Replies

First please don't address me by rank, especially if you do it wrong(I know too picky).

Sorry. As a Navy Commander, I'm not too familiar with the subtleties of Army NCO ranks.

The standard of treatment I cited was the treatment of captured personnel before their legal status was determined. Their treatment until transport to Gitmo was exactly the same as EPWs from the Taliban Afghani Military.

The Taliban captured in Afghanistan were captured in conventional combat operations while they engaged in conventional warfare themselves. They were not captured red-handed in terrorist operations.

It is not possible, except throught mental gymnastics, for a captured/surrendered combatant to be considered active regardless of information he holds.

Go back to my previous example. You capture a terrorist who brags to you he has planted a bomb large enough to kill hundreds of American civilians somewhere in the city, that the bomb will explode in 20 minutes and that he read in a newspaper that some Army JAG has determined that you can't do a damn thing about it except ask him very politely where he hid that bomb.

Do you truly believe that that individual is not an active combatant?

Do you truly believe that it is your legal duty as a servicemeber of the U.S. Armed Forces to allow those American civilians to die rather than threaten to blow that bastard's head off if he doesn't tell you where the bomb is hidden?

Go back and re-read your description of a legal combatant it is precisely the description required to define any combatant. All POWs have the potential to hold information, by law POWs are only required to give name, rank, and ID number.

Let's see: The individual in question was caught red-handed in a friendly uniform, not bearing arms openly and participating in the espionage needed to kill American soldiers and has knowledge that would stop one of those attacks.

He qualifies as an illegal combatant and the Rules of War specifically exclude him from the rights accorded a POW.

How did they handle this back in World War II?

During the Battle of the Bulge, near the end of World War II, some specially trained German soldiers who spoke English put on American uniforms and infiltrated the American lines to disrupt and confuse U.S. military operations. When caught, they were lined up in front of a firing squad and shot. The protections of the Geneva Convention's rules of war are for those who play by those rules.

BTW, those Germans of Otto Skorzeny’s commando group, which infiltrated American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were shot upon capture even though they were wearing German uniforms under the American gear.

In World War II, if you wanted the protection of the Rules of War, you had to follow the Rules of War. If you didn't, you could be summarily shot.

Now, you and and that JAG want the U.S. Army to grant Geneva Convention rights to illegal combatants and terrorists, in the combat theater, in time sensitive situations in spite of the fact that it would put American servicemembers in harm's way.

That's a great way to get Americans killed and lose a war.

If a time machine brought a Battle of the Bulge G.I. out of his Bastogne foxhole and into our time, he would be peeing in his pants with laughter about this discussion.

I believe the term FUBAR was coined during World War II to describe this sort of thing.

The Taliban captured in Afghanistan were captured in conventional combat operations while they engaged in conventional warfare themselves. They were not captured red-handed in terrorist operations.

Not all of them. We are still capturing remnants and sympathizers and all are treated as POWs. There was very little conventional about operations in Afghanistan.

Go back to my previous example....

That is certainly a tough situation to be in, but one cannot be certain if they are telling the truth or will even tell you the truth about where the bomb is hidden. So you are back to the same place we are now. Our tactics and procedures should not be disregarded on the word of an EPW. How many times did the "threat level" change based on the debriefing of an AQ detainee and nothing happened?

Do you truly believe that that individual is not an active combatant?

He is not.

I didn't plant the bomb. I don't even know if he's being truthful. How would I know he's telling me the truth where the bomb is hidden and not setting a trap? Therefore, do I threaten every EPW/detainee with their life to tell me everything I don't know?

He qualifies as an illegal combatant and the Rules of War specifically exclude him from the rights accorded a POW.

But our rules hold us responsible to treat him as an EPW until his status is determined by proper authority. And as far as the WWII story goes. I say great for them, wish we had that kind of freedom now.

I don't have a say in how our country treats EPW's. I follow the lawful orders of my superiors. I don't make up the rules as I go along. And until the instructions on handling EPWs changes, LTC West is wrong.