Replies

Terrorists' legal edge in whose mind? Under what framework?

Root causes is another way of saying Bush's fault or America's fault. It is unacceptable.

Terrorists are not just employees of terror like German Nazies, but entirely business partners of the employment of power struggle.

Good article from US Army War College. The author makes some valid points. The courts are setting some terrible legal precedents, which have long term implications. Judicial activists on the bench are trying to apply the Geneva Convention and our domestic criminal justice system to the WOT. We are hobbling our military by doing so, and that is without precedence.

I agree with his conclusion:

Unlawful belligerency, whether as terrorist warfare or in some other form, may become a familiar and ugly facet of modern life. The executive branch is best equipped to devise rules for this emerging though not entirely unprecedented problem, with oversight provided by Congress. The judicial branch is least equipped to answer these questions, but has taken a rapid lead. A pragmatic response to terrorism will require the systematic presentation of a clearly articulated set of customary rules of war. These must be established without further delay.

It would be productive to restore an archane word back into common usage: outlaw. This word means a person who exists outside of the protection of law because of his behavior or the people he associates with. The Islamo-jihadists are outlaws. They, like cancer cells, must die or they will destroy the healthy cells. As such, they do not deserve any protections of any of our laws. Indeed, we compromise our safety when we tie ourselves up in knots to give them protections they do not deserve, or to treat them in a way they would not reciprocate with.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 is a joke and so is the one that was in effect during WWII as only three countries ₍₁₎ ever complied with it regarding treatment of POW's:
GB, the USA and ........... Nazi Germany (for the most part) ₍₂₎.

Japan - nope,
the USSR - nope,
China - nope,
North Korea - Bwaaaaahaha, nope,
the VC and NVA - yeah, right,
Saddam during Gulf War I - uh no.

So all this noise coming from the left that the USA's interrogation methods (aka 'torture') with the Islamo- fascists is putting our troops in danger is utter hogwash.

The Geneva Convention is meaningless - period. That is, unless we're going to fight another war with the Nazi's.

1 - France intentionally omitted.
2 - What the SS did at Malmedy doesn't count.

American policy is to remain above reproach as much as possible and treat prisioners well. This may stem from an inability to corner foreign governments who sympathize with terrorists. While not recognizing legally the fair treatment of terror-combatants, this trend could abruptly end if a Western city were beset by weapons of mass destruction, e.g., dirty nukes, gas or disruption of the water supply.

The real problem is an inability to phrase a war by one religion upon another in the public airwaves in a fashion that does not fan the already irrational hatred of Islam and ignorance of its followers who will rally against Christians.

He is making some good points regarding the confusion about how to treat "terrorists" and private warriors, the word mercenary comes to mind, but what he seems to miss is the professed idea of an Islamic Nation.

In my reasoning we should be asking:

What are the goals of the organization?

Are they or could they be considered "special forces of Islam?"

How does a sovereign nation respond when WAR has been declared on it by a religion/theocracy(which is what has happened)?

Lots of money and recruits are flowing into the terrorist network...we say we're looking for sponsors yet we declare war on no nation. Islam has backed the modern world into a corner and until we declare war on the Crusaders for Islam we will be stuck in this quagmire of legalese.

Belligerent combatants, outlaws etc. these are just pretty words to describe the paid warriors for Islam. Islamic nations feigning ignorance when it is well known the mosques recruit soldiers for Islam, mosques collect millions of $$$, and the same countries funnel finances and weapons to their most highly prized special operations.

There is one video clip that gets a lot of play on MSM channels (even Fox News) that I think is hurting our cause. It shows 2 guards at Gitmo escorting a terrorist prisoner to his cell. The prisoner is rather small (compared to his large, strapping guards) and wearing a white robe and headcovering--because of his dress, the prisoner looks very devout, even holy. The guards are dressed in camoflague and appear to be gently esorting the prisoner--not hurting him in any way. Even so, someone viewing this clip without context would conclude that the US military is unjustly locking up/oppressing devout muslimes.

I bring this up because even the most "harmless" looking information released from Gitmo can trigger and emotional reaction in people. If that reaction favors the terrorists, then politicians (reacting to public opinion) will eventually enact stupid policies. Perhaps all info released out of Gitmo needs to be focus group tested to insure the reactions do not hurt our cause.

Here are a few questions that I have, on this topic, which I figured I would toss out to everyone on this thread. Perhaps someone here is, or knows, a JAG officer or someone of similar expertise. It is specifically about Iraq and Afghanistan.

Given that our enemy’s greatest strength is its ability to blend in with the civilian populace and conduct its insurgent activity when coalition forces are not present, one of the best ways to counter them is to also blend in, so that they their activities are disrupted by the uncertainty of not knowing when they are being observed.

Can anyone quote the section of the Hague or Geneva conventions or any written precedent that states that we must wear uniforms, even if only conducting surveillance? Or, is there no such rule?

What restrictions, if any, are there on Soldiers donning civilian clothes to blend in with the populace and hanging out on street corners, observing insurgent activity and reporting it to its higher headquarters or directing the actions of a unit attempting to maneuver upon those insurgents?