, ammo, explosives, etc.)? Ali shot his mouth off about what he implied was the mistreatment and unjustified detention of prisoners from an undeclared war, so I'm going to force him to tell us all just how far HE would actually go under such conditions. I'm still waiting for your response, Ali.

 

[ali777]

I'm still waiting for your response, Ali.

Here is your answer:

Its also customary to hold POW's until the end of the war, and then have some sort of prisoner exchange. The problem is, GWB figured it would be cool to declare war not on a state or a non-state actor (such as al-Qaeda), but on a tactic. How do you defeat a tactic??? Even if we were to somehow eliminate al-Qeada, eta will still exist, the Tamil Tigers will still exist, the IRA will still exist, Hezbollah will still exist, etc. etc.
That was, in essence the one smart thing GWB did. He clearly wanted powers that go far beyond the US presidency. Wiretapping US citizens without a court warrant (a clear violation of the 4th amendment) is a perfect example. So what you do is, declare a war that can never end (a war against a tactic) and then give yourself all sorts of insane war time powers.

and:

That's such a red herring of a reply... OF COURSE a POW is a POW and we have the right to detain them under rules of war. That's not the point. The point, in my mind, is HOW do you know that the detainee was actually picked up off a combat zone? How do you know that these detainees are completely innocent people who had nothing to do with the war, and whose presence was just "inconvenient" for the occupation forces for one reason or another?

also this one:

Did you know in the aftermath of WW2, the US tried, convicted, and hung 8 Japanese servicemen for war crimes, for using waterboarding against American POWs?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01170.html

In 1983, Philipino dissidents won a civil case IN US COURT against the Ferdinand Marcos estate for $766M, claming that they were subjected to waterboarding?

Soooo... what changed here?

Here is my response:

POW is a POW, there is no getting around it. The Taliban were in the government in Afghanistan until the American intervention, so any action against them is a deceleration of war. Not classifying those guys as POW is like trying to create a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

In the hypothetical situation, I would arrest the guy and take him to my military base where he could be investigated further. I also understand the rule of war to a certain extent, if he was an immediate danger to my life, then I would have to pull the trigger. Once he's captured, he needs to be processed according to the rules and procedures, and that involves not using waterboarding.

I'm gonna repeat myself here. I'm not saying those guys are innocent, but they should be treated according to the international law, and they aren't. No one has the right to take the law into his own hands.

Let's be frank about it. The Taliban committed much worse crimes against the humanity, there is no place for their ideology in our modern world. However, we can't fight evil with another evil. That's what I mean by two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[Bryan]

POW is a POW, there is no getting around it. The Taliban were in the government in Afghanistan until the American intervention, so any action against them is a deceleration of war. Not classifying those guys as POW is like trying to create a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

Not completely sure what you mean. There is no official "war" and there is no official Army taking action against us, and there are no uniformed "POW"s that are being captured. Just very dangerous guys with guns who are trying to kill us. Sorry, but they don't get the right to official POW status.

In the hypothetical situation, I would arrest the guy and take him to my military base where he could be investigated further. I also understand the rule of war to a certain extent, if he was an immediate danger to my life, then I would have to pull the trigger. Once he's captured, he needs to be processed according to the rules and procedures, and that involves not using waterboarding.

Okay, thanks for the response. I guess there's really not THAT much difference between your view and that of American soldiers.

Let's be frank about it. The Taliban committed much worse crimes against the humanity, there is no place for their ideology in our modern world. However, we can't fight evil with another evil. That's what I mean by two wrongs don't make a right.

Agreed. Okay, I think we're pretty much on the same page.

 

[ali777]

POW is a POW, there is no getting around it. The Taliban were in the government in Afghanistan until the American intervention, so any action against them is a deceleration of war. Not classifying those guys as POW is like trying to create a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

Not completely sure what you mean. There is no official "war" and there is no official Army taking action against us, and there are no uniformed "POW"s that are being captured. Just very dangerous guys with guns who are trying to kill us. Sorry, but they don't get the right to official POW status.

I'll give an example. Let's say I declare a war on Obama and his administration, wouldn't that be the same as declaring a war on the US? You could argue that the Taliban weren't democratically elect and fighting them is not the same as declaring a war on the whole country. Then, let's say for the sake of argument, I declare a war on the Saud family who aren't democratically elect neither. Now, you tell me if that would be the same as declaring a war on the whole country?

The law also says that any group who distinguish themselves should be treated as POW. Sorry, you don't make the law here, but you intentionally choose to ignore the law.

If you start making excuses for using questionable tactics to get justice, then you are also making excuses for the terrorists who also fight for their justice.

 

[PersonGuy]

The scenario you describe doesn't apply. The police officer in question would lose his job if he did what you tried to justify. There are no ifs and buts, the police officer would be kicked out. It's that simple. You also have to remember that information extracted illegally is not valid in the civil courts.

That's not the point, but I'll address it quickly. As far as the courts are concerned, it never happened. The suspect got all banged up b/c he resisted arrest and plain clothes officers waited outside the other guys hide out until he came out, claiming to have found him while on routine patrol. Smart cops wouldn't let it play out against them in court.

I understand what you are saying. You are making excuses for using violence against certain criminals. However, you have to understand that that's what the terrorist do as well. They fight for a cause they believe in, and for them their dirty tactics are justified because they don't have other channels to work with.

For the record these aren't excuses, these things need not be excused. They are simply reasons.

Terrorists do not employ these tactics for the same reasons. They have a fundamental belief and their violence is spawned by their interpretation of holy texts and beliefs. Any violence used against them is in pursuit of the preservation of human life.

Just like the police officer who you described can not take the law into his own hands, the US can not take the international law in its own hands... Once you stop crossing the line, where do you stop?

The tactics used by terrorists call for new action, and sometimes unorthodox techniques. You can't use the same vaccine for every virus, some require more work and research.

 

[Old Baldy]

Ali: I pretty much agree with what Bryan's response to your post stated.

I worry that soldiers will eventually feel it is stupid and dangerous to let these detainees go into a system of capture where they will eventually be tried in civil proceedings which entail much more evidence gathering, etc.

Those types of proceedings could be viewed by a soldier as setting evidence standards that are impossible or extremely difficult to satisfy. Therefore, they will be more inclined to kill the "detainee" on the battlefield.

ClayShaw: You have good points relative to too much power granted to the government, why we really went into Iraq, etc.

That is beyond the point I was trying to make which was simply to point out that a soldier will probably not dilly dally around with the prospect of civil proceedings and evidence gathering (which is probably impossible in a battlefield situation) when encountering an enemy combatant.

You have to step back and look at what I'm saying from the soldier's point of view to fully understand where I'm coming from. I feel bad for the soldiers being put into this "catch 22" type of situation. We are forcing their hands IMHO.

Your other arguments like government excessive power is outside my point.

I obviously agree that Bush made SERIOUS mistakes in the Iraq war. Many of those mistakes were naive IMHO. They should have known that, merely eliminating Hussein, wouldn't create a situation where good people now take over the Iraqi government. They should have known that radical Muslim groups would try and take over and govern in much the same manner as Hussein.

That said, I worry that our current position relative to detainees will eventually result in the soldiers becoming judge, jury and executioner. Right there on the battlefield. The fact this isn't recognized by many liberals is naive.

 

[ClayShaw]

POW is a POW, there is no getting around it. The Taliban were in the government in Afghanistan until the American intervention, so any action against them is a deceleration of war. Not classifying those guys as POW is like trying to create a loophole that doesn't actually exist.

Not completely sure what you mean. There is no official "war" and there is no official Army taking action against us, and there are no uniformed "POW"s that are being captured. Just very dangerous guys with guns who are trying to kill us. Sorry, but they don't get the right to official POW status.

In the hypothetical situation, I would arrest the guy and take him to my military base where he could be investigated further. I also understand the rule of war to a certain extent, if he was an immediate danger to my life, then I would have to pull the trigger. Once he's captured, he needs to be processed according to the rules and procedures, and that involves not using waterboarding.

Okay, thanks for the response. I guess there's really not THAT much difference between your view and that of American soldiers.

Let's be frank about it. The Taliban committed much worse crimes against the humanity, there is no place for their ideology in our modern world. However, we can't fight evil with another evil. That's what I mean by two wrongs don't make a right.

Agreed. Okay, I think we're pretty much on the same page.

There hasn't been an official "war" in a long, long time. The last one was Vietnam? Or Korea?
All the stuff you said about an "official Army" applies to America as well, unfortunately. Blackwater is not an official army at all, in fact, its a violation of the Geneva convention.
So when they hung Americans from that bridge in Fallujah, they had no right to official POW status either.

 

[Old Baldy]

Here's a brief experience from a soldier in Afghanistan I know at AR15.com. Here's the message he sent about the wonderful kids the Taliban, etc., are raising.

Today, I took my team to a local school outside Kandahar City to build a little goodwill. A girl back in the US had gotten donations from her community and sent 6 huge boxes of Girl Scout Cookies. I put the vote to my soldiers, and since they've had their fill of GS Cookies over the past 6 months, they thought it would be a nice thing to give the stuff to some poor kids.

So, we loaded up the cookies, along with some other stuff like notebooks, backpacks, and soccer balls, and headed to the school.

Dear Lord in Heaven, it was like a scene from Lord of the Flies meets Fight Club meets Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome The only thing that was missing was this guy:

No sooner had we rolled up before we were absolutely swarmed with savage kids ranging in age from 5 to about 20. Despite having my soldiers trying to control the kids, it was hopeless...the big kids started jumping into the truck and taking armloads of stuff.

At one point, I felt some hands on me, feeling for my sidearm, which drew a sharp rebuke from me. As I was towering over this 15 year old kid and telling him to back off, the look he gave was one of pure and absolute savagery. No intelligence in those eyes...just opportunism. He was sizing the situation up to see where his next opening would be.

The most horrifying thing was seeing an 18 or so year old kid walk up to a 5 or 6 year old girl, give her a full roundhouse kick to the stomach, and then take off running with her stuff. To her credit, she took it like a trooper, got back on her feet, and tore after the thug.

At one point, a "teacher" came out. I use that term loosely, as the only thing he did was watch from a distance and occasionally whack a kid and take their cookies.

I have to hand it to my NCOs...they handled the situation very well. Where lesser men would have resorted to beating kids themselves, my NCOs showed great restraint and focused on not letting the situation get to a point where our safety was threatened.

To add insult to injury, as we were leaving, we were thanked with a hail of rocks and "F*ck you GIs". Really classy people, these Afghans, let me tell you.

Guys, we're going to be fighting this war for years to come. While we're killing Talib adults, there is a whole assembly line going at full steam producing savage, opportunistic animals.

Oh well, 90 and a wake-up.

Brian

Imagine soldiers having these kind of experiences day after day after day. And now they have to worry that detainees are going to be handled in civilian courts. MY GOD!!

 

[ClayShaw]

The idea that its either Gitmo or some municipal court in the US is ridiculous. The problem with Gitmo is not that we're holding POW's, this is expected and happens in every war.
It's that no one (including the International Red Cross) is allowed to see them. It's not even clear if all of them are actually "POW's", i.e. picked up on a battlefield.
When that one-eyed nut tried to blow up the World Trade Center in '94(?), its not like we locked him up somewhere, threw away the key, and then pretended it never happened. We put the motherfucker on trial, convicted him, and then threw away the key. That is what should happen to people committing acts of terrorism. Like Tim McVeigh. Or the "blind sheik".
If someone shoots at a US Marine, on a battlefield, that person gets killed. Simple. If that motherfucker somehow lives to talk about shooting at a US Marine, then he is a prisoner of war.
The distinction is, if you commit an act of terrorism, its a crime, and you should be charged as such. If you're a combatant on a battlefield, you become a prisoner of war. The problem is that at Gitmo, the two are mixed.
How do you think America would react if some other country picked up one of our citizens somewhere and then refused to even acknowledge that they were holding them?

 

[Bryan]

Not completely sure what you mean. There is no official "war" and there is no official Army taking action against us, and there are no uniformed "POW"s that are being captured. Just very dangerous guys with guns who are trying to kill us. Sorry, but they don't get the right to official POW status.

I'll give an example. Let's say I declare a war on Obama and his administration, wouldn't that be the same as declaring a war on the US?

No it wouldn't.

You could argue that the Taliban weren't democratically elect and fighting them is not the same as declaring a war on the whole country. Then, let's say for the sake of argument, I declare a war on the Saud family who aren't democratically elect neither. Now, you tell me if that would be the same as declaring a war on the whole country?

That wouldn't be the same, either.

The law also says that any group who distinguish themselves should be treated as POW. Sorry, you don't make the law here, but you intentionally choose to ignore the law.

If you start making excuses for using questionable tactics to get justice, then you are also making excuses for the terrorists who also fight for their justice.

I agree that there are "questionable tactics" that have been used against terrorists (or at least SUSPECTED terrorists), and I've already spoken out against it. Therefore, I'm not "making excuses" for such tactics. And in my view, it doesn't have anything to do with not treating the terrorists as POWs.

 

[Bryan]

There hasn't been an official "war" in a long, long time. The last one was Vietnam? Or Korea?

Surely you don't think that Vietnam and Korea were declared wars, do you? Our last declared war was WWII.

All the stuff you said about an "official Army" applies to America as well, unfortunately.

Yes.

Blackwater is not an official army at all, in fact, its a violation of the Geneva convention.

I'm not sure about that second part, but no, it obviously isn't an official army.

So when they hung Americans from that bridge in Fallujah, they had no right to official POW status either.

Agreed.

 

[Bryan]

The distinction is, if you commit an act of terrorism, its a crime, and you should be charged as such. If you're a combatant on a battlefield, you become a prisoner of war. The problem is that at Gitmo, the two are mixed.

What about the THIRD situation I described in my hypothetical scenario? The "sleeping Muslim" wasn't observed committing and act of terrorism, nor was he even observed shooting at anybody on a battlefield. He was just found with a horde of weapons, ammo, and explosives all around him! What would YOU have done with him?

 

[Old Baldy]

The distinction is, if you commit an act of terrorism, its a crime, and you should be charged as such. If you're a combatant on a battlefield, you become a prisoner of war. The problem is that at Gitmo, the two are mixed.

What about the THIRD situation I described in my hypothetical scenario? The "sleeping Muslim" wasn't observed committing and act of terrorism, nor was he even observed shooting at anybody on a battlefield. He was just found with a horde of weapons, ammo, and explosives all around him! What would YOU have done with him?

We're waiting Clay.