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

[ClayShaw]

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.

Is this guy found on a battlefield??
Let's see... on a battlefield, with guns... hmm... POW?

 

[Bryan]

Is this guy found on a battlefield??
Let's see... on a battlefield, with guns... hmm... POW?

I think your attitude is reasonable. But now you can appreciate my frustration with Ali, who seemed to be saying at one point that we had no business holding such a person without having him be tried in a court of law, requiring evidence proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. Ali's view on that was unreasonable, in my opinion. Hopefully he's changed it by now.

 

[ClayShaw]

Is this guy found on a battlefield??
Let's see... on a battlefield, with guns... hmm... POW?

I think your attitude is reasonable. But now you can appreciate my frustration with Ali, who seemed to be saying at one point that we had no business holding such a person without having him be tried in a court of law, requiring evidence proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, etc. Ali's view on that was unreasonable, in my opinion. Hopefully he's changed it by now.

I must have misunderstood him...
Trying POW's in civilian courts?? I can't imagine there's precedent for that. What would they even be charged with? Fighting in a war? Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?
Even heads of state who did terrible things in war don't get that sort of treatment. Milosevic didn't. The Nazi's didn't.
Putting people captured on battlefields through the US court system would be such a bad idea that it would at least be sort of comical. Imagine the waiting list...
Not unreasonable... Completely impossible.
My distinction is between someone arrested for plotting an act of terror, and someone captured as an "enemy combatant".
Acts of terror are usually criminal. Try those people, whenever possible, as criminals, as was done in the 1994 WTC bombing. Then put them in jail and throw away the key.
POW's captured on battlefields should be held until the end of the war (to guarantee you're not supplying the enemy with more soldiers), and then released. I think there is plenty of precedent for that.
I wish I had links for this claim, but I've read plenty of smart military people claim that most of the "war" against al-Qeada should be handled by intelligence officers and law enforcement, not the military. Maybe special forces, in some instances, but primarily intelligence agents and law enforcement. I think Zinni was one guy advocating that sort of approach. The way to ultimately win the battle against fundamentalism seems to be exposing the ideology for the lunatic, crackpot, throw acid in little girls faces bullshit that it is. I don't think bombing the houses of people (not intentionally-- I think that the American military does not intentionally kill civilians anymore) who aren't involved with radical groups, but happen to be near them, is helpful. It radicalizes people we need on our side. This is the sort of war not won by brute force, but by good intelligence and precision (special forces) operations. Good intel requires the trust of the people, and it seems to me that capturing, holding (for years) and potentially torturing people who turn out to be innocent is insanely counterproductive.

 

[Bryan]

I must have misunderstood him...

Here's what Ali said before (referring to the detainees at Gitmo): "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."

He's pretty clear and direct about what he's saying, isn't he? He's strongly implying that even a sleeping Muslim found with a horde of weapons in Afghanistan can't be held as a POW, he must go through the same civil trial that (say) a common thief would expect to get.

Trying POW's in civilian courts?? I can't imagine there's precedent for that. What would they even be charged with? Fighting in a war? Is that a felony or a misdemeanor?
Even heads of state who did terrible things in war don't get that sort of treatment. Milosevic didn't. The Nazi's didn't.
Putting people captured on battlefields through the US court system would be such a bad idea that it would at least be sort of comical. Imagine the waiting list...
Not unreasonable... Completely impossible.

I agree with you on all of that.

POW's captured on battlefields should be held until the end of the war (to guarantee you're not supplying the enemy with more soldiers), and then released. I think there is plenty of precedent for that.

But AGAIN I point out to you that there is no declared war in either Afghanistan or Iraq. Do you think this undeclared "war" will EVER really come to an end? Are you therefore ready and willing to hold these Afghan "POWs" indefinitely?

 

[ali777]

Another point you are missing is, not all the residents of Gitmo were captured in the battlefield. Anyone captured in the battlefield should be treated as a POW, which is different than the civil courts....

However, some of the detainees in Gitmo are kidnapped God knows where and brought there with CIA rendition flights. Detaining those guys is illegal. Not only the way they are detained but also the way they are brought there is illegal.

If you have evidence that those guys are terrorists, then ask Interpol to bring them to the US courts. Kidnapping and detention without trial is illegal.

 

[ClayShaw]

Ali, I didn't miss that point at all.
As I've said before, my distinction is: Captured on a battlefield=POW (Gitmo or wherever else). Arrested somewhere=Criminal trials.
To the people advocating that we pick someone up in Canada, and hold them indefinitely at Gitmo, because they might be a terrorist, all I ask is that you consider what America might do if that happened to an American citizen.
Bryan, I don't know when the last "declared" war was, and as I said earlier in this thread, declaring war (whether officially or not) on a tactic is amazingly stupid. It's like declaring war on ambushes. And no, obviously a war on a tactic can never end. Thats why I was so horrified when Bush granted himself all sorts of extra (un) constitutional war powers for a war that could never end. And now Obama has decided to continue the worst of those powers. I guess at least we know he doesn't believe in that crackpot "unitary executive" (king) bullshit.
The last officially "declared" war was WWII. I don't think we should still be holding prisoners from Vietnam. Iraq was "authorized" by Congress, as was Afghanistan, and Congress provides funding for both conflicts, so whether or not there was an official declaration of war is irrelevant in my opinion. I would call what's going on in Baghdad and Kabul a war, whether Congress thinks so or not.

 

[Bryan]

The last officially "declared" war was WWII. I don't think we should still be holding prisoners from Vietnam. Iraq was "authorized" by Congress, as was Afghanistan, and Congress provides funding for both conflicts, so whether or not there was an official declaration of war is irrelevant in my opinion.

I believe that one important distinction between officially declaring war and NOT declaring war is that the Constitution requires that if we _do_ declare war, we have to go ahead and fight it to a conclusion. We can't just decide to quit fighting at some point and withdraw, like we did in Vietnam.

 

[The Gardener]

I believe that one important distinction between officially declaring war and NOT declaring war is that the Constitution requires that if we _do_ declare war, we have to go ahead and fight it to a conclusion. We can't just decide to quit fighting at some point and withdraw, like we did in Vietnam.

What if the US goes broke? Technically, on paper, we are broke right now.

 

[ali777]

I believe that one important distinction between officially declaring war and NOT declaring war is that the Constitution requires that if we _do_ declare war, we have to go ahead and fight it to a conclusion. We can't just decide to quit fighting at some point and withdraw, like we did in Vietnam.

What if the US goes broke? Technically, on paper, we are broke right now.

One documentary on economics that I watched was saying that the relationship between China and the US is similar to the one the Germans and the Brits had before the WWII. The Germans (ie, China) were the producers and the Brits were the consumers/distributors of goods (ie, the US).

Let's say in a hypothetical situation, the US can't pay back all that money it's borrowed from China. In that case, China would have to resort to military powers to go in and collect what they own.

In the current climate, any war would be fought over resources, ie water, petrol, money, etc. We are beyond war on ideology at the moment. The Cold War was supposedly over the differences in ideology, but in reality it was all about political dominance. Likewise, religion is not such a big issue, I believe certain groups try to make it a big issue to extend their political reach but in the long term, it won't work.

 

[ali777]

On the subject of human rights and constitutional rights, I have a question to Old Baldy and the others that support his views.

Time and time again you defend your right to bear fire arms, you keep insisting that it's your constitutional right. Likewise, I keep insisting that fair trial, etc is also a constitutional and human right. What's the difference between the two?

If you think about it, you lose more lives to gun crimes, or accidents that happen due to driving under influence. If you lose more lives to gun crimes than to terrorist attacks, why do you defend your right to bear fire arms? I'm in no way trying to justify terrorism, but what you have on the streets is a bigger threat than terrorism.

You defend the underlying conditions that create that threat on your streets, but you oppose to the human rights of the lesser evil. Isn't that a contradiction?

 

[Old Baldy]

I agree that fair trials are good for civilians. For soldiers and enemy combatants, military tribunals are the way to go.

An enemy combatant should be locked up until hostilities are over. Where's the need for a trial when you are captured on the battlefield?

For "suspicious", possible terrorists, (i.e., not captured on the battlefield), I agree with you Ali.