The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 2




View Poll Results :Are the Taliban Lawful or Unlawful Combatants?
Unlawful 6 37.50%
Lawful 10 62.50%
Neither Combatants or NonCombatants 0 0%
Voters: 16. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
Boots
 
June 20th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.
June 20th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.
May be after their "holidays" in Cuba they have so much anger and hate towards the US that they decided to join Osamaīs holy war.
June 20th, 2005  
Doc.S
 

Topic: The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants


If they gave me as long time that I needed ,that is the time it takes to go from detainee to detainee for a "chat", I would extract the information from those Taliban detainees alot faster then they get it today. That would help them get back to their homes and to their goats if they just cooperate with me and dropps that terrorist attitude for a couple of minutes. Those who still would like to test me - Well.... Letīs say that the liberals, the leftwing, the conservatives the whole freaking socialist Europe would really have something to whine about after I was finished. If they donīt have anything to conceal they would not be detainees any longer then necessary. In that way you donīt make another terrorist out of one that isnīt a terrorist, sitting there at GITMO. 8)

But I can assure you all. The detainees with information would have been talking or been dead, as far as Im concerned that would not have been my problem. What is my problem though, is if someone of those bastards are sitting on their asses praying for my family to be the next victims of a Boeing 747 at school or at work. That is of my concern. Problem is that this world would not stand my methods for one bloody minute. And thats why I think people like me arenīt welcome anywhere. Thats the price I just have to pay for my honesty and my will to protect my loved ones without all the whining around.

Where they are today - Is really a paradise island.
They got sun, water, shelter and food. They are not in any way hurt more then maybe their pride that gets wings after capture. If anyone looks for sympathy or tolerance for what some of them have done, or planning to do in the future you can count me out. My message to the world is - Stop Whining around with these people like a massive gay lobbying group and get on with your business. What people need to understand is that you have the right to demand a little peace of mind (Not looking over your shoulder everytime an arab walks by) instead of giving your libertys away to a group of awkward people still living in the freaking Middle Ages down there in the Middle East. Welcome to my reality. 8)




Cheers:
Doc.S
--
Boots
June 20th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Doc.S, your sincerity is laudable. I could partialy agree with parts of your estatement, however we live in a world ruled by the law, where people can not do what ever they want and where people is responsible of their acts. A world where human rights must be respected, even the rights of those we know are guilty. And may be this is the biggest handicap we have against this band of fanatics. If we do not want to come back to the Middle Age, and apply the Talionīs law, we should keep the human rights as the centre of all our legislation, as they were stablished in a primitive way many many many years ago by uncle Montesquieu and uncle Rosseau back in 1789.
June 21st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
Lets see, firstly most people serving under the regular Taliban army weren't brought to Cuba and remained in Afghanistan. Inaddition some 200 prisoners from Guantanamo have been released since it was believed they weren't a threat. An estimated 25 have rejoined Al Queda.
Again, I ask what is your source for this information?
June 21st, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Because it frankly isn't possible for the United States to have moved the majority of the Talibani army to Gitmo. It isn't even possible for us to have moved even the entire officer corp. It doesn't take much more then common sense to realize that if the camp holds 500, then the majority of a defeated army numbering in the tens of thousands isn't there.
June 21st, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I realize what youre saying seems to make sense but it still doesnt have a factual basis to back it up without some sources, please. I would really honestly like to know where the data is coming from, honest.
June 22nd, 2005  
CSmaster
 
k, dude,


if they are criminals,

they should have fair trials right???????????

yet many in GItmo don't


so i am just wondering where does U.S stand on this issue??
June 22nd, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Anyone we tried would have to be sentenced in accordance with the pre-existing penal code of the country they were captured in. The Taliban penal code was rather light in terms of incarceration and rather heavy in terms of executions.

Something that although perfectly legal, would greatly infuriate most of the world even further then incarceration in Guantanamo.

Edit: There are other problems with trying them as well. Almost all information that would be used in a conviction is classified. Why? Because if you reveal sensitive intelligence information, then even though the terrorists already know it because it's about them, they can get an idea of your intelligence network. Worse yet they may notice connections that lead them back to spies. The natural extention of this is that unless we want to essentially forfeit what few human resources Clinton didn't scrap, we would have to hold any trials in secret. Secret trials handing out guilty verdicts would cause even more trouble then just holding them. Expecially lwhen the sentence is death. Another worry is that you hold a trial, the person is found innocent, and they proceed to go back to Al Queda and extoll the virtues of the American intelligence network.
June 22nd, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Ok, now I find this post very instructive.
You say that anyone the US "tries" will be "sentenced". Thank the heavens that it isn't necessary to convict them before you mete out punishment. Now are they being tried according to the rules and laws of the country they are from as well? How can being a fighter in the Taliban be against the laws of the Taliban country of Afghanistan? Or are they tried according to US laws, which they are not owing the rules already laid out by the Defense Department, and then punished according to the laws of Afghanistan? Do you see the irony in this scenario?