News Release

Two answers:

First, given that we *did* have uniforms and they didn't, then any native-looking greaseball firing a weapon at us would be fairly recognizable.

Second, you didn't read down far enough:

  1. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Not a lot of doubt in my mind either, but there are mechanisms for this sort of thing that the administration ignored.

AFAICT, they just didn't want them to be able to "lawyer up", which I can understand, but under our constitution may simply be unavoidable. It would have made things less convenient, take longer, and cost more. But that's no excuse; that's life in a constitutional republic.

They made at least one decision... That the detainees *do* have the right to access our court system. A point that the BA fought tooth and nail.

It would strengthen the case for considering them soldiers rather than criminals. It's one factor among many.

No one falls outside the protection of the GC. You are either a POW, a Protected Person, or a War Criminal. In no case are you beyond the reach of law.

The fact that there is disagreement is de facto proof of "doubt arising".

Immaterial. See comments above.

It is simple. The GC always applies in one way or another.

Not to the administration. It was specifically chosen because of a ruling from the 1950's that made it sort of a no-man's land.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman
Loading thread data ...

I'm not arguing against the 2nd amendment, just it's applicability to this situation.

There was actually a ruling once, that I'm not going to try to dig up to cite right now, that boiled down to the 2nd amendment protecting the right to keep and bear a military style weapon but not a handgun because of the militia clause.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

Do you not have a concept of "Should any doubt arise"?

And a very bad decision it is.......quoting Judge Scalia: "consequence of this holding, as applied to aliens outside the country, is breathtaking. It permits an alien captured in a foreign theater of active combat to bring suit against the Secretary of Defense." "The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs," And I agree wholeheartedly with him.

Yes, and I quote Scalia again: "The Commander in Chief and his subordinates had every reason to expect that the internment of combatants at Guantanamo Bay would not have the consequence of bringing the cumbersome machinery of our domestic courts into military affairs,"

The difference between us and them is just what you have seen above. We do have laws and rules that we follow. I personally think that it was a bad decision, Scalia is right on the mark with his dissent.

Reply to
Cliff

Like I told optikl, I'm not arguing against the amendment in any way. But if you go back to documents of the time you see the reasoning behind it. Even the first two phrases, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,..." indicates a purpose that has nothing to do with individual protection. Scads of court decisions have proven my point. (No, I'm not digging the damn things up, I've got better things to do, thank-you.)

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

It depends on the scenario, doesn't it? Sometimes you need a hammer, sometimes a drill. Light and fast worked fine for defeating Saddam's forces; I agree that the shooting part of the war went very well with minimal casualties on both sides. That's not at issue in my mind.

I just think they were overly optimistic about the conditions we would be facing in the subsequent occupation. Occupation by it's very nature is a tiring, grinding, and often demoralizing affair. It would be

*really* nice to be getting more help from our allies in this task, which is one reason it would behoove us to be a bit more sensitive to their concerns.

What we're trying to do there is laudable, but it looks to me like we're just stretched too thin.

Got out as an E-6, one step below chief. Of course I'm full of shit, just ask my wife :)

But I hope you realize that we're ultimately on the same side in this war. We just disagree on the details.

I think the Abu Ghraib thing is more reminiscent of the first situation than the second. The soldiers at AG were acting in their military capacities; the rapists were not. I'm not saying that Rummy should be held personally responsible, but at least their immediate superior officer (in the Navy it would be a Division Officer) should be held accountable. He/She should have known what they were up to. Either he was complicit or he was inadequately supervising his troops.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

ACK. This is exactly what I mean.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

This is just an error.

But hey, Cliff, I don't argue against your 45 at all. Keep it, no problem for me. Why are you attacking me here with these things?

I just was surprised for what you're carring it with you. I asked, you explained, that's it.

No, they have not. And even if they would try, I would not believe.

No. You don't know me, that is clear now.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

[...]

Yes. You praised him here as an example for military strategy.

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

Especially since they did so.

Hm... using a spell checker, and using

formatting link
excessively ;-)

This is the reason, why I have problems with English sayings, for example. You cannot find them in dictionaries easily.

Yours, VB.oO( I really should start discussions in Spanish newsgroups )

Reply to
Volker Birk

yeah, we know.

Only a total fickwut* would use the "we're not bad because others have been worse" to justify bad behaviour.

Well if you paid for it, that makes it just fine. E.

*Someone too stupid to be a f****it
Reply to
E.

;-)

Yours, VB.

Reply to
Volker Birk

Is native looking grease ball a term that the GC recognizes?

They had plenty of time, plenty of warning to form themselves into "regular army units". And what was spontaneous about the Afghan campaign?

I ma not sure that they were ignored, as the determination was already made that there was no doubt about their staus what would be the hurry?

One factor that is again not covered under the GC.

I disagree, the GC is plainly a set of rules that you follow if you wish to be treated under the conditions of the GC. Do not follow the rules of war and the GC does not apply. Otherwise you would see a clause that is explicit.

And that is really a moot point to begin with as the prisoners are being treated as they are prisoners of war. The only difference is what standard they fall under not that they cannot be held.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act..." is a prisoner of war "...such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."

Reply to
Cliff

And I think that is a decision of the field commanders and I certianly am not capable of second guessing them.

I figured as much :) you were close enough to a chief for it to affect you :) (Really just kidding here, being a Navy brat with a dad who was a chief in the old navy.....well need I say more.)

Agreed.

I would have thought that the immediate command would have been culpable but to stretch that as far as Rumsfeld is a wild stretch.

Reply to
Cliff

Osama bin laden is the head of a terrorist organization that was supported by a state (Afghanistan) a far cry from your mother ( I hope :))

Again we'll jsut have to disagree.

Many people see it the other way around, we did not abandon the UN, the UN abandoned us. Under this we do have a right.

That still does not stop countrie from acting on their own.

It is not a matter not agreeing with opinions. It is a matter of ignoring the fact or not acknowledging them.

That is a totally different scenario, I do not agree either. We are not talking rivalries between countries we are talking about following laws and rules.

By default you are. While I am not saying that you support them I am saying with your refusal to see the laws and rules that we used to make the decisions we made is by default sideing with "them". not work, you cannot

Cliff. 11:29 :)

Reply to
Cliff

I am sorry if you think I am attacking you. That is not mu intent.

And I tried.

I agree I really do not. I was merely pointing out the inequities in your position. Sorry if I may have been a bit crude.

Reply to
Cliff

:) I was kidding.....:):):) It is a navy chief thing.......seems like your getting a bit testy here.

Leadership failure does not mean that the leaders were complicit in the knowledge as I recall there were quite a few command level personel that were relieved of their duties. Note that this does not mean that they were guilty of allowing torture, they were guilty of what Taguba stated " a failure of leadership". There is a huge difference.

Now may I ask you the same thing? Can please explain, why you're disagreeing with Major General Antonio Taguba?

Reply to
Cliff

Do you always treat people that declare war on you as criminals? That seems to be a pretty unusual answer.

Well you seem to be doing a mighty fine job no matter what you are using.

Reply to
Cliff

Not really. If they were being treated as POWs then the Red Cross would be allowed into Gitmo, for instance. This hasn't happened, AFAIK. Also, POWs aren't to be held criminally or morally responsible for their acts on the battlefield.

I recognize that for the most part (except for certain egregious counter-examples) they are being treated humanely. But at some point, even humane imprisonment becomes mis-treatment when they have yet to be afforded even the pro forma consideration of a kangaroo trial.

Question: Is the War in Afghanistan over yet? The country has been liberated and they have a functioning government. We still have troops there, but we still have troops in Germany so I'm not sure that means much. If the war is over then POWs should be returned and War Criminals need to be tried. Neither is happening.

On the other hand, if they are being held as prisoners of the War on Terror, we have a different set of problems. The War on Terror isn't a real war, it's a rhetorical war. It's like the War on Drugs or the War on Poverty. Terrorism isn't a group or a state, it's a tactic. It's like a War on the Forward Pass or the End Run. And it is likely to never end, just like the War on Drugs or Poverty. I have a real hard time with a President claiming war powers that way.

It looks to me like we have a President who is claiming the authority to arrest anyone they like, anywhere, anytime, whisk them off to a secret prison outside of the jurisdiction of any court system, deny them access to legal aid or the International Red Cross, and hold them indefinitely

-- perhaps even for life -- with no trial or any kind of accountancy to any outside agency or authority.

That doesn't sound like America to me.

I recognize that terrorism is different than ordinary war and it's different than ordinary criminal behavior. If we need to pass new laws and establish new legal principles and processes to deal with it, then fine; let's do that. but do it the right way. But all this secret, "no court has jurisdiction", and "no laws apply to what we're doing" crap has got to go.

Try, convict, sentence, and execute. And I'll gladly borrow your 45 cal and serve in the firing squad. Trust me, I have no love for those assholes.

Reply to
Rod Engelsman

From what I can find out the RC has made 18 visits since 1-2002.

formatting link

That is of course if they are considered POW's you are correct. If they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the GC....well who knows. I will agree we are treading on new ground here and that is certainly part of the problem

Agreed

POW's are not tried. Illegal combatants, terrorists or whatever buzzword you wish to call them can be FWIU.

Unfortunately the picture is not quite as clear as that. As the war on terror is still ongoing it is ludicrous to think that the detainees will be released to kill again.

I would agree with you except for one fact. osama and al queda declared war on us:

formatting link
al queda is not a country it does pose some unique problems in the implementation of the GC.

Unfortuately as I have stated before this is not a normal war. If we allow people to use the GC as a means of circumventing our rights in regards to detaining prisoners we have lost the war before it begins.

In the most part I do agree with you. But you do have to remember it is not our laws that outline treatment of prisoners or I mean we are not the governing body responsible to press for a change in these laws especially while we are at war. We are treading on new grounds here in all respects. If I were to see summary executions, torture that is indeed torture, withholding of food etc I would be in complete agreement with you. As far as I have seen this is not the case at gitmo, they are fed well, treated reasonably, allowed to practice their religeous beliefs and have access to the Red Cross, pretty much everything that a true prisoner of war would expect. As no decisions have been made about their status it is really a moot point if people are held, they would be held anyway no matter what the outcome of their tribunal.

Oh I believe you. And I agree wholeheartedly... I just believe that what we have done is really nothing to lose sleep over and we have nothing to be ashamed of in regards to the treatment of these people. Just the fact that this arguement is taking place is giving some points that the enemy can argue against us in the court of world opinion. As long as I live I will defend what I feel is right against those who flavor the world opinion with half truths and innuendos in the battle of public opinion. Maybe Vietnam is still a burning hole in my soul for the way organized propaganda turned the tide of that war.....

Reply to
Cliff

He isn't. "A failure of leadership" can mean a lot of things; including incompetence; an unwillingness to encourage troops to follow lawful processes; or a (selective) disinterest in what the grunts are doing. Volker asks "please explain wether the officers were incompetent or unconcerend or just undutiful".

Everybody holding rank is; btw "command level". And a few sacrificial goats don't set the situation right if many of those who were complicit, either by direct action or a failure to act, go unpunished. And they need to be seen to be punished.

And those not in command are also required to act in a way that doesn't bring their service into disrepute.

Reply to
Bernd Felsche

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.