Poll

6 votes (30%)
2 votes (10%)
No votes (0%)
12 votes (60%)
No votes (0%)
No votes (0%)

20 members have voted

timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
March 11th, 2011 at 11:02:21 AM permalink
Quote: P90

They aren't. Torture resistance is part of SERE program only undertaken by a select fraction of the military, mostly special forces.
.



My daughter wasn't special forces. As a Marine and part of fight crew, she went through SERE school. She was waterboarded and even hit. She has always maintained the worst part of that training was killing and eating a rabbit.

I may be mistaken, but you seem to want POWs to be treated as criminals. These people are not even real POWs. I'm all for treating them as the unlawfull combatants they are and when captured on the battlefield, take them out and execute them. Before I get anyone too upset, I did say execute the ones specifically caught on the battlefield. The ones that were not captured while trying to kill Americans, using questionable intelligence, should be returned to their own countries.
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
March 11th, 2011 at 11:14:23 AM permalink
Quote: P90

I'm not a liberal. I'm a right-wing libertarian.



Is it your belief that military criminals should not have the right to an attorney? If so, could you explain your reasoning - why is it wrong for people accused of military crimes to be represented?

The accused in Nuremberg trials *were* represented by defense attorneys. Yes, if Hitler was there, he would have an attorney as well.



The Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different. And everyday German POWs were NOT tried but held until the war was over. Your comparrison to the Gitmo Detainees not getting civillian trials makes no sense. And I don't buy your "right wing libertarian" stand.
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 11:27:59 AM permalink
Quote: timberjim

My daughter wasn't special forces. As a Marine and part of fight crew, she went through SERE school.


Yes, as part of flight crew in this case. It's still far from universal.
That aside, torture training and actual torture are different. The former is consensual, for one. Comparing them is like comparing BSDM to violent rape - even if both may include similar actions, they are vastly different acts.


Quote: timberjim

I may be mistaken, but you seem to want POWs to be treated as criminals. These people are not even real POWs.


Actually, they are POWs. What makes them "not real" is that their side isn't a party in appropriate international agreements and so has no recourse in international law.

No, my position is that POWs should be treated as POWs, even if they don't have a legal recourse for "enforcing" such treatment (not that any other country could). If nothing else, on the basis that US is waging a war against them, and on the basis that US government supposedly means to present itself as a righteous power bringing democracy to the world.

Rules in regard to POW treatment have been established for a reason. Ignoring them and sinking down to the opponent's level just because we can isn't something I feel like supporting.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 11:55:17 AM permalink
Quote: P90

Rules in regard to POW treatment have been established for a reason. Ignoring them and sinking down to the opponent's level just because we can isn't something I feel like supporting.



Excuse me, but when did the US put these people in planes and crashed them onto buildings?

That's their level.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 11:59:02 AM permalink
Quote: AZDuffman

The Nuremberg Trials were held military tribunal style, not in civillian court as you want to have for muslim terrorists. Rules of evidence are different.


I didn't say I want them tried in civilian courts.
Currently they aren't even given military tribunals, and when given any, it's nothing near what UCMJ requires. There are no "different rules of evidence" in play - there is no evidence and no rules.

The actual war phase is long over. The War Of Terror will never be "over", by your logic giving a license to hold POWs forever. Not that there even was a formal war in the first place, so it being "over" or "not over" wouldn't put US under any obligations, of course.

But let's put laws aside. Let's look at what actually happened.

What happened is that US has invaded two other countries, one of them under a false pretense, another under a less false one. OK, they were bad guys, we can all agree on that. After discovering the false pretense was false and beating the other one, US did not left, but decided to continue the occupation. As part of that occupation, people are being taken prisoner, some under warlike circumstances, others not.
In place of treating them as either POWs or civilians, special camps have been created, intentionally abroad to avoid US jurisdiction, where they are not given the rights of either. The use of these camps has been expanded to host people from different places, not limited to prisoners specifically from one of the two countries in question, and these camps are being used for the very reason of bypassing the need for charges, evidence and trials.

It is the last part that is particularly worried, as it establishes that suspicion of connection to terrorism can be used to instantly switch off any rights protected by the Constition and legal systems.


P.S. While at that, yes, I have more respect for Bush than Obama. At least Bush wasn't a hypocrite and had a clear political stance, while with Obama we see the worst of Bush and the worst of the left wing combined.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
AZDuffman
AZDuffman
Joined: Nov 2, 2009
  • Threads: 221
  • Posts: 11677
March 11th, 2011 at 12:29:46 PM permalink
Quote: P90

IWhat happened is that US has invaded two other countries, one of them under a false pretense, another under a less false one.



False pretense? What false pretense?
All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others
timberjim
timberjim
Joined: Dec 5, 2009
  • Threads: 33
  • Posts: 398
March 11th, 2011 at 12:31:12 PM permalink
Quote: P90


Actually, they are POWs. What makes them "not real" is that their side isn't a party in appropriate international agreements and so has no recourse in international law.

.[/q



What makes them not real is that they wear civilian clothes and surround themselves with non-combatants to keep from being attacked. I am not aware of any international agreement or treaty that protects people that wage war in this matter. You seem to making the argument that these terrorists should be protected because they operate outside of the realm of the existing international agreements.

P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 12:46:39 PM permalink
Quote: timberjim

What makes them not real is that they wear civilian clothes


1. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?

2. There were repeated historical precedents, and they were more common than not, of enemy guerillas being treated as POW.


Quote: timberjim

and surround themselves with non-combatants to keep from being attacked.


3. No. Some of them do. Some don't. And other captives still are these non-combatants.

Those who do are committing war crimes, for which they should be tried and punished. This is the correct recourse.

Your approach - "Some guerrillas are evil, so let's treat all captives as guilty" - only serves to punish the very non-combatants that get mixed up and captured in these situations.


Laws and rules of justice, both military and civilian, are not a bone we throw to criminals for being good. They are there to separate the criminals from the innocent. Saying that if a crime is bad enough, presumption of innocence and trial procedure should not apply to those suspected of it is ridiculous and detrimental to the purpose of the law.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama
Nareed
Nareed
Joined: Nov 11, 2009
  • Threads: 373
  • Posts: 11413
March 11th, 2011 at 1:32:41 PM permalink
Quote: P90

1. Even hypothetically, what other clothes would they wear? It was US that invaded their country - are they under the obligation to provide uniforms and insignia for themselves if they are to be afforded the most basic of human rights?



Yes. If they don't they are in breach of the Geneva Convention and thus not entitled to its protections.

Besides, in case you've forgotten, the Taliban owned Afghanistan when NATO invaded in 2001. They were the country, not a mere guerilla band.
Donald Trump is a fucking criminal
P90
P90
Joined: Jan 8, 2011
  • Threads: 12
  • Posts: 1703
March 11th, 2011 at 1:42:32 PM permalink
Quote: Nareed

Yes. If they don't they are in breach of the Geneva Convention and thus not entitled to its protections.


Not really: Wearing uniforms wouldn't change anything in terms of law, because they are not combatants of a signatory of a Geneva Convention.

(Not that anyone could enforce it against world's largest aspiring rogue nation anyway, of course.)

In terms of precedent, it is a long-standing practice to treat guerrillas and combatants of unrecognized nations in the same manner as uniformed prisoners.
Resist ANFO Boston PRISM Stormfront IRA Freedom CIA Obama

  • Jump to: