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

[Roland]

Maybe we need an example. On May 7th 1945, US troops capture surrendering high ranking Wehrmacht officer Maier who was involved in say a massacre in Ucraine. A POW. US investigators are looking for Eichmann. Are you saying that Art 17 stops US investigators from a) asking Maier about the massacre b) asking Maier about his orders concerning that massacre and c) asking Maier whether he has information where Eichmann is ?

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by 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 ?

Corona is what they make here for the gringos. I like Franziskaner Hefe Weisen myself. The only decent Mexican beer is only available around Christmas, and is called Noche Buena.

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

On military matters ?

Yes - weapons caches, hideouts, information on strengths of combatant forces, locations of leaders, etc.

"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 ?

Is there a time limit in which we have to bring them before a military tribunal to charge 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 ?

If we consider them POWs, that IMO would make al Qaeda at least partly a combantant militia (albeit with terrorist elements and some overlap). If that force is still in the field and hostile (remnants are), then the war isn't over, we're just not shooting as much or in as large an area, until we have good target info.

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 ?

That would IMO be the result IF we decided that al Qaeda fighters were POWs. We would be according the organization some degree of status as a militia extension of the Taleban.

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

I don't see it as confusing - I don't see them as covered under the GC, nor does the US government. Some of the rest of the world wants to consider them covered.

"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.

I disagree on that score, especially in the military context - Afghanistan is still a very fluid, unstable, precarious situation, and caches of tens of thousands of arms, with hundreds of fighters unaccounted for in country, makes for a long term security and nation-building nightmare.

I would think the information we really want falls into both the military and investigative realms, but the military info is more essential now to enhancing the stability and security of Afghanistan.

"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" ?

My area of interest is more on the general military intel issues than these prisoners eventual disposal in some form of trial by someone. If it wasn't for potential military intel, I don't even see any reason to keep these prisoners. Or to have bothered receiving them alive from the NA forces in the first place.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Roland
Maybe we need an example. On May 7th 1945, US troops capture surrendering high ranking Wehrmacht officer Maier who was involved in say a massacre in Ucraine. A POW. US investigators are looking for Eichmann. Are you saying that Art 17 stops US investigators from a) asking Maier about the massacre b) asking Maier about his orders concerning that massacre and c) asking Maier whether he has information where Eichmann is ?

(a) and (b) no, because they're matters of criminal investigation.

(c) would depend on whether there was a military or criminal nexus to locating Eichmann.

If you want to ask (d) where were the locations of the arms caches Eichmann (for example) and associates had stached in the mountains for a guerilla force's future use, that is clearly a military intelligence matter.

If all you're concerned with in (c) is the arrest/capture of Eichmann, that's probably criminal, so OK to ask. If you go into (e) whether Eichmann is in contact with SS forces who are moving to reform a guerilla force in the mountains to harass and contest occupation, then you've drifted back into a military intel matter.

[Roland]

"Corona is what they make here for the gringos."

I know. But it tastes like our Radler (half beer, half lemonade). But IIRC, they had to withdraw it from our market due to adding some wierd substances.

"I like Franziskaner Hefe Weisen myself."

Good choice.

"Yes - weapons caches, hideouts, information on strengths of combatant forces, locations of leaders, etc."

Well that is related to an armed conflict. And under the rules of armed conflict, you shall not recieve that information from your prisoners.

"We would be according the organization some degree of status as a militia extension of the Taleban."

Which they probably were.

"I don't see it as confusing - I don't see them as covered under the GC, nor does the US government. Some of the rest of the world wants to consider them covered."

As said, I cannot see how it can be ruled out first hand. Which means I'm neither with the "all are" nor the "all aren't".

"I disagree on that score, especially in the military context - Afghanistan is still a very fluid, unstable, precarious situation, and caches of tens of thousands of arms, with hundreds of fighters unaccounted for in country, makes for a long term security and nation-building nightmare."

Argueing this on pure necessity: I do not think it is very important. Weapons have always been around - I'm wondering how serious this new disarmament policy is. With the tradition of feudal and clan warfare, finding a couple hundred fighters is a side issue. Also, if they are unrelated to terrorism, why being hellbent on finding them?

Is the US military holding them for military info on Afghansiatn, or for terror prevention and prosecution ?

"My area of interest is more on the general military intel issues than these prisoners eventual disposal in some form of trial by someone. If it wasn't for potential military intel, I don't even see any reason to keep these prisoners."

I see it just the other way round. Staging grounds or "restrooms" hugely enhance the capacity of terrorist organisations as they aren't forced underground. It also opens them up to some extent as they aren't forced underground. Surprisingly many went to the training camps and returned to the west or ME. Elements of a central infrastructure were likely positioned there. And getting information on that - with any kind of records most likely destroyed - is what's interesting, not whether 1 million or 900.000 guns are floating around in Afghansitan.

[Roland]

"If you want to ask (d) where were the locations of the arms caches Eichmann (for example) and associates had stached in the mountains for a guerilla force's future use, that is clearly a military intelligence matter."

Exactly. And the reason you have a similar problem in Afghanistan is that it goes back to an armed conflict and it concerns people who in whatever way fought in that armed conflict. If it happens that terror camp boss Bakshish does not qualify as a POW, but knows that stuff, fine. If Al Qaeda fighter Bakshish was in a Taliban formation or fighting in a combatant formation alongside the Taleban, thou shalt not ask.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


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"

At last - the truth.

[Solly]

This thread has proved the treatment is not inhumane in the slightest.

Only daft Eurocoms and trolls would disagree.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I wasn't aware you could write.

You're stooping low Chris. You can do better than that surely?

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boddington's
This thread has proved the treatment is not inhumane in the slightest.

Only daft Eurocoms and trolls would disagree.

I thought boddingtons was supposed to have a creamy white head - not a brown one...

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by Boddington's
This thread has proved the treatment is not inhumane in the slightest.

Only daft Eurocoms and trolls would disagree.

That thunderous sound you heard echoing throughout the forums was my jaw hitting the floor.

[Roland]

Returning to the point of why those guys are held at Guantanamo:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/23/international/americas/23DETA.html

Mr. Rumsfeld said the Pentagon's clear priority with the prisoners was to extract information from them to prevent future attacks. "These people are committed terrorists," he said. "We are keeping them off the street and out of the airlines and out of nuclear power plants and out of ports across this country and across other countries."

And:

Asked what benefit the United States gets by not classifying the captives as prisoners of war, Mr. Rumsfeld said, "I don't know enough of the legal technicalities to answer your question. I know that the process of gathering the intelligence information has not been concluded."

Also, I can't see much importance in getting military information about Afghanistan. Not to mention that it should be a priority for the new government there which does not seem to be particularly interested in that group flown to Guantanamo....

[SlowwHand]

I don't think the U.S. will be passing on the opportunity to gather ANY intelligence from now on.

[Roland]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Where would you personally prefer they be held?

Asking me ?
If so I suggest reading back a bit further, as I see a perfectly valid reason for holding them (there or not, I don't care) in the investigation/prosecution cause.

[SlowwHand]

I misread the post I responded to, and was changing mine as you posted your question.

If I misunderstood, sorry.
If I didn't, my question remains.

We don't want the crazy s.o.b.'s on U.S. shore.

[Solly]

We should give them the freedom of continental Europe. I suppose they would be treated as heroes there.