I wonder how Americans would feel if their soldiers were kept like the Al Qaeda POW's

[KrazyHorse]

I don't think anybody would interpret that phrase quite that liberally. Promising to go easy if Hogan told where the radio was would be acceptable treatment in my mind.

(Whereas threatening a month of no sunlight, for example, wouldn't be)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Plea bargaining death or life in prison charges down to 5, 10, 20 years or walking out the door tends to induce cooperation in most people.

[KrazyHorse]

And why would I disagree with that?

I just don't think plea-bargaining on criminal charges violates the letter (and for damn sure not the spirit) of the Convention.

[Faeelin]

I didn't mean you personally

I meant you as in the US or westerners in general.

The logic still applies.

The arguement "well the USA was a big bully invading Afghanistan" is wrong. If a nation declares war, they pay the penalties of the war. They were told to hand OBL over. They didn't. They were offered evidence. They didn't. Now the afghanistan people are thrilled that the Taliban are gone, and their leaders re dead or fleeing. Life's tough. Were the situations reversed, much worse would've happened. Imagine if they'd attaked the US.

Oh wait.

[KrazyHorse]

Hey, I'm probably one of the happier people here that the Taliban got 86ed, but customarily extradition requires documentation which shows proof that the individual to be handed over has done something. The US didn't respond to requests for proof from the Afghan government.

Not that I'm pissed, cuz I would have supported the war before Sept. 11th, but it was silly for Bush and co. to appear so hard-headed, IMO...

(Though I guess the Taleban was even sillier to be hard-headed )

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Chris 62

And yet another of the "hate Chris" brigade is heard from.

where do I sign up?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Hey, I'm probably one of the happier people here that the Taliban got 86ed, but customarily extradition requires documentation which shows proof that the individual to be handed over has done something. The US didn't respond to requests for proof from the Afghan government.

The internationally recognized Afghan government (Rabbani and co. at the time) made no such requests. For the US to acquiesce to the Taleban's request would have legitimized their status as a defacto government, then the Taleban would have used the propaganda opportunity to deny that bin Laden was guilty and laughed their asses off at how they'd played Bush.

In the circumstances (note that my opinion of Ashcroft in general is pretty damned low, I'm becoming less than impressed with Rumsfeld, so I'm not the quintessential America love it or leave it lackey), I don't see how Bush had much of an alternative, that wouldn't have involved the US either kowtowing to the Taleban or acting the bully. I think Mullah Omar was smart enough to know this - he also knew that handing over bin Laden was a political impossibility even IF he had the slightest inclination, so the whole thing IMO was a cynical maneuver (and a damn good one) to get what propaganda value they could out of the inevitable confrontation.

The problem is that the Taleban thought they had a lot higher degree of support from the tribes and their own fighters.

Not that I'm pissed, cuz I would have supported the war before Sept. 11th, but it was silly for Bush and co. to appear so hard-headed, IMO...

(Though I guess the Taleban was even sillier to be hard-headed )

So what's the problem? The war there is essentially over, and with the multinational commitment to nation (re)building in Afghanistan, and the increased flow of aid now, the long-term prospects for the vast majority of the Afghan people are better than they were back on September 10, despite a lot of lingering problems.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
And why would I disagree with that?

I just don't think plea-bargaining on criminal charges violates the letter (and for damn sure not the spirit) of the Convention.

Any interrogation beyond the scope of name, rank, serial number, unit designation, and date of birth is generally impermissible, and any threat in changes of conditions of captivity (or duration) is expressly prohibited under Article 17.

What happens in reality is that nobody strictly adheres to all the conditions of the convention all the time. And I mean nobody.

In this case, the US position is that it simply doesn't apply to these prisoners.

[Alexander's Horse]

You're making it up as you go along

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by reds4ever
where do I sign up?

I wasn't aware you could write.

See Horsey?

Hardly my imagination, a loser fell for that ol trick sure as shotin'

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


What happens in reality is that nobody strictly adheres to all the conditions of the convention all the time. And I mean nobody.

And yet MTG wants to apply super strict, letter of the convention definitions to POW's

Hoisted on your own petard there old chap

Here, have some more rope

[Roland]

Mike:

"Article 17"

Hmmm.... Bush-lawyer leaning out of the window and..... OOPS!

Read the headline of the chapter: "BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY". And as a matter or war-captivity, no one can be coerced to give information about say troop movements etc. This is unrelated - UNRELATED - to criminal prosecutions.

Disciplinary and criminal sanctions come later. Look for "Judicial proceedings": namely Art 99 onwards. And ia Art 99 states as the relevant provision:

"No moral or physical coercion may be exerted on a prisoner of war in order to induce him to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused."

Apart from this and other specific guarantees, the respective law for your own military guys applies. Art 99 is a guarantee against being forced to testify against yourself - it does not exclude ordinary investigations and interrogations conducted for such a trial.

"you can't even discuss charging them criminally and offering a plea bargain for cooperation."

The way plea bargains are handled in the US they could fall under "moral coercion", but this has to be seen on a case-by-case basis. Lighter punishment for cooperation (in the trial - not in giving military information) as such is no problem.

Considering that say the position of terrorists or Al Quaeda cells is part of a criminal investigation, and not a military issue (as you found, we agreed that the ordinary terrorist is no combatant), I fail to see a problem with POW status - unless we are talking about protections against torture and such.

[Roland]

Chrissie!

"No wonder things are as they are there."

You know, or more likely, you don't know, that our Haider has gone totally gaga ? He's acting in a way now that makes dubya look like a really bright fellow. Which is interesting because...

"I never attack anyone, I am ever attacked, because I say my mind, unfettered by poltical corectness and false compasion."

That's a Haider quote!

"They aern't soldiers, they are animals, mad dogs, and we will put them down."

Goebbels speak.

"And that is the will of the people of the USA, look at any opinion poll."

Freisler speak.

"You can stick your morality where the sun don't shine (which also happens to be where friend Rollie pulls most of his answers from, BTW), we have had enough of "kid" gloves. This is kill or be killed."

The stench of defeatism. No confidence, no faith. But fascism has always been for the weak and fearful. Yet I'm sure you'll return to normal. Until then, you're really cute throwing that tantrum.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse


And yet MTG wants to apply super strict, letter of the convention definitions to POW's

Hoisted on your own petard there old chap

Here, have some more rope

Hardly, I say, "**** 'em, rather than give the Eurowhinies and Aussiewhiny something to actually complain about, let's not grant them a status they're entitled to"

Roland - "BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY" - exactly my point

Read the headline of the chapter: "BEGINNING OF CAPTIVITY". And as a matter or war-captivity, no one can be coerced to give information about say troop movements etc. This is unrelated - UNRELATED - to criminal prosecutions.

Thank you. Where do I send the case of beer, or the check to cover the same, since you've got all the good beer on your side of the pond?

That which you describe is EXACTLY what we want out of these *******s - current, relevant info on where the other *******s may be, and what toys and support mechanisms they may have in place.

Even if we treated 'em as POWs, we don't have to repatriate 'em until we're done with Al Qaeda, which could be years. Who needs to try them for anything specific? What we need, and what we want from these people, is current intel which we can not by terms of the GC interrogate POW's to get. And beginning of captivity is relevant, because every day that goes by, the intel that these people have gets colder and of less value, until it's essentially useless. Six months or a year from now, it won't matter.

These people have been interrogated continuously, and are being interrogated as needed, about current intel, and probably only peripherally about criminal investigative matters. What we want is to find the remaining *******s and their means of support, not additional trial preparation - that can wait. As you pointed out, that can be had anytime, regardless of their status.

[Roland]

"Thank you. Where do I send the case of beer, or the check to cover the same, since you've got all the good beer on your side of the pond?"

Is this a beer thread now ? Excellent idea. I always liked Corona (as a sort of lemonade). I assume they still have it in Mexico ?

"That which you describe is EXACTLY what we want out of these *******s - current, relevant info"

On military matters ?

"Even if we treated 'em as POWs, we don't have to repatriate 'em until we're done with Al Qaeda, which could be years."

If they are not POWs, and you do not charge them, on what legal grounds do you hold them ?
If they are POWs, and the Taliban were IYO the only party on the other side, the war is over - on what grounds do you hold them ? Do you negotiate repatriation, then ?
Now until you're done with Al Qaeda - so IYO the US is now formally at war with the remains of Al Qaeda that are nothing but a terrorist organisation ?

I fail to see why you need to twist and bend around creating confusions to come to a result that is unproblematic anyway.

"What we need, and what we want from these people, is current intel which we can not by terms of the GC interrogate POW's to get."

About a terrorist organisation, not a combatant organisation. Al Qaeda may have been both in Afghanistan (about which the earlier dispute was), but the latter, if it existed, is no more and is of no interest.

"What we want is to find the remaining *******s and their means of support, not additional trial preparation - that can wait."

The prosecution process also covers the investigative period. It were odd should the Convention allow for trials, but not for investigations. "You may charge'em with murder, but you may not ask them to find out who did it" ?