I've been thinking this over.

Why NOT treat terrorists and non-uniformed combatants as POWS under the Geneva Conventions?

Strictly interpreted, POWS may be held until the war is over. That means indefinitely does it not? Years maybe. No habeas corpus enters into it at all. No US Constitutional considerations.

When is the war over?

When Al Qaeda says it is, that is when they lay down their arms, homicide bomb belts, IEDs and sign a binding peace treaty and/or Armistice. When the agression stops. When they (not us) surrender. Just like any other war.

I am racking my brains trying to think why this is not a good idea. The CINC should immediately declare full Geneva POW treatment for captured Al Qaeda and other Islamo-fascist terror factions.

And legally we can hold them practically forever, for the "duration of hostilities" as Article 109 puts it. No need for "charges" no "indictments," though the conventions allow for trials and sentences as well for crimes. And we hold as many as we have room for. We can even legally make them work. Red Crescent personnel can even inspect the camps.

Where's the downside? To me it's actually very doubtful our enemy falls under the definitions of Article 4 but I think Bush is being foolish not only to not acquiecse to this, he should enthusiatically embrace it. That's what the world wants, thats what we should give them! We can hold them until they die.

Yep.....I've been asking the same question. They don't rate POW status, they have to fight in accordance with the Geneva Conventions (among other things) to qualify. Therefore, under the Geneva Conventions their status is still "detainee". AND they can be charged with crimes as such. This "legal" and "illegal combatant" aren't even mentioned in the Geneva Conventions.

Good part about them NOT being under the Geneva Conventian, is that we do NOT have to treat them like humans. Way I see it is: They don't start acting like decent civilized human beings; we don't treat them like decent civilized human beings.

Geneva Convention is outdated, and would be one sided, sorry dudes, but if i am fighting these dogs and they have a 100% commitment to kill, take no POWS, I for one will show no mercy on the battle field. and I could not expect my troops to honor the Geneva Convention as these dogs do not, reminds me of a past war where we had our gloves on and the other side did not,,hmmm who won?
America needs to be so tough on these dogs that they never bite again,,,and man does it piss me off, my tax $ are sheltering these fanatics, just to let them out another day to carry out their holy war..
I can understand if its a case of reform with the non combatants, then so be it...let them be reformed, but thats not the case with these dogs. I do not feel pity or anything for these so called Detainee's, just pity for members of congress who feel, these dogs deserve a fair shot,,or another shot at america..John Mccain you are so wrong to think that we should place these fanatics under the G.C. when they will only place our people in body bags.. Wimp!!!!!!!!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BeenThereDoneThat,

And one other point to consider, How many muslims in the prisons of american and other friendly countries will claim they need to fall under the G.C. Put the detainee dogs under the G.C. and one opens up a large can of worms.

BeenThere--
OK....uhm. Now what's your beef with the current detainees being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? You see, there are two roads to travel now...our courts and military system have narrowed us down to that.
1. Keep them under military control, try them by military tribunal, hold the detainees IAW with GCPW until hostilities end (which is when?)
2. Allow them access to lawyers and be charged in US courts under US law.

Treating them "the way" they're treated now has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, it's our own media and military laws that have levied that on ourselves. The Geneva Conventions provides a guide for POWs. So far, nobody has called them POWs. The ONLY thing it says about detainees is they must be treated humanely...I don't think that's a huge concession to make.

The "take no prisoners" approach I understand (though, not just the GCPW, but the UCMJ kinda frown on that). But, uh, what do YOU propose we do with the detainees on hand? Kill them? Yeah, that'll improve world opinion of the US.

quote:

Originally posted by patoloco:
BeenThere--
OK....uhm. Now what's your beef with the current detainees being treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention? You see, there are two roads to travel now...our courts and military system have narrowed us down to that.
1. Keep them under military control, try them by military tribunal, hold the detainees IAW with GCPW until hostilities end (which is when?)
2. Allow them access to lawyers and be charged in US courts under US law.

Treating them "the way" they're treated now has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, it's our own media and military laws that have levied that on ourselves. The Geneva Conventions provides a guide for POWs. So far, nobody has called them POWs. The ONLY thing it says about detainees is they must be treated humanely...I don't think that's a huge concession to make.

The "take no prisoners" approach I understand (though, not just the GCPW, but the UCMJ kinda frown on that). But, uh, what do YOU propose we do with the detainees on hand? Kill them? Yeah, that'll improve world opinion of the US.

patoloca...there is no 100% right answer..as much as I don't like it, they should have rights, but i don't think the G.C. should apply to this type of fanatic..fact is we need to weed out from the detainee's the fanatics vs, law breakers, for these fanatics to kill u.s. soldiers or others, and say their at war, and ask to be treated as a soldier, yet not treat others the same way is a joke. what to do with them....??? Thats the million $ question.
One thing for sure they should not have the right to american courts, their rights should be limited to military courts, made up of joint nations.

Well, that's my point. BeenThere and Aufklarer, you don't seem to have a good understanding of the GCPW. Not that I fault you, the media coverage cherry-picks the relevant articles out and chooses what should be presented to the public. I've read the document several times (it was part of my duties in the military to teach the GCPW to ground trops). At least 80% of this document refers to POWs-- not detainees. But it does address detainees-- as I stated before, it requires that they must be treated humanely (Aufklarer).

The fact that we (US) are considering granting them access to lawyers, charging them in US courts, affording them the rights of POWs...this is all US policy wrangling, not necessarily international law (as stated by the GCPW). Unfortunately, international law is confusing-- there are precedents for trying these individuals in a military tribunal with war crimes (WWII), but then again, much of the evidence against them was obtained through "nebulous" interrogation techniques which were outlawed in a European Court. Yeah, I know, who gives a crap about an EU Court. Lawyers have to consider it though, as it is a legal precedent in an international forum.

You're absolutely right. The million dollar question is "what do we do with them NOW?"

patoloco;
I see your point. I think there should be a seperate clause however on the treatment of detainees. I think they should get food and water, but that's it. Interrogators should be allowed to sue torture, and other means of information extraction on these terrorsist bastards, as they would do worse to us. And if the media doesn't find out about this, the better. What the media doesn't know, won't hurt it.

hmmmm reckon none of you remember the short video of them sawing off Nick Bergs head with a knife?

gunny, sure I remember, and he wasn't even a combatant. They are damn barbaric murderous animals and ideally I'd like to cut off their sacks--but if we apply Geneva to them the ACLU and bleeding heart Libs will have to STFU and like I can say we can hold them forever. I take Bush at his word this is going to be an effort that lasts years. We can hold them all that time. At least the ones that survive their encounters with gungy teufelhunden.

[What is torking me off at this present moment is when I think that 8 "Haditha" Marines are being apparently treated worse at Pendleton than Al Qaeda captives and unjustly so.]

If we summarily hang our captives or out and out torture them it only becomes recruiting fodder for for the terrorists. I think Mccain has that back of his mind. Hell, I'd even give them those little cards upon capture. In arabic.

Don't you think we can end all of this and do it this year by burying dead terrorists and homicide bombers and/or their body parts in pigskin? And letting it be known?

Pataloco, thumbs up. Even granting it's part of your job, I am amazed you have waded through every single article of the GC and apparently committed a lot of it to memory. Now THAT's torture.

they did that to Nick, because he was the available hostage at the moment. Do you really think for one minute that they would not have done the same to a Marine or Soldier if they had one available?

I saw a comparison on all these election comercials last night stating that were have been in Iraq/Vietnam longer that we spent in WWII. That was the comparison this democrap was putting out there. The only true statement made was the length of time expended during WWII. There is no other comparison that holds any water. Back then we were fighting a uniformed military both in Eurpoe and the Pacific.

quote:

Originally posted by Aufklarer:
Interrogators should be allowed to sue torture, and other means of information extraction on these terrorsist bastards, as they would do worse to us. And if the media doesn't find out about this, the better. What the media doesn't know, won't hurt it.

Well, depends on what you define as torture (as was discussed in another thread). I still would not allow torture-- I think the current definition (by the Bush Administration) says something that would cause permanent physical and/or mental damamge (and I pretty much agree with that definition). Under that definition, I would not allow torture (but measures short of), anything more would be ineffective anyway.

And back in the "bad ole days" nobody gave a crap what an interrogator did to get the info, there were no cell phone cams, and the media was not hanging over your shoulder. Now, it's not IF you get caught doing anything close to questionable, it's WHEN.

I know it's the Media's job to cause sensation and "get the best story", but they're actually doing damage to the USA's position in the Middle East. It's as if the f*cking media is waging a propaganda war against its own country.

If they would stop trying to damage the reputation of the US military, and if they would stop trying to make sappy stories out of everything, then our chance of victory will be greatly increased already.

I am willing to bet that a lot of Americans are only against the war in Iraq, due to the media feeding them a bunch of bullshit.

We are falling victim to mere circumstance. The media is broad. It is a hasty generalization. MSNBC, Fox News, CNN, etc. our major "media outlets" are nothing more than Info-tainment.

We have the ability in theater to control the media. (We are the ones with guns. ) What we cannot control is what footage they play with what wording. The spin is killing us. This is a failure of a government agency, DOIM. The Department of Information Management is failing our military and our Nation.

COB policy for most units is to detain first, ask questions later. The media thinks people need to know "whats really going on in Iraq." I say "F*** OFF and get out of my AO!" I KNOW that they have no business compromising my team or our mission. America be damned when it comes to my Soldiers coming home alive. The media is just as much, if not a greater threat, then Madhi, Mujihadein, Saddam Fedayeen insurgents. At least my enemy has the courage to stab me in the front. I am sorry, America. We should keep you like a mushroom about war. In the dark, and full of sh!t.

It is simple. People will trust the media when they feel they cannot trust their government. They are smart enough to figure out that the media is not always correct but when the government contradicts some very simple truths, people do not trust what is coming from them. This has been going on in earnest since LBJ.

FDR was probably the best at telling people bad news because he tempered it with hope and the righteousness of the cause. We need more realistic information from the military that covers both the good and bad of the situation. It might be a matter of credibility but the media does seem to cover what is said by the top generals.

Some of the best interviews I have watched on broadcast media have been from company and battalion commanders. They have dirt on their faces and are very believable.

Talking about that, that is how BBC built up their good reputation. In WWII they reported about both British victories and defeats. This gave them an image of an unbiased media establishment, who tells the truth.

quote:

The media thinks people need to know "whats really going on in Iraq." I say "F*** OFF and get out of my AO!"

Yep. That's exactly what I told reporters looking for a story. I found that even when I answered their questions, if I threw the "f bomb" (and a few others) in there every few seconds, they usually dropped the camera and went away. Couldn't get a clean sound bite outta me.

quote:

Originally posted by patoloco:

quote:

The media thinks people need to know "whats really going on in Iraq." I say "F*** OFF and get out of my AO!"

Yep. That's exactly what I told reporters looking for a story. I found that even when I answered their questions, if I threw the "f bomb" (and a few others) in there every few seconds, they usually dropped the camera and went away. Couldn't get a clean sound bite outta me.

Good tactic. If only everyone did that, the media wouldn't hassle us as much anymore...

Wall Street Journal
October 11, 2006

Dangerous Thinking In Compromise On Treatment Of Captive Terrorists

The attempt by Sens. John W. Warner, John McCain and Lindsey O. Graham to explain their compromise with the president on treatment of terrorist war prisoners ("Look Past the Tortured Distortions," editorial page, Oct. 2) did more to perpetuate distortions and misconceptions than clarify anything. We have the Geneva Convention, the Detainee Treatment Act, and now the Military Commission Act. Sounds like we are desperately trying to make a square peg fit snuggly into a round hole using a lot of grease known as political mumbo jumbo with a heavy dose of political correctness and pseudo nobility thrown in.

The last I heard, the Geneva Convention applies to the fair and humane treatment of POWs. I believe POW stands for "prisoner of war." How did we get from POWs to "detainees," "suspected terrorists" or "enemy combatants," all used interchangeably in this article? How did we get from "captured' to "arrested"? Are we dealing with people who are trying to destroy America and kill Americans, or armed convenience store robbers who may have killed somebody? Since when do POWs get Supreme Court review on anything?

If I am an American service member in a conflict/battle in Iraq (or wherever) and someone is shooting at me and I shoot back and kill him, whom have I killed -- a potential detainee, a suspected terrorist, the enemy or a non-resident unabomber with distorted religious perceptions? If I capture/arrest a person on my airplane with a bomb in the heel of his shoe that didn't explode, subsequent to an attempt, is he a suspected anything or is he a prisoner of war?

Those who think being kind to terrorists is going to provide any protection to our men and women in uniform, now or ever, needs to update their thinking to a post 9/11 status. While we need not and should not be barbaric and cruel (i.e. pulled fingernails, cigarette burns, humiliation for entertainment, etc.), trying to find a way to be rational and civilized to those who are irrational and uncivilized is tantamount to treating a three-year-old like an adult. It ain't gonna work.

My big question is, are we inadvertently perpetuating a mindset of "kill 'em but for God's sakes don't capture them"? If we have to plead with them or persuade them with flowers and candy to tell us anything after we capture them, what's the net difference, militarily speaking, of course? Somebody, somehow needs to clear up the confusion, quickly. Not for the president or senators, but for those in the middle of a firefight, wherever and with whomever that may be. God save America. If we can't stop the infighting in Washington, He may be our only chance.

James H. Godwin, Lt. Cmdr., USAF (Ret.), Vietnam Veteran 1968-69, Cold War Veteran 1955-67, 1970-74, Simpsonville, S.C.


--------------
Yeah!....What he said!
Sort of along the lines of what Aufklarer stated; the Geneva Conventions is outdated and we need "something separate" to deal with these folks.