Detainees Joining Militants

[MJS]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa

So, much like other criminals, who commit a crime, get caught, do time, get out and go right back to doing what landed them in jail in the first place, the detainees are doing the same thing.

So, what was the purpose of holding these people? Were they charged with a crime? If so, if this where they were serving their time? So, we hold all these people, decide to release them, and then somehow we're supposed to be shocked that they go right back to what they know best.

Thoughts?

 

[Big Don]

As they are unlawful combatants we should have got what info we needed out of them, by whatever means were necessary, then summarily executed them as allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I'm sure they were held in order to gather intellegance, but honestly, the longer you hold them, the older and hence more usless their information is.

There was probably some half assed attempt at reforming them.

But look you pick up an uneducated, religious nut from the desert, hold him for four or five years, then drop him off exactly where you picked him up...what did they expect these guys to do???

They should have questioned them in the field till they were empty, then made them "disappear".

 

[seasoned]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100106/ts_nm/us_yemen_guantanamo_usa

So, much like other criminals, who commit a crime, get caught, do time, get out and go right back to doing what landed them in jail in the first place, the detainees are doing the same thing.

So, what was the purpose of holding these people? Were they charged with a crime? If so, if this where they were serving their time? So, we hold all these people, decide to release them, and then somehow we're supposed to be shocked that they go right back to what they know best.

Thoughts?

Somehow this reminds me of an old suspense tv movie I watched a while back. It seems the cops arrest this guy but after awhile they decide that there isn't enough evidents to hold him so they let him go. Once the cops let him out of jail, they put a tail on him, and he leads them right back to his other cohorts in crime. The thing is, not only were the cops able to identify his buddy's but they were able to bust the whole mob. Is this far fetched or do you think there is some savvy people somewhere within government doing some covert action, or am I just blowing smoke?

 

[Deaf Smith]

You know, in WW2 do you think the Allies would have let 'detainees' go knowing some would end up back in Germany or Japan?

And we all know Hitler or Stalin sure wouldn't!

We are playing softball. And one day we will meet a major league team and they will cream us.

Deaf

 

[Bruno@MT]

As they are unlawful combatants we should have got what info we needed out of them, by whatever means were necessary, then summarily executed them as allowed by the Geneva Conventions.

Don, let's not get into this again. The Geneva specifically prohibits the bolded part, and puts specific requirements on the underlined parts. You can't just handpick 1 specific sentence out of the geneva convention and then toss away the rest like you're a US president using the US constitution in an argument.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I'm sure they were held in order to gather intellegance, but honestly, the longer you hold them, the older and hence more usless their information is.

Not to mention their hatred gets bigger with each day.

There was probably some half assed attempt at reforming them.

But look you pick up an uneducated, religious nut from the desert, hold him for four or five years, then drop him off exactly where you picked him up...what did they expect these guys to do???

Actually, reform can work. I saw a documentary about it, where they show the reform process in islamic countries (I forgot the name sadly). It is called 'the dialogue' and was already used to prevent violence from happening, sorta like parlay.

It works by setting up a dialogue between islamic scholar and the would be terrorist. The terrorist tries to explain why terrorism is righteous, and the scholar break down his arguments one by one.

One of these arguments was that their country of origin was a member of the UN and that their country was a formally islamic nation. Thus the UN membership worked as a vehicle for transfering 'honored guest' status on the citizens of other signatory nations, and thus were inviolable under islamic law.

The success rate was significant, and what was even better was that upon release, the people would go back to their place of origin and work against the terrorist organizations.

They should have questioned them in the field till they were empty, then made them "disappear".

Well, at least you don't mention the geneva convention as a moral whitewash so I have to give you credit for that

 

[Bruno@MT]

You know, in WW2 do you think the Allies would have let 'detainees' go knowing some would end up back in Germany or Japan?

They did, after the war ended. And that is the thing with the 'war on terror'. It'll never end.

The people captured under the umbrella of either the war in Iraq or Afghanistan will have to be let go once those wars are ended.

 

[Archangel M]

Put an RFID chip in em somehow. Then have a drone strike them and their terror buddies when they meet up in a safe house in Somejackistan.

 

[seasoned]

Put an RFID chip in em somehow. Then have a drone strike them and their terror buddies when they meet up in a safe house in Somejackistan.

Now this would be the only logical reason I could think of for letting them go.

 

[Big Don]

Don, let's not get into this again. The Geneva specifically prohibits the bolded part, and puts specific requirements on the underlined parts. You can't just handpick 1 specific sentence out of the geneva convention and then toss away the rest like you're a US president using the US constitution in an argument.

As the Geneva Conventions, there are more than one, that is why there is an "S" at the end, ONLY apply to UNIFORMED TROOPS, they do NOT apply to these terrorists.
You may want to read
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, The relevant portion is article 4.

Art 4. A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

Are Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc militias or volunteer corps? I don't think so.

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

They MUST fulfill the following conditions, or they are NOT afforded protection.[

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

Who is that?

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

Well, they don't have that...

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

Oooh, they don't do that, do they?

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

They certainly don't do that.

 

[Bruno@MT]

You are right. They are not prisoners of war.
However, them -not- being POW does not mean they have no rights under the geneva conventions (The geneva conventionS are known in my language as the geneva convention, hence my leaving the S away), and it certainly does not mean that the US as a signatory of the geneva conventions can do what it pleases.

IF section 4 does not apply, then section 3 does.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
The fall under section 3 by virtue of being detained.

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

And

Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

And

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

 

[Big Don]

You are right. They are not prisoners of war.
However, them -not- being POW does not mean they have no rights under the geneva conventions (The geneva conventionS are known in my language as the geneva convention, hence my leaving the S away), and it certainly does not mean that the US as a signatory of the geneva conventions can do what it pleases.

IF section 4 does not apply, then section 3 does.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
The fall under section 3 by virtue of being detained.



And



And

Persons taking no active part in the hostilities,

The operative phrase, and the one that doesn't apply to these scumbags.

 

[Bruno@MT]

No need to shout. You left out
'including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause'

which would apply because that paragraph specifies that non participation due to capture is enough protection.

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Even if we split hairs about the former paragraph, the latter is pretty much absolute. Just because the other guys are scumbags and you think they deserve no rights does not mean those provisions do not apply.

If you capture combatants regardless of their formal status, that paragraph applies. Not much room left for arguing there. There is a conflict and you are occupying Iraq.

 

[Big Don]

No need to shout. You left out
'including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause'

which would apply because that paragraph specifies that non participation due to capture is enough protection.

Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.

Even if we split hairs about the former paragraph, the latter is pretty much absolute. Just because the other guys are scumbags and you think they deserve no rights does not mean those provisions do not apply.

If you capture combatants regardless of their formal status, that paragraph applies. Not much room left for arguing there. There is a conflict and you are occupying Iraq.

When I was in basic training the Law of Land Warfare was taught. In that, we learned it was WRONG to surrender under false pretenses, that is, to surrender with the idea of waiting to attack again.

 

[CanuckMA]

And that is surprising how?

Depending on who you talk to, the detainees were either hard-core terrorists hell bent on destroying the US or innocent bystanders on there way to exchange the sheep for a couple of pigs and a chicken.

After 7-8 years in detention, the first group can't wait to resume normal activities. And can you blame the second group for being pissed at the U.S. enough to join the first group?

 

[MJS]

IMO, detaining someone is on a short term basis. A LEO detains someone, asking them questions, and then they're usually released. Arrested is different. If these people were guilty of a terrorist act, in part or in whole, then arrest their ***, put them on a trial, and lock their *** up for a set time, for life, execute them, whatever. If they were detained for the purpose of gatering intel, then someone needs to make up their mind...either the people are let go or arrested. I'm kinda lost on how you can detain someone for years.

 

[Big Don]

The actual prisoners of war we held during WWII, we held them until the war was over.

 

[Big Don]

While it is clearly better to be loved than hated. If we are going to be hated, we had better be feared as well. If they aren't afraid of us, they'll kill a lot of us.

 

[CanuckMA]

The actual prisoners of war we held during WWII, we held them until the war was over.

But the 'war on terror' is more of a concept than an actual war. It will have no end. Do you detain those people until they die of old age?