Not all terrorists are the suicidal Al-Qaeda types and if we kill them than they can’t be released or escape and launch more terrorist attacks.
The term “terrorism” is relative. Were the French Resistance terrorists? Were the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan terrorists? Was the ANC and Nelson Mandela terrorists?
Is this one word shorthand for a liberal porn fantasy? The United States military has been quick to investigate allegations of lawbreaking by its members and prosecuting if necessary. And a pattern seems to have emerged. Breathless accusation followed by investigation followed by charges being dropped. As an example, see the one word shorthand “Haditha” that’s now out of favor because of inconvienient facts.
At least you still have Abu Ghraib to cling to. Those responsible for that outrage were rightly prosecuted.
The argument against inflaming is not directed against those caught in various activities, but toward their families and neighbors who will be outraged by their treatment. Pretty much in the manner that we were able to recruit a lot of fighters for al Sadr and his merry bunch with our treatment of “detainees” at Abu Ghraib. (And pretty much the way that we were incited to invade Fallujah, turning the most pro-American city in Iraq into a stronghold of insurgent activity requiring two battles to secure and “pacify,” after the murder of four contractors who were in the wrong place with the wrong equipment at the wrong time, setting back efforts to build an Iraqi democracy by several years.)
Your argument also seems to presuppose that the Gitmo detainees were actually captured on the battlefield after shooting at U.S. or allied troops, yet the testimony I have seen indicates that a very large number were simply picked up for being “suspicious” or were sold to the U.S. by people looking for bounties or for revenge in personal feuds. (According to the U.S. Army, the vast majority of Abu Ghraib prisoners were taken pretty much the way that many Gitmo prisoners were taken–that turned out well.)
For that matter, the difference between the immense terrorist recruitment following the invasion of Iraq can be contrasted to the significantly smaller recruitment following the first Gulf War in which our actions were seen as less reprehensible. If you are going to argue in favor of summary excecutions after hasty battlefield “investigations,” then it would seem that considering inflaming the populace had better be a key factor in your calculations.
I’m not a lawyer, but my assumption is that if you are here legally on the passport of your country, then you are subject to US law and any treaties and agreements with your country.
If you have a green card or a visa, you are a temporary US citizen and subject to our laws.
If you are an illegal alien, you are subject to deportation because you are in violation of our law. If you commit a crime, you are subject to conviction and incarceration and then deportation.
The destruction of Fallujah did not have to happen.
Fallujah was a pro-American city. There were elements there, as throughout the country, that were anti-American. The four contractors were in an unarmored vehicle moving through a neighborhood where allied troops had been told to avoid when they were murdered. Instead of treating the incident as murder and sending in U.S. and Iraqi police to discover who actually committed the murders, we sent in troops to “take” the city. We did not have to commit any atrocities to turn the populace against us, we merely needed to go in shooting–just as the insurgents hoped and just as we did.
True. If we were at war with France.
Combatants without a uniform, a command structure or a country of origin that is a signitory to the Geneva Convention or other treaties are not entitled to the benefits of war law.
They certainly don’t follow them themselves, now do they?
It sounds like you are under the illusion that most of the Gitmo detainees were caught in the act.
I was pointing out what is legal and what is illegal. But you’re absolutely right, holding people accountable for committing war crimes is not easy.
Charging and prosecuting someone for committing such acts moves away from being merely legal/illegal towards a political decision and all the trappings that come with it. There will be Americans charged with war crimes in the years to come. You don’t charge without good evidence (real evidence you can present in court) and it’s hard to get that kind of evidence because it generally comes from your own side.
As to who will charge, if it’s not ourselves (we get first dibs), it will be a highly politicized event. Likely the ICC, whether we are signatories or not.
Re: Fallujah. All crimes will be looked at on a case by case basis and on a person by person basis. This likely means it will be the worst of the worst (gravest of the “grave” breaches). The killing of civilians is not illegal, it’s the intentional targeting of civilians that matters. You can blow up a building knowing civilians are inside/nearby and that’s not illegal, so long as the building was a valid military objective or there were military objectives inside the building*.
*I purposely used the WTC and not the Pentagon plane for this reason (although both were likely illegal, one just easier to distinguish than the other).
If innocent people were picked up simply for being “suspicious” or were sold out by liars in personal feuds, I don’t blame the detainees or their families for being angry and becoming inflamed.
The people that made the decision to hold them should be made to explain and justify those decisions. If they can’t, they should pay a price for that regardless of who is in the White House.
Obama volunteered to make difficult decisions…this is one of them.
It looks like, somehow, maybe released Guantanamo Detainees had nothing to do with the crotch-bomber. Who’dathunkit?
At the risk of making the understatement of the year, many things about Iraq could have been handled better. The people making that call did not have the benefit of hindsight. Your use of the term “atrocities” is interesting, though. What atocities did US troops commit there?
Justice Department Intentionally Bungles Trial of Blackwater Employees
Still, with a bit of luck, the guy who turned state’s evidence might still get the death penalty:
That’d teach him not to fuck with the CIA.
Actually, as of 1993, they are. The Geneva convention is now considered binding to signatory and non-signatory parties alike. The uniform issue is more hazy, IIRC combattants are only not supposed to use the other side’s uniforms, but I could be wrong there. Russian partisans and French resistants certainly didn’t wear any uniforms, nor did many Volksturm units, or the V.C. for that matter.
AFAIK, no one ever accused them of unlawful combating or held special “no flag, no country !” tribunals for them.
I read the same article. Where did you get the impression that there was “intentional bungling”? What would the motive be for such bungling?
And I was referring to military investigations of wrongdoing, not those from the justice department. I would certainly trust a military determination as apolitical before extending the same trust to the Justice Department, regardless of who is in office.
Of course, anyone who supports the current administration and has a reflexive anti-military bias will see things differently.
Being an unlawful combatant means you don’t get POW status. French resistants were not (by this later definition) lawful combatants and thus not entitled to POW status
(my bolding)
From Geneva III 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:
I was about to post this about Article 4, but yea, re: the Taliban militia/resistance, they likely fall into category 2 and thus must meet the 4 conditions laid out. You can argue they fall into category 1 (ie. US Marine), but that’s been tried and did not work. John Walker Lindh tried to make this argument to gain POW/Combatant Immunity Status and Category 2 was applied to him (he was closer to a member of Al Qaeda, but that argument would never work).
re: AQ. It doesn’t matter if they follow Article 4 (per the Geneva Conventions), b/c it’s not the right type of war. Article 4 only applies in a war between two States. You can only get POW status/Combatant Immunity if it’s a war between States. You can never be a Geneva “POW” in a non-international war. You can always be treated like one, though.
Yes they are, but setting that aside, what is your evidence that they are “combatants?” What is the procedure for determining the difference between an innocent civilian and a “combatant.” It sounds like you’re saying that anyone who isn’t wearing a uniform when we capture them or buy them from warlords is automatically a criminal, and should be afforded no chance to ever prove otherwise.
Who is “they?” Cite that the Gitmo detainess are part of “them?”
There is no “anti-military bias” on the left. The notion that the left is hostile to the military is a pure fabrication of the right wing media complex. This might come as a shock to you, but there are lots of Obama supporters who actually are (or have been) in the military.
No.
Right, because the US Constitution says so.
I trust that doesn’t mean you can be shot for speeding.
Again, right. Because your constitution says so. Non-citizens are subject to your laws just like you are. I can be fined for speeding, same as you, although there might be more paperwork involved, me being foreign and all. I can’t be executed for it. Contrary to the claim I replied to, the Constitution does apply to me.