Iraq War, v5

[purplehawk]

Eowyn, there's some conversation about all of this in the Obama transition thread, and in the Bush admnistration thread, too. It's all over the place.

[OldLupin]

Originally Posted by WarriorEowyn

FINALLY!

Part of the Status of Forces Agreements passed by the Iraqi parliament is that Blackwater and other military contractors, as well as other US buinesses in Iraq, will no longerhave legal immunity from Iraqi law. This, along with the imminent withdrawal of US forces from Iraqi cities in the next six months, is a big step towards true independence for Iraq.

Also of high interest, an article from a member of the US military who headed the team that, using non-torture interrogation tactics, successfully located and killed the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The entire article is very well worth reading.

Matthew Alexander isn't the guy's actual name is it? Who is this guy actually, especially to make blatantly obtuse comments like Gitmo and Abu Grahib were why most foriegn fighters came to Iraq? We had mass numbers of foriegn fighters in Iraq prior to Abu Grahib and Gitmo even being established long enough to have reputations, let alone negative reputations, so how exactly does this work? In addition, aggressive interogation tactics weren't originally instated early on, nor were they public knowledge.

[purplehawk]

Lupe, we began torturing detainees right after 9/11 - long before the invasion of Iraq. Salim Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. That's just one name I happen to be familiar with, but there are others.

[monster_mom]

Good News!

USA Today U.S. combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan last month dropped to the lowest combined level since the United States began fighting the two wars more than five years ago.

Originally Posted by purplehawk

Lupe, we began torturing detainees right after 9/11 - long before the invasion of Iraq. Salim Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. That's just one name I happen to be familiar with, but there are others.

The wiki page linked doesn't have anything about torture. It discusses Haman's classification as a POW v/s enemy combatant and whether the Geneva Convention even applies to him, but there's nothing about torture.

Originally Posted by OldLupin

We had mass numbers of foreign fighters in Iraq prior to Abu Grahib and Gitmo even being established long enough to have reputations, let alone negative reputations, so how exactly does this work?

Of course we did.

Here's a report from VOA about enemy fighters caught in Iraq in 2003 long before Abu Grahib.

Here's another and another.

There's also the fact that the enemy fighters targeted Iraqi's as well as Coalition forces. Simple logic would conclude that if their real reason for fighting was because of reports of torture and Abu Grahib then they would have targeted coalition forces instead of Iraqi men, women, and children. That they consistenely targeted innocent Iraqi men, women, and children tends to undermine the author's assumptions.

It sounds to me like the article's author was injecting his own personal belief and anger about Abu Grahib onto the situation without checking to see if the facts supported his conclusions.

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by OldLupin

Matthew Alexander isn't the guy's actual name is it? Who is this guy actually, especially to make blatantly obtuse comments like Gitmo and Abu Grahib were why most foriegn fighters came to Iraq? We had mass numbers of foriegn fighters in Iraq prior to Abu Grahib and Gitmo even being established long enough to have reputations, let alone negative reputations, so how exactly does this work? In addition, aggressive interogation tactics weren't originally instated early on, nor were they public knowledge.

Right. Waterboarding isn't necessary in all cases. But we have to do what is necessary to break the hardened scum who would bring harm to us. Liberals, led by the ACLU, would rather risk attack than do what is necessary to force the truth from these killers. I don't understand that, and I never will.

Originally Posted by monster_mom

[It sounds to me like the article's author was injecting his own personal belief and anger about Abu Grahib onto the situation without checking to see if the facts supported his conclusions.

Yeah, me too.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

Right. Waterboarding isn't necessary in all cases. But we have to do what is necessary to break the hardened scum who would bring harm to us.

Just you remember that next time a US soldier or intel officer is caught anywhere in the world.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Wab

Just you remember that next time a US soldier or intel officer is caught anywhere in the world.

Soldiers caught in the field of battle are subject to the Geneva Convention and classification as POWs. Terrorists from other countries who aren't members of the armed services of that country serving in an official capacity aren't Prisoners of War. As such they are not Prisoners of War and are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

US intel officers understand that and fully expect to be tortured and murdered if captured.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Soldiers caught in the field of battle are subject to the Geneva Convention and classification as POWs. Terrorists from other countries who aren't members of the armed services of that country serving in an official capacity aren't Prisoners of War. As such they are not Prisoners of War and are not protected by the Geneva Convention.

But as they are not signatories nor are they required to adhere to the conventions and so, the US shouldn't complain when such treatment is meted out.

Regardless of the Geneva Convention, the US is a ratifying nation of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which Article 2:2 states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Wab

But as they are signatories nor are they required to adhere to the conventions and so, the US shouldn't complain when such treatment is meted out.

Should American's, like Adam Gadahn the American born Al Qaeda terrorist we so often see in videos released by Al Qaeda, ever be captured by the authorities of Pakistan or Afghanistan or representatives of any other country he's found in, I'm quite sure the US government won't complain one bit about what interrogation techniques those government's use to obtain information from him.

The difference and distinction between him and any soldier serving in an official capacity is important because that's what determines whether he's entitled to the protections set forth in Geneva. Soldiers are protected under Geneva if they are captured when acting in an official capacity on behalf of their government. Some guy who decides to run amok in another country and wage war against that country and it's citizens isn't protected by Geneva.

Were Al Qaeda to declare itself and independent nation, establish a government, apply for admission into the UN, appoint representatives to the UN, sign and ratify the Geneva Conventions, form it's fighters as an Army with clearly designated uniforms, place it's fighters in those uniforms, declare war against the countries they are operating in, engage in battle with the army of the county they declared war against, and one of their fighters be captured during those battles, then they'd be protected under Geneva because then they'd actually be soldiers representing am actual government as opposed to terrorists.

Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists.

Regardless of the Geneva Convention, the US is a ratifying nation of the International Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of which Article 2:2 states: "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture."

Define which specific acts committed by the US constitute torture, please. That convention defines torture as "severe physical or mental suffering". That seems rather vague to me. My kids would probably claim that forcing them to eat their vegetables constitutes severe physical suffering. Does that mean I'm torturing my children when I make them eat their broccoli?

[Alastor]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Define torture. Prove that the US routinely tortured terrorists it captured.

Did Wab say it has happened 'routinely'?

Don't put words in your fellow member's mouth. Don't give your fellow member orders either. Ask nicely for further explanations, or leave it. Or just explain why you don't agree.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Should American's, like Adam Gadahn the American born Al Qaeda terrorist we so often see in videos released by Al Qaeda, ever be captured by the authorities of Pakistan or Afghanistan or representatives of any other country he's found in, I'm quite sure the US government won't complain one bit about what interrogation techniques those government's use to obtain information from him.

Oh rubbish. The US protects it's own. Which is why John Walker Lindh was not tortured and incarcerated indefinitely in Gitmo.

[staff edit]

Were Al Qaeda to declare itself and independent nation, establish a government, apply for admission into the UN

Update on international law. A country can only accede to the UN with the approval of the SC. Do you really think the US wouldn't use its veto?

Geneva doesn't apply to terrorists.

The ICRC is the oversight body for Geneva. They say it does. Anyway the Convention Against Troture does.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by Wab

Oh rubbish. The US protects it's own. Which is why John Walker Lindh was not tortured and incarcerated indefinitely in Gitmo.

I don't remember this case and all of it's details, but wasn't Lindh captured in Afghanistan and isn't he serving a long prison sentence in the US for what he did for the Taliban in Afghanistan?

[staff edit]

Update on international law. A country can only accede to the UN with the approval of the SC. Do you really think the US wouldn't use its veto?

You're right, it probably would - although in the scenario it's equally unlikely that Al Qaeda would actually form and establish itself as a government. The scenario was entirely fictitious to demonstrate the distinction between Al Qaeda operatives and soldiers. Geneva grants soldiers different status because of the role they play. If captured, soldiers are classified as POW's and entitled to different treatment than terrorists. Other than the blanket ban on torture, terrorists really aren't granted any additional rights or classificaitons.

The ICRC is the oversight body for Geneva. They say it does. Anyway the Convention Against Torture does.

Terrorists aren't granted the same protections as soldiers and POW's because they aren't soldiers and aren't POWs.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

I don't remember this case and all of it's details, but wasn't Lindh captured in Afghanistan and isn't he serving a long prison sentence in the US for what he did for the Taliban in Afghanistan?

Indeed he did because the US decided that while the conditions in Gitmo were fine for foreigners they were unacceptable for Americans.

You're right, it probably would - although in the scenario it's equally unlikely that Al Qaeda would actually form and establish itself as a government.

Actually, it's not that far-fetched. Check WWII history and there are a few terrorist groups (Irgun, ZANU, ANC, Viet Minh, SWAPO, KLA etc) which have taken or formed governments in nations which are now recognised and have seats in the UN.

Terrorists aren't granted the same protections as soldiers and POW's because they aren't soldiers and aren't POWs.

Under Geneva its the subject if debate: the US says no, just about everyone else and the Red Cross (which administers Geneva) say yes.

Geneva aside the Convention Against Torture (which the US has ratified) applies to any person in the custody of the State.

[monster_mom]

Here's today's really sweet, tear jerker clip of the day.

Enjoy!

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/12/0...s-comes-early/

[canismajoris]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

Terrorists aren't granted the same protections as soldiers and POW's because they aren't soldiers and aren't POWs.

How do you know they're terrorists? The presumption of guilt of all detainees is one of the most disturbing things I've ever witnessed in my life.

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by canismajoris

How do you know they're terrorists? The presumption of guilt of all detainees is one of the most disturbing things I've ever witnessed in my life.

It's enough for me that our military saw them as hostile and rounded them up as threats. On a battlefield, you don't wait for the bad guys to kill you. You capture or kill them first.

That's the difference here...IMO liberal groups like the ACLU don't understand anything about what must be done in times of war.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by pensieve_master

It's enough for me that our military saw them as hostile and rounded them up as threats. On a battlefield, you don't wait for the bad guys to kill you. You capture or kill them first.

That's the difference here...IMO liberal groups like the ACLU don't understand anything about what must be done in times of war.

First, what do you think of the reports that some of the detainees were not actually round up on the battlefield directly by our troops?

And, for those that were round up directly by our troops, I won't dispute that you just capture or kill first. No argument from me. But then, in my own opinion, they should be given some form of legal status - either tried in criminal court or treated as a prisoner of war. What evidence do we have other than capturing them for giving them this new status that may or may not violate international treaties (the assessment of whether it's in violation of international treaty seems to depend on who you ask)

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by chparadise

First, what do you think of the reports that some of the detainees were not actually round up on the battlefield directly by our troops?

And, for those that were round up directly by our troops, I won't dispute that you just capture or kill first. No argument from me. But then, in my own opinion, they should be given some form of legal status - either tried in criminal court or treated as a prisoner of war. What evidence do we have other than capturing them for giving them this new status that may or may not violate international treaties (the assessment of whether it's in violation of international treaty seems to depend on who you ask)

First of all, I do not believe the media has a full understanding of the process used to round up the enemy combatants. None of us do, either. So I choose to trust the work done by and on the behalf of our servicemen and women whose job it is to protect us.

Because the detainees are non-U.S. citizens, and considered enemy combatants, they fall under military law. We aren't obligated to try them in a criminal court or any other court, despite what some misguided (IMO) judges rule...one of which wants them released into our neighborhoods. I'm happy to let the Supreme Court weigh in on the matter.

[monster_mom]

Originally Posted by chparadise

First, what do you think of the reports that some of the detainees were not actually round up on the battlefield directly by our troops?

And, for those that were round up directly by our troops, I won't dispute that you just capture or kill first. No argument from me. But then, in my own opinion, they should be given some form of legal status - either tried in criminal court or treated as a prisoner of war.

There in lies the problem. Prisoners of War are by definition members of a standing army engaged in the war who are wearing uniforms of that army that clearly designate them as members of that army.

[pensieve_master]

Originally Posted by monster_mom

There in lies the problem. Prisoners of War are by definition members of a standing army engaged in the war who are wearing uniforms of that army that clearly designate them as members of that army.

And none of that insurgent lot wears "uniforms".