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

[Frodo]

I'm confused. What are we trying them for? And who exactly are we trying?

I think Deity Dude had a point. Are we talking about Al Qaeda members here? How can anyone implicate them in the WTC/Pentagon attacks? The guys who flew the planes are all dead. Anyone else involved is just an accessory. It's not likely that there were very many other people who even really knew the details of what was happening, other than that a large attack was planned. So if they are criminals, what is their crime?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Frodo

It's not likely that there were very many other people who even really knew the details of what was happening, other than that a large attack was planned. So if they are criminals, what is their crime?

My point exactly From what I can see, for the vast majority their only crime is feudal ignorance. I saw one Pakistani recruit who said he came to fight in Afghanistan because it was a country of infidels. He didn't know most Afghans are muslims. How do you put a fool like that on trial?

The whole thing is a sad farce.

[faded glory]

its a bird, its a plane, no its.....a rock!

Hey......an asteroid the size of mount everest is passing between earth and the moon tonight....cool

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Frodo
I'm confused. What are we trying them for? And who exactly are we trying?

So far, we're just hanging on to them, to find out who they are, what they know, etc. There's already a big weeding out process - most Taleban fighters are allowed to go free, to go back to their villages. Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, who are not their in an official capacity on behalf of allied governments - they are there as mercenaries, which puts them in about the worst position they can be in. Mercenaries have no protections under international law. Most of them (those that don't have any major role in al Qaeda) are better off in our custody than they are being prisoners of the Northern Alliance.

I think Deity Dude had a point. Are we talking about Al Qaeda members here? How can anyone implicate them in the WTC/Pentagon attacks? The guys who flew the planes are all dead. Anyone else involved is just an accessory. It's not likely that there were very many other people who even really knew the details of what was happening, other than that a large attack was planned. So if they are criminals, what is their crime?

That's to be determined. Meanwhile, they get to be fed, housed, given medical attention, and otherwise treated as prisoners of war. Better than many of the available alternatives.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Al Qaeda fighters are foreigners, who are not their in an official capacity on behalf of allied governments - they are there as mercenaries, which puts them in about the worst position they can be in. Mercenaries have no protections under international law.

Er how can you say they are mercenaries? They aren't doing it for the pay

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
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.

The vote in the poll says there's a lot of squeamish whiners who are now so concerned about the precious "rights" of a bunch of ****ing mercenaries. How much concern did anyone in particular have for the "rights" of the people oppressed by the regime maintained by these mercenaries? It's funny, it really is. Arab and Pakistani al Qaeda members can support one of the most brutal regimes in the world, which has caused enormous suffering and oppression, and nobody says "boo." But now, all this whining over the hypotheticals of what the US might do to few al Qaeda or Taleban leader.

Perhaps we ought to turn them over to Afghan "justice" - anybody remember what happened to Mohammad Najibullah?

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.

If they had a reason to, yes. But we're the ones paying, training, and supporting them, so they bring their prisoners to us. If you guys wanted to adopt some, you should have helped the NA out yourselves.

[Alexander's Horse]

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

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The vote in the poll says there's a lot of squeamish whiners who are now so concerned about the precious "rights" of a bunch of ****ing mercenaries.

How much concern did anyone in particular have for the "rights" of the people oppressed by the regime maintained by these mercenaries?

You mean the US's close allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Perhaps we ought to turn them over to Afghan "justice" - anybody remember what happened to Mohammad Najibullah?

Why not? You're letting them do the torturing for you

If they had a reason to, yes. But we're the ones paying, training, and supporting them, so they bring their prisoners to us. If you guys wanted to adopt some, you should have helped the NA out yourselves.

We aren't that dumb.

[MichaeltheGreat]

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

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

I agree, the transparent show of concern is laughable.

You mean the US's close allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Actually, I was refering to places like Canada, Oz, NZ, Europe, etc. At least the Saudi's and Pakistanis are consistent in their lack of concern.

Why not? You're letting them do the torturing for you

Naaah, you don't understand the fine art of interrogation. We're giving them food, medical care, and saving them from those Uzbeks and Tajiks who are making sure their knives are dull enough. Of course, we make sure that they're close enough by that our prisoners never forget whose prisoners they could become.

We aren't that dumb.

Then don't whine about it when we handle things our way.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


Er how can you say they are mercenaries? They aren't doing it for the pay

Doesn't matter if they're doing it for fun or pay, or just because they're bored, or to get away from their nagging wives, or mothers-in-law.

Their legal status is still that of mercenaries. Their motivations don't matter, only the fact that they are there as combatants by their own choice as individuals with no official status as a member of the armed services of a combatant country.

[Alexander's Horse]

If there is a serious point here, which I'm beginning to doubt, it is that the legal process needs to be just and to be seen to be so by the international community, incuding to the muslim world. I would like it to show what idiots these people really are and the evil that results from their stupidity. This is as important to defeating OBL and his ilk as blowing stuff up. Capiche

That's whay I've always felt that prosecutors and police would do a much better job of demolishing OBL that military means.

[MichaeltheGreat]

The serious point is that the US will do what it wants with these *******s, which in most cases will mean turning them loose once they've been shown not to be anyone significant, or not to have any particular intelligence value.

Nothing the US or west does is going to satisfy Islamic fundamentalists as to "fairness." The rest of the world really doesn't give a ****.

With all this talk about "fair trials" - then certainly, we ought to immediately give the entire public world a complete view of all US and foreign sources and means of intelligence used to gather evidence. After all, preserving a few terrorists "right" to cross-examination while unknown dozens or hundreds of their accomplices are at large and under investigation is far more important than maintaining what intelligence capabilities we do have.

Yes, let's expose everything to everyone, to "prove" to a few simpering do-nothings that the guilty really are guilty.

Singaporan authorities just arested a fairly large al Qaeda cell in Singapore, and they attributed the identification of those terrorists to the results of interrogations and intelligence gathering in Afghanistan. Let's by all means make sure every terrorists still out there knows our exact capabilities and take of intel data, so they can change their operating and communications procedures.

Prosecutors and police do a great job when the criminal has the courtesy to enter and stay in their jurisdiction while he's doing his thing. They're not real useful outside their jurisdictions. I'd still like to see a cop go knocking on a cave entrance in Tora Bora, and say "Excuse me, but we have a warrant to search for weapons and evidence of terrorist activities?"

[Alexander's Horse]

The intel argument has always been a load of bull. The US government has always been able to protect its sources in court.

[Chris 62]

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

I think it is the point, Dan.
have they been given a leagal status as of yet?
I haven't heard of any.

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.

I think that Horsie and our euro friends opinions are the last thing we give a damn about at this point.
They remind me of the intense stupidity of people like the ACLU, who argue that everyone should be investigated if anyone is, and that law enforcement resources are endless, and could do this, investigate all, when the exact opposite is the case.

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

They lack the backbone to do what must be done, they are to tied to middle east fossil fuels and other economic interests to act objectivly.

[Alexander's Horse]

Oh well - I suppose the US will continue to flail around vengefully like a bull in a China shop - just the way OBL wanted

And if OBl gets executed, he gets the martyr's death that will complete his legend

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Oh well - I suppose the US will continue to flail around vengefully like a bull in a China shop - just the way OBL wanted

Happy to oblige him on that point.

And if OBl gets executed, he gets the martyr's death that will complete his legend

I'm glad you brought this up, because it's an interesting point.
People don't want to make him a martyr, yet, can you name other martyrs today?
The Mahdi was a Martyr a century ago, does anyone remember him, or even care, today?
The talk of Martyrs is over-rated, as far as I can see, no Martyr outside of Jesus has made any real impact on history.