[DoctorDeryOne]

How so?

Well, why would you consider these men illegal in the first place?

1. They disguised themselves as the US.
2. They have no official government.

but...

1. You consider "terrorists" to be a legitimate faction, thus, their official uniform is that of any variety.

2. But you consider this to be a war with POWs, right?

[scewDeasp]

Sal: Basically, the Muslim Terrorists are cowards.
proUSA: Seems to me that people are forgetting that other countries have terrorist alerts these day's....Even those who were against the Iraq war.
.....

I picked up these stupid opinions from below. First of all, the muslims are in their own country and fighting for their OWN independence agaist an illegal occupier and robber. The Americans are cowards - they asked UN to block the country for tens of years so that they certainly were poor and did not have any modern weapons to protect their homes. The UN did not give any permission for USA to occupy this vulnerable country - it was against the constitution of the UN. The Americans use high-tec weapons from carriers and planes - cruising missiles and DU, phosphore and cluster bombs, etc. Who are the real men and fighters?

.

Stupid opinions???

Let's analyze. No pun intended.

The Muslims are fighting for their own independence against an illegal occupier and robber.

Is that why they are bombing the police stations and Iraqi military recruitment centers, not to mention crowded market places full of innocents? Iraq is independent Einstein. They have had 3 elections and their own constitution...oh...wait, those aren't really Iraqi's at those police stations and market places...they are CIA operatives posing as 5 year olds. It's amazing what you can do with makeup these days.

Americans asked the UN to block the country...blah, blah blah (added by Dr. Who but carries the same meaning)...the UN didn't give any permission....

I take you mean that bastion of integrity previously led by St. Annan. Permission??? Don't make me laugh, it hurts my sides

Who are the real men and fighters?.

Real men don't purposely target women and children and place them at the bottom of their society.

In the world we have terrorist alerts only in those countries where CIA is organizing the plots. Russian KGB has organized their own plots (exploding the block houses was such according to a documentary film). For example, in Britain everybody knows that so called 7/7 and liquid bomb events were planned and implemented by CIA and MI5 together. Quite nicely when Bush and Blair wanted to have a nice support kick for elections (and now all the air passengers must suffer from this CIA crime as liquids are not allowed to planes). The secret police in EU is now following very carefully US spies and CIA agents and many terror plots have been interrupted. The only place where CIA can organize the comin new 911 in the Gulf of Persia - and accuse Iran....

Everybody in Britain knows? And they didn't tell us? They better hope there isn't a WWIII cuz' we're not saving their butts again.

I trust you have your tinfoil hat on Analyst.

[Evoryboypoto]

Well, why would you consider these men illegal in the first place?

1. They disguised themselves as the US.
2. They have no official government.

but...

1. You consider "terrorists" to be a legitimate faction, thus, their official uniform is that of any variety.

2. But you consider this to be a war with POWs, right?

I thought I was clear before, but let me restate myself more forcefully. The claim that "any" is a uniform is either insane, a lie or a attempt at a legal loophole, but it is not true. The behaviour you sited may have been a military operation instead of their more normal terroristic tactics, but it still fell short of a legitimate military tactic, for reasons well stated by Thematic-Device.

[DoctorDeryOne]

I thought I was clear before, but let me restate myself more forcefully. The claim that "any" is a uniform is either insane, a lie or a attempt at a legal loophole, but it is not true. The behaviour you sited may have been a military operation instead of their more normal terroristic tactics, but it still fell short of a legitimate military tactic, for reasons well stated by Thematic-Device.

What Thematic said about wearing an identifying mark is only true if you are not wearing your own uniform. But if your own uniform is "any," then you are wearing your own uniform.

[Evoryboypoto]

What Thematic said about wearing an identifying mark is only true if you are not wearing your own uniform. But if your own uniform is "any," then you are wearing your own uniform.

"Any" is not a uniform.

[Evoryboypoto]

What Thematic said about wearing an identifying mark is only true if you are not wearing your own uniform. But if your own uniform is "any," then you are wearing your own uniform.

BTW Are you comfortable with the idea that a military force facing an enemy with the uniform of "any" would open fire on any appoaching civilians who are wearing "any" clothing because they are wearing the "uniform" of the enemy?

[DoctorDeryOne]

"Any" is not a uniform.

And the war on terror is just a set of policies against terrorism. Thus, those captured should be given a trial or released.

That's what I'm driving at.

[DoctorDeryOne]

BTW Are you comfortable with the idea that a military force facing an enemy with the uniform of "any" would open fire on any appoaching civilians who are wearing "any" clothing because they are wearing the "uniform" of the enemy?

This is why considering the WOT to be a real "war" is ridiculous: because it doesn't work.

Recall the OP:

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation? Some people consider the "War on Terror" to be an actual war, no different from any other (since they consider those captured to not be allowed to stand trial until the "war" is over).

[Evoryboypoto]

And the war on terror is just a set of policies against terrorism. Thus, those captured should be given a trial or released.

That's what I'm driving at.

Ok, I see your point, so lets think about this.


Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war lose the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war but only after facing a "competent tribunal" (GC III Art 5). At that point they become an unlawful combatant but they must still be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial", because they are still covered by GC IV Art 5. For example in 1976 foreign soldiers fighting for FNLA were captured by the MPLA in the civil war that broke out when Angola gained independence from Portugal in 1975. After "a regularly constituted court" found them guilty of being mercenaries, three Britons and an American were shot by a firing squad on July 10, 1976. Nine others were imprisoned for terms of 16 to 30 years.

Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts and in practice have been subjected to torture and/or execution. The laws of war neither approve nor condemn such acts, which fall outside their scope

IMO treating them as POWs is a dodge because the admistration believes, correctly, that America does not have the stomach for mass executions, which would be the just response to the acts of mass murder that many of these people are guilty of.


In the example 4 out of 9 executed; how many prisoners does the US hold?

[DoctorDeryOne]

Ok, I see your point, so lets think about this.


Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





IMO treating them as POWs is a dodge because the admistration believes, correctly, that America does not have the stomach for mass executions, which would be the just response to the acts of mass murder that many of these people are guilty of.


In the example 4 out of 9 executed; how many prisoners does the US hold?

So we should not give people trials because we might convict them and give them the death sentence? Wow, that is some very interesting reasoning right there.

[PypeMaypetasy]

How does it lack honor to do what they did?

being who you seem to be by your posting

you dont get it

nor will you if i try to explain

[PypeMaypetasy]

Ok, I see your point, so lets think about this.


Laws of war - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





IMO treating them as POWs is a dodge because the admistration believes, correctly, that America does not have the stomach for mass executions, which would be the just response to the acts of mass murder that many of these people are guilty of.


In the example 4 out of 9 executed; how many prisoners does the US hold?

you are dead on for what they do

they deserve nothing but the firing squad

[Evoryboypoto]

So we should not give people trials because we might convict them and give them the death sentence? Wow, that is some very interesting reasoning right there.

First of all, should have stated, 4 out of 13, from the example.

Secondly, think about it. THey are committing war crimes on a huge scale. Killing people, outside of the rules of war, by the thousands. Technically at this point every one of them is either an illegal foriegn invader or a traitor to the elected goverment of Iraq, in addition to being party to mass murder.

What do you think would be the outcome of a fair trial or military tribunal?

[DoctorDeryOne]

First of all, should have stated, 4 out of 13, from the example.

Secondly, think about it. THey are committing war crimes on a huge scale. Killing people, outside of the rules of war, by the thousands. Technically at this point every one of them is either an illegal foriegn invader or a traitor to the elected goverment of Iraq, in addition to being party to mass murder.

What do you think would be the outcome of a fair trial or military tribunal?

Which trial convicted them of all of those accusations you posted?

[Evoryboypoto]

Which trial convicted them of all of those accusations you posted?

The hypothetical trial you want. I don't know how many would be captured with enough evidence to be found guilty of treason, but I supect it would be enough to be presented to the American public (not to mention the rest of the world ) as mass executions.

Hell, it might be enough that that would be a fair description.

And I repeat, that even though that would be just, America ( not to mention the rest of the world ) does not have the stomach for justice, IMO.

[DoctorDeryOne]

The hypothetical trial you want. I don't know how many would be captured with enough evidence to be found guilty of treason, but I supect it would be enough to be presented to the American public (not to mention the rest of the world ) as mass executions.

Hell, it might be enough that that would be a fair description.

And I repeat, that even though that would be just, America ( not to mention the rest of the world ) does not have the stomach for justice, IMO.

So, you once again go back to saying "no trial for people we imprisoned because we don't have the stomach for it" while working completely from the speculation that enough of them would be guilty, despite the lack of the trial(s). America apparently has the stomach for melting people with White Phosphorus, though.

[ahagotyou]

washingtonpost.com

This is interesting not because of what happened, but the way in which people will consider it. Was this an irregulars' act of terrorism? Or was it a legitimate military operation?

That was a well planned millitary operation. So well planned and executed that it suggests state sponsorship IMO.

Probably Iran or Russia I would guess.

[Evoryboypoto]

So, you once again go back to saying "no trial for people we imprisoned because we don't have the stomach for it" while working completely from the speculation that enough of them would be guilty, despite the lack of the trial(s).

Yep. I have not heard any reports on a breakdown of the evidence or circumstances of the captures, so speculation.

Do you not agree that people who bear arms against their duly elected goverment are guilty of treason, a capital offense?


America apparently has the stomach for melting people with White Phosphorus, though Ironic when you put it like that, but death in combat has always been viewed differantly then after capture in the American culture.

[DoctorDeryOne]

Yep. I have not heard any reports on a breakdown of the evidence or circumstances of the captures, so speculation.

Right. Baseless speculation. Do you not agree that people who bear arms against their duly elected goverment are guilty of treason, a capital offense?
Treason is just violation of allegiance to one's state/sovereign. So yeah, you could call it that. What is your point?

Ironic when you put it like that, but death in combat has always been viewed differantly then after capture in the American culture. And?

[Evoryboypoto]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Calvin X
Yep. I have not heard any reports on a breakdown of the evidence or circumstances of the captures, so speculation.

Right. Baseless speculation. Not completely baseless, see below.

Quote:
Do you not agree that people who bear arms against their duly elected goverment are guilty of treason, a capital offense?


Treason is just violation of allegiance to one's state/sovereign. So yeah, you could call it that. What is your point?
That if thousands, if not 10s of thousands of people are guilty of capital crimes we have to consider the possible outcome of thousands of capital punishments, and the consquences.

Quote:
America apparently has the stomach for melting people with White Phosphorus, though

Ironic when you put it like that, but death in combat has always been viewed differantly then after capture in the American culture. And?
And IMO America can deal with thousands of enemies being killed in combat but will blanch at thousands of executions, thus the dodge of POWs instead of trials.


I think I have explained my view on this fairly well. You seem to even agree with me on some of the toughest parts, like that the insurgents/terrorists are traitors.

What is your view on the POW issue and/or trials?