Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

[DanS]

Yep, you probably could if you wanted to.

[faded glory]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Revised down to ~2800 as of last estimate.

umm no.....1300 bodies have been recovered and marked dead.

2800 are still listed as missing

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by faded glory


umm no.....1300 bodies have been recovered and marked dead.

2800 are still listed as missing

Nope. Just watched it on the news last night. ~700 dead, ~1950 missing with death certificates. More missing with no death certificates (less than a 1000), and these are the ones that keep the body count dropping.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by faded glory


umm no.....1300 bodies have been recovered and marked dead.

2800 are still listed as missing

Nope. Just watched it on the news last night. ~700 dead, ~1950 missing with death certificates. More missing with no death certificates (less than a 1000), and these are the ones that keep the body count dropping.

[faded glory]

what difference would it make if it were 10 or 10,000? Binny and Mullah got what they deserved.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by DanS
Tingkai is full of sh*t and it's not at all "a good point"--it's false wisdom. They would take their charges seriously as they have in the past in terrorism trials. Y'all act as if we haven't done this before. We've even had trials regarding the first World Trade Center terrorism act.

The only thing the Geneva conventions state regarding this is that you can't have different punishment for acts committed by detainees than the general populace. So the US is in the clear on this. If we execute Timothy McVeigh for terrorism, we can execute OBL for terrorism.

Dan: You're blind to the truth. The fact that people were put on trial for Oklahoma and WTC bombing does not automatically mean that these people received a fair trial, or for that matter an unfair trial.

In McVeigh's case, IIRC the FBI "forgot" to hand over 20-odd boxes of evidence to the defence team. That was a very serious breach of procedure. McVeigh wanted to die so this "mistake" became irrelevent, but it raises the question of how fair his trial was.

If the American people are willing to kill innocent Afghani civilians in their pursuit of Bin Laden, then why would they care if an Afghani was wrongly convicted of being a terrorist? As many Americans have written on these boards, the Afghanis are guilty and deserve to die. Why bother with a trial when you "know" they are guilty.

[DinoDoc]

Where is Roland when you need him?

Tingkai: Afghani is the currency. Afghans are the people. Just thought I'd point that out.

[Deity Dude]

I'll bet when it is all said and done that what we are talking about here is more theory then actuality. I don't think anyone will get the death penalty unless it can be shown that they were "directly" linked to the planning or execution of the 9/11 events and those people will either disappear or die before getting arrested.

Believe me, the US isn't gonna start executing al-Qaada members due to their membership or they would literally have to execute 1000's of people and they just aren't gonna do it.

As for closed trials, it is a necessity in these types of cases. In the past when the US has detained terrorists and has to take them into open US courts they often times were unable to get convictions simply because they did not want to compromise their intelligence sources.

Do you realize that Ramzey Yusseff was in custody in the United States on terrorism charges and was deported because of the breach of security it would have caused to prove him guilty in open court. In case you forgot who he is, he the guy who came back 2 years later and bombed the World Trade Center.

[Roland]

Dino:

Lefty is overall correct on this, although he may make it sound more dramatic than it is.

The humanitarian rules of war apply to all combatants; in Afghanistan even Al Quaeda members who fight openly should qualify for that. The limitations on POWs' freedom are not a punishment, and end with the end of conflict/repatriation.

POWs can be tried and punished with a couple of limitations. One is that trials may not circumvent POW protections; or that you can't try a POW for "murder" for killing a soldier in combat. The minimum procedural guarantees for trials are quite difficult to pin down under international law; even dubya's suggested canguroo courts may pass that test. The bigger problem with them is domestic and constitutional. About disclosing evidence, I think there are rules covering this for "ordinary" organised crime.

There is only regional international law against the death penalty, so per se its application is no violation of international law.

[DanS]

"In McVeigh's case, IIRC the FBI "forgot" to hand over 20-odd boxes of evidence to the defence team. That was a very serious breach of procedure. McVeigh wanted to die so this "mistake" became irrelevent, but it raises the question of how fair his trial was."

It was a semi-serious breach of procedure, but I don't think it raises a question of how fair the trial was. Believe it or not, 20 boxes isn't that many documents in a trial this large.

But it does raise the question of whether all of the Defense Department's documents are going to be subject to discovery. This is the kind of absurdity that the US would like to avoid.

"If the American people are willing to kill innocent Afghani civilians in their pursuit of Bin Laden, then why would they care if an Afghani was wrongly convicted of being a terrorist? As many Americans have written on these boards, the Afghanis are guilty and deserve to die. Why bother with a trial when you "know" they are guilty."

Who are these "many Americans... on these boards?" Please cite me what they have said.

[Chris 62]

you guys are missing the point

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Mark is quite right - the U.S. is a signatory and its Geneva Convention obligations extends to combatant who are not signatories.

Sorry, but the boy and yourself are 100% INCORRECT.

Chris: it doesn't matter whether the enemy is a signator or not. You are bound by the conventions if you are a signator.

I also cut in Dan, because all of you are forgetting something.

THEY AERN'T POWs

They are criminals, unless you care to show me a formal declaration of war on Afghanistan, which is impossible, because the war is against criminal organizations, not nations, and POW status and the Convention ONLY applies in that instance. Then you must prove they represent the leagal Afghan goverenment, in other words, good luck. "War" on terror is a slogan, not a leagal postion.

And as a point, the convention only applies to signies, whether you believe it or not.
This is why most Japanese prison camp comanders were not prosecuted after WWII, because Japan never signed. The same is true about Germany, many camp commanders were not turned over to the Soviets, because the Soviets also refused to sign, and this was confirmed by Geneva after WWII, so it's no joy to your argument.

Nice try guys, but El Queda and the Taliban are akin to the Mafia, not to nations, so the convention doesn't apply, and the USA is free to deal with them as it sees fit.

In other words, try again.

[DanS]

Chris: no. You're missing the point. We're treating them like POWs. Whether or not they are POWs is beside the point.

The good news is that doesn't stop us from doing what we see fit with them, including trying them for what they've done, and executing them, if warranted.

edit: interestingly, we might want to ship these guys to some place like Germany. They have some laws barring association. We don't.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Most Western countries have abolished the death penalty as barbaric. There are Western country citizens amongst the prisoners taken in Afghanistan - 2 Australians and 3 Brits have been reported. Neither country has the death penalty.

Depends on what they did to who. I'm sure we'll have enough prisoners bye and bye to give you guys a few of your own.

What about the Geneva Convention? Many of those captured surrendered in battle.

The Geneva convention does not offer immunity from punishment for war crimes or violations of the laws and customs of war, nor does it apply to such persons as terrorists, saboteurs, or spies.

What about other international law? The International Court of Justice doesn't execute war criminals. Could the US find itself before the ICJ if it executes prisoners?

What about it? If they're our prisoners, from our war, then too ****ing bad. If anyone else was so concerned about what happens to them, then they should have come to the party to get their own damned prisoners.

Why is the US planning to use closed military tribunals to try prisoners? Is that allowed under international law? How do you get a fair trial in a closed court?

Let's see if this ever moves beyond a rhetorical position, first.

[Alexander's Horse]

Re: Re: Should the United States have the right to execute War on Terrorism POW's?

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What about it? If they're our prisoners, from our war, then too ****ing bad.

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that old chap - the US has commitments under international law. It also has an international reputation which it likes to keep unsullied. This is a UN sanctioned action now so all UN members have a stake in what goes on. The vote in the poll says it all.

If anyone else was so concerned about what happens to them, then they should have come to the party to get their own damned prisoners.

Correct if I'm wrong but I thought the Northern Alliance was taking most of the prisoners and then handing them over to the US. They could just as easily hand them over to another authority such as an international peacekeeping force.

[DanS]

"They could just as easily hand them over to another authority such as an international peacekeeping force."

Sure they could. But why on Earth would they do that?