The Afghan Taliban detainees - Lawful or Unlawful Combatants - Page 5




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 24th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CSmaster
pretty inhumane huh?
No.

Once more, these are not simple criminals, and those laws in place to deal with domestic criminals do not apply to those detained in Camp X-Ray. Do you honestly believe that we committed the time, effort, and funding necessary to transport and maintain these prisoners, who amount to a very very small handful of the total number of the enemy captured in this war, as Pershing has pointed out, without some extremely solid information on what terrorism these specific individuals had been involved in?


bulldog, your information on BCT is outdated, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, particularly in the military, who doesn't agree that such distinctions of abuse are outlandish.
June 24th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redneck

bulldog, your information on BCT is outdated, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone, particularly in the military, who doesn't agree that such distinctions of abuse are outlandish.
Can you back that up with sources? Something that repudiates the substance of the two articles I posted. I have looked and have been unable to find anything that states the issues raised by Col. Hackworth have been addressed. And I do know people in uniform now who would disagree with your assessment of abuse distinctions. One in particular is the commanding officer of a basic training company at Fort Jackson, SC. I have emailed asking her to join the forum but even then it will be her opinion and unable to be backed with the sources required here for posters to provide to support their claims.
June 24th, 2005  
Redneck
 
 
Re "stress cards":

https://airdefense.bliss.army.mil/ad...ch2001/AIT.htm
Look about a third of the way down the page. The following paragraph also addresses the DS-Recruit relations.


Opinions do not need to be backed up with sources, so long as they are presented as what they are, rather than as fact "because I said so."

And in my own opinion and from what experience I do have, I have yet to talk to anyone in uniform who believes that verbage amounts to unbearable abuse (thus the "hard pressed").
--
Boots
June 24th, 2005  
bulldogg
 
 
I can't access anything .mil from my current locale (do a search on my ISP addy and you will understand) something I discussed with Sherman before but I will trust you, take your word for it and thank you for clarification on the opinion-sources thing. Roger the "hard pressed".
June 24th, 2005  
Corocotta
 
 
Redneck wrote:
Quote:
Do you honestly believe that we committed the time, effort, and funding necessary to transport and maintain these prisoners, who amount to a very very small handful of the total number of the enemy captured in this war, as Pershing has pointed out, without some extremely solid information on what terrorism these specific individuals had been involved in?
Yes, that´s true. But the dilema is if they are lawful or unlawful combats. The taliban soldiers are lawful because they represented the Taliban Goverment ( this talibans were the same that US supported to fight against USSR). The people that took arms spontaneously to fight an invasion and respected customs of war are also respected by GC. You will say that they do not respect them...Ok, US does? remember ammo with uranium, fragmentary bombs...
June 24th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Fragmentary munitions are perfectly legal. Infact, that's how most hand grenades work. Fragmentary only means that upon detonation the shell breaks apart spraying the area with pieces of metal.

Also, depleted uranium munitions are for use only on armored targets, I can't think of any logical reason for someone to fire an ADPU round at a person.
June 24th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
once more,

even ppl like Saddam can have a trial,

why not these ppl in Gitmo,

if U.S does not want to give them fair trial and live up to its own principle,

than stop telling others to do so
June 24th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PershingOfLSU
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.
I hate to repeat myself. But as you apparently aren't actually reading answers to your questions.
June 24th, 2005  
CSmaster
 
innocent until proven guilty,

dude, you are not listening to yourself,

if you don't treat them like POW, than treat them like common murderers,

yet you don't treat them like common murders,

than what the heck are you going to do with them?

lock them and torture them like you are Stalin or Saddam?

tell me, in the Watergate case, why Americans are not afraid to seek truth despite the fact that they are revealing top secrets


if U.S tries to cover up some evil secrets of their own, (like peeing on Koran), they better have a fair trial now and stop those wrongful action
June 24th, 2005  
PershingOfLSU
 
Because frankly, I put the lives of Americans above these terrorists right to a trial.

They'll get their trial, and sooner then you think. But to try them in a way which could cost the lives of innocent American is unexcusable.