I must have missed the part where he claimed he was tortured. Could you please point it out.
I’m a born skeptic so I naturally I have doubts. I do believe though that there is enough information about this guy that says he had every intention of harming US forces.
So what is the strategy?
The guy tries to kill US forces. They caught him. Their first priority should be to prevent him from doing it again.
That’s what the incarceration and trial were about. A forty year sentence is a statement that says the US government doesn’t think he can be rehabilitated. They think that, given a chance, this guy will harm US people or interests.
:rolleyes: As if he’d be allowed to say that he was. But, given all the other people we’ve tortured it would be surprising if he wasn’t.
The fact that the American authorities have been willing to engage in torture (not to mention blatant lies) means that any so-called confession from someone in their custody means nothing.
He didn’t at that should be your clue about arguing with fools.
Good point! Given the compete openness and candor with which our gov’t has conducted itself, its hard to imagine having any doubts.
Well, he may not have claimed it, but he was certainly abused. I’d call it torture. YMMV. From the wiki link regarding his time at Gitmo:
So your theory is that anyone, even a private citizen, from anywhere in the world, has the right to go to any country being invaded and fight the invaders, and escape any sort of prosecution by the invaders if he’s captured?
Certainly. The idea of prosecuting someone for shooting at an invading soldier is ridiculous; where they are from or if they have a uniform or not is besides the point. And the claim that foreign citizens who do so are at fault while the equally foreign soldiers are not at fault is outright hypocritical.
Right now? Nope, not a thing.
If there’s some claim of improper methods used in connection with the confession, let’s hear 'em. But I certainly don’t start out assuming a confession is suspect.
You’re simply announcing a rule here that appears to be entirely of your own crafting.
Why you feel that your rules should be adopted by the world would no doubt make a fascinating thread, but since they haven’t been, how about we stick to the rules that have actually been adopted and are binding on the people and countries involved?
A 15 year old is told “he would spend the rest of his life in Guantanamo.”
After 8 years in Guantanamo, he is still there, without a trial.
I think that if I were in his place, and were offered a plea bargain to cop to a guilty plea in exchange for getting my life back, I would confess to kidnapping the Lindbergh baby if that is what they wanted.
I was certainly leery of the confession, it’s hard not to be given some of the things that our government has done. But I think the fact he pled guilty and some of the testimony of the people who were there, is more than enough for me to be comfortable with the conviction.
Why bother? Those rules are not only written to be slanted towards conquerors like ourselves, but we’ve demonstrated that we can’t even abide by such biased rules. They are a joke.
Come on, Bricker. You know as well as anyone that a law being broken means only that someone can be prosecuted, and does not mean they should be prosecuted. The Rules of War simply weren’t designed for this kind of situation - that doesn’t make them worthless, but it probably means they should be updated and re-examined. They weren’t written for assymetrical warfare; attempting to impose them on such a situation is going to be seen merely as a self-interested attempt to enshrine the advantages of industrialized societies.
For Rules of War to have any benefit, they need to be respected by the participants. Those involved in the sort of war that happens in Afghanistan and Iraq receive no benefits from the Rules of War if they are written in such a war as to exclude them.
Now, it’s quite possible that there may be no way of changing the Rules to improve the situation. But in that case (which I think is likely) it is, IMHO, rather silly to hide behind them and pretend it is relevant that a person in Afghanistan was, or wasn’t wearing a uniform, for example. Enforcing those sort of requirements, while following the Rules, does nothing to reduce the behavior of insurgents that we would like to see reduced, and merely makes the enforcer, as well as his legal system, look stupid.
Either we are fighting a war, or dealing with a criminal gang. If we are fighting a war, we take prisoners of war. If we dealing with a criminal gang, we arrest where possible and prosecute, but not under rules which are designed to be as weighted against the person being arrested as is possible.
I’m not sure if the methods cited above by Karl fit within your context of “improper”. Perhaps you will advise.
Very open minded of you! But do you start out assuming that the confession is valid? Your citations of confessions above would seem to indicate that you regard them as valid on the face of it, hence, proof positive of the opposite would be required to move you from that position.
You may it seem like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are poor put upon little groups that want to play by the Rules, but they’re excluded. That’s simply not true. If they want the protections of the Rules, they have to play by the Rules. I know it’s not at all a nice, touchy feely kumbaya moment, but it’s reality.
The very reason that there exists a status POW is to try and bring more rules to war. POW wasn’t the default position, it was a step forward to try and protect soldiers and armies who complied with the rules. And the reason POW’s were given extra protections was because there was a centralized command structure that would be responsible for the actions of the soldiers and they would obey the rules.
With Al Qaeda and the Taliban, we dont’ have that.
I completely agree with you that the Geneva Conventions and the rest of the rules are poor fits for the current war against terrorism. The question is what to do with them instead.
The solution, to me, isn’t to simply detain them until the end of hostilities. Nor is it to summarily execute them. Nor is it release them if they promise to not do it again. Something must be done.
Military tribunals and trials that accord with due process are a solution I support. It’s by no means perfect, and requires a great deal of foresight and fairness. But it’s better than the other options.
We wouldn’t be having this conversation, at least some of it, if American forces haven’t shown themselves to be untrustworthy torturers. The conservatives who pushed for that and support it can thank themselves for mucking up all future prosecutions.
This is a child, and whatever he did, his age should be the first consideration since it likely plays the biggest part in determining who he is and what he may become. How he was raised is relevant. We know that children are more easily influenced by outside forces than adults and we know that children are able to change. What he did comes next. It was heinous, but one has to look at the context. Did he believe he was protecting a place he identified with from invasion? Shouldn’t that come under consideration?
The least important thing about this whole trial is the politics, because depending on which way the wind is blowing, politics can be right or left, up or down, black or white. Fuck politics.
And so would have Bricker, criminally so (apparently). It’s not murder if you’re defending your (or someone else’s) life.
Why the hell did you cut the very next thing I said out, then?
I am not claiming they want to. I am claiming with the way the Rules are written now, they have no benefit from playing by them, so they won’t. I also think it unlikely that it is possible to change the Rules in such a way that they have an incentive to obey them, and they meet our own objectives.
I am sorry I didn’t say what you wanted me to say, so you could fairly make your snide response showing how much you understand the world and I am so naive. But I would appreciate if in the future you didn’t deliberately alter the meaning of what I said so you can make such points.
There are benefits to playing by them, the protection of your soldiers, the protection of innocents, and being treated in accordance with the rules by the opposition. Unfortunately, those things aren’t really high on the list of priorites for Al Qaeda or the Taliban. They’ve taken positions, in fact, clearly in opposition to that.
So what is the solution? We seem to agree that the current rules are not a good fit, what would you recommend?
I apologize for being a bit flippant. No offense was meant.