In a conventional war, isn't there a legal difference between an enemy soldier captured in his country's uniform and one captured in our uniform? Seems like I recall they would be treated as spies and the "legal" penalties were much more severe, possibly the death penalty?

Reason I am asking is that I am sick and tired of libs saying don't torture the poor terrorist because he has rights! They are not "soldiers" of a government, they are religious radicals that do anything that they think will serve their purpose. I want some more info to throw back in their face. I am not necessarily proposing that we break every bone in their body to get them to provide information, but whatever works, I would be for.

Yup catch them in our uniform. Shoot them after a summary court.

Who says that you are not a terrorist?

As with anything, some degree of judiciousness is called for.
Fat white male with no fertilizer bombs or nukes in a pickup in texas that speaks TexEnglish and knows some salient historical and contemporary facts is probably low risk and not a candidate.

Guy you catch with a uhaul full of fertilizer and diesel who does not have a drivers license and does not know those salient facts is a candidate for strong interrogation (read torture) and potential elimination.

Mistakes will always be made, but better to torture one hundred and get relevant info out of 99 and make one mistake and save many thousands of lives than to not.

Again, I realize that prudence must be taken into account, there needs to be some sort of overseeing and authorizing control and some accountability, but you still need to get info out of bad guys to save good guys. If I were that one non terrorist and it cost me my life to save thousands, I think I would have to say I would have done a very heroic thing, even tho it may not have been my choice. Can't take a vote to see who falls on the grenade, someone has to make the choice. Only difference is the choice.

Nathan Hale was hanged as a spy. Things should be no different now than they were then.

There's actually an interesting novel by Robert Littell called "The Once and Future Spy" that parallels a current CIA agent and Nathan Hale. It's a fun read.

height=8

Quoted: Mistakes will always be made, but better to torture one hundred and get relevant info out of 99 and make one mistake and save many thousands of lives than to not.

I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune when the ONE mistake is YOU.

Those of us who are concerned with FREEDOM are not worried about crazy suicidal Arabs being tortured.  We're worried about WE crazy gun owners being tortured.

height=8

Quoted: In a conventional war, isn't there a legal difference between an enemy soldier captured in his country's uniform and one captured in our uniform? Seems like I recall they would be treated as spies and the "legal" penalties were much more severe, possibly the death penalty? Reason I am asking is that I am sick and tired of libs saying don't torture the poor terrorist because he has rights! They are not "soldiers" of a government, they are religious radicals that do anything that they think will serve their purpose. I want some more info to throw back in their face. I am not necessarily proposing that we break every bone in their body to get them to provide information, but whatever works, I would be for.

Do you think our troops have ever dressed in enemy uniforms to carry out covert ops?  Do they deserve the same fate when captured by the enemy?

Generally, torture really isn't all that effective at gathering intelligence.

There is nothing wrong with a summary execution of a soldier captured out of uniform.
Irregular forces have to have a uniform of sorts, or an identifying symbol to get the protections of the geneva convention.

Quoted: Quoted: In a conventional war, isn't there a legal difference between an enemy soldier captured in his country's uniform and one captured in our uniform? Seems like I recall they would be treated as spies and the "legal" penalties were much more severe, possibly the death penalty? Reason I am asking is that I am sick and tired of libs saying don't torture the poor terrorist because he has rights! They are not "soldiers" of a government, they are religious radicals that do anything that they think will serve their purpose. I want some more info to throw back in their face. I am not necessarily proposing that we break every bone in their body to get them to provide information, but whatever works, I would be for. Do you think our troops have ever dressed in enemy uniforms to carry out covert ops? None that I am aware of, of course, that's why they call it COVERT. Do they deserve the same fate when captured by the enemy? Yes, they do.  That's a problem with covert ops.

The real thing is, we are the only ones abiding by the Geneva conventions.  We could have the entirety of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq hauled into a war crimes trial for hiding amongst civilians as human shields, not wearing uniforms, deliberately targeting civilians,...

Our problem, is we are not fighting this as a war.  It has degenerated into a "police action", just like Viet Nam.

I am all for summary execution when caught out of uniform, or wearing ours. The one case that comes to mind at the moment is the Battle of the Bulge. Which was within Geneva Regs'. All the Nazi commandos behind our lines that were caught in U.S. uniforms were lined up and shot fairly soon after capture.

No long drawn out court proceedings for them, as it should be.

Quoted: I am all for summary execution when caught out of uniform, or wearing ours. The one case that comes to mind at the moment is the Battle of the Bulge. Which was within Geneva Regs'. All the Nazi commandos behind our lines that were caught in U.S. uniforms were lined up and shot fairly soon after capture. No long drawn out court proceedings for them, as it should be.

There was at least one who cracked and spilled the beans about som of his compatriots, IIRC, he survived the war.

Just one.

A reward for cracking under pressure.

He just wanted to live.

Fighting out of uniform, without a chain of command, and failing to bear arms openly  is a war crime. The perpetrator is an "unlawful combatant." Unlawful combatants may be tried before a drumhead court and executed. Why we aren't doing it, I'll never know.

Quoted: The real thing is, we are the only ones abiding by the Geneva conventions.  We could have the entirety of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq hauled into a war crimes trial for hiding amongst civilians as human shields, not wearing uniforms, deliberately targeting civilians,...

We're the only ones in THIS WAR who are abiding by the Geneva conventions.  The problem with the erosion of the Geneva conventions isn't the affect on Iraq but on future conflicts.

There's two issues here:
(1) I wouldn't want for us to be involved in a war later with a country that WOULD consider following Geneva conventions, but would decline to on the basis that the US didn't.

(2) Despite the MS media's claim that the US is hated everywhere else in the world, the US remains seen as a leader and our behavior should be the example that we want to set for the rest of the world.  I'd like to think that in a war between two arbitrary countries that those countries would still consider the Geneva conventions to be valid.

Quoted: Generally, torture really isn't all that effective at gathering intelligence. There is nothing wrong with a summary execution of a soldier captured out of uniform. Irregular forces have to have a uniform of sorts, or an identifying symbol to get the protections of the geneva convention.

I totally agree I’m against torture not because I care about the terrorist. Torture just gives you faulty intelligence; they are going to tell you what you want to hear. Torture is a waste of time and resources.

Quoted: Quoted: Generally, torture really isn't all that effective at gathering intelligence. There is nothing wrong with a summary execution of a soldier captured out of uniform. Irregular forces have to have a uniform of sorts, or an identifying symbol to get the protections of the geneva convention. I totally agree I’m against torture not because I care about the terrorist. Torture just gives you faulty intelligence; they are going to tell you what you want to hear. Torture is a waste of time and resources.

Having seen the effects of heartfelt terror on subjects of interrogation, I'm not sure I agree that torture is a waste of time.

Quoted: Quoted: Mistakes will always be made, but better to torture one hundred and get relevant info out of 99 and make one mistake and save many thousands of lives than to not. I'm sure you'll be singing the same tune when the ONE mistake is YOU. Those of us who are concerned with FREEDOM are not worried about crazy suicidal Arabs being tortured.  We're worried about WE crazy gun owners being tortured.

If DMOS is currently serving, he's entitled to voice an opinion about what could happen to him if he were captured.  However, if as I suspect he is currently not serving, nor has he ever worked for Uncle Sam in his entire life, then toss his opinion aside like every other armchair warrior here with a loose doughnut hole and idiotic opinions.

If you have obvious reason to think they are a terrorist then by all means 'interrogate' them.

However if you are relying on circumstantial evidence, like "Hey we found this guy and he's Arab so he must be a terrorist" then that's a little different.  Without any oversight who is going to say which is the case with detainees?

Ever heard of Operation Greif?

Operation Greif was a special false flag operation commanded by the notorious Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge. The operation was the brainchild of German dictator Adolf Hitler, and consisted of using specially-trained German soldiers in captured Allied uniforms and vehicles to cause confusion in the rear of the Allied defense. A lack of transport aircraft, uniforms and English-speaking soldiers limited this operation, but the confusion created by this so-called "Trojan Horse Brigade" was considerable.

About two dozen German soldiers, most of them in captured American army Jeeps, got through the lines in the initial confusion of December 16, 1944, and began changing signposts and creating panic among American troops they encountered. However, some of the saboteurs were captured by the Americans. Because they were wearing American uniforms, their interrogators threatened to execute them as spies unless they divulged their mission. Knowing they were likely to meet that fate anyway (they did), the Germans falsely told the Americans that their mission was to go to Paris to either kill or capture overall Allied commander General Dwight D. Eisenhower. They truthfully told the interrogators that Skorzeny was their commander.

The Americans had already captured some documents referring to Operation Greif. In reality, the word Greif was probably used simply to mean a mythical heraldic beast, the griffin. Because Skorzeny was already well-known for rescuing Italian dictator Benito Mussolini and kidnapping the son of Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy, the Americans were more than willing to believe Eisenhower was his next target.

Because of the perceived threat, Eisenhower was confined to his headquarters for several days, and thousands of American MP's were put to work trying to hunt down Skorzeny's men. Checkpoints were soon set up all over the Allied rear, greatly slowing the movement of soldiers and equipment. Military policemen drilled servicemen on things which every American was expected to know, such as the identity of Mickey Mouse's girlfriend, baseball scores, or the capital of their state. This latter question resulted in the brief detention of General Omar Bradley himself; although he gave the correct answer—Springfield(Illinois)—the GI who questioned him apparently believed that the capital was Chicago.

Ironically, the overall mission was regarded by Skorzeny as a failure. Because a total breakthrough wasn't achieved on the first day of the battle, Skorzeny had to use most of his panzer brigade as ordinary combat troops, in German uniform.

After the war, Skorzeny was tried by the Allies as a war criminal for allowing his men to fight in enemy uniform. He was acquitted when the British Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas of the Special Operations Executive testified in his defense that he and other Allied commandos had done the same thing.

Quoted: I am all for summary execution when caught out of uniform, or wearing ours. The one case that comes to mind at the moment is the Battle of the Bulge. Which was within Geneva Regs'. All the Nazi commandos behind our lines that were caught in U.S. uniforms were lined up and shot fairly soon after capture. No long drawn out court proceedings for them, as it should be.

+1

Quoted: Fighting out of uniform, without a chain of command, and failing to bear arms openly  is a war crime. The perpetrator is an "unlawful combatant." Unlawful combatants may be tried before a drumhead court and executed. Why we aren't doing it, I'll never know.

The mainstream media would spin it into something other than what it is.

Quoted: Quoted: Generally, torture really isn't all that effective at gathering intelligence. There is nothing wrong with a summary execution of a soldier captured out of uniform. Irregular forces have to have a uniform of sorts, or an identifying symbol to get the protections of the geneva convention. I totally agree I’m against torture not because I care about the terrorist. Torture just gives you faulty intelligence; they are going to tell you what you want to hear. Torture is a waste of time and resources.

Not true. It's easy to cross-check and verify a lot of the intell gained through torture. It's a myth that it doesnt work. Sure there are pitfalls using torture but saying it doesnt work is flat wrong.

hotair.com/archives/2006/09/20/bombshell-abc-independently-confirms-success-of-cia-torture-tactics/

Anti-”torture” absolutists like Sullivan adamantly deny that harsh tactics produce reliable information. It’s their way of avoiding the moral dilemma presented by a ticking time-bomb scenario. But they’ll have to face it now, because in four short minutes Brian Ross utterly explodes that particular article of quasi-religious faith as fantasy. Not only did they break Khaled Sheikh Mohammed; not only was the information he gave them valuable; not only did it save lives; but Ross’s sources include people within the CIA who are opposed to the practices. The best part, though? Learning that Ramzi Binalshibh cried like a three-year-old girl.

There's pretty little tangible benefit to shooting an enemy out of hand, even if he is in your uniform.

Don't get much intel out of him if you do. Feel free to keep him in prison until the other guys end up capturing one of your own, and you can trade.

NTM

Quoted: In a conventional war, isn't there a legal difference between an enemy soldier captured in his country's uniform and one captured in our uniform? Seems like I recall they would be treated as spies and the "legal" penalties were much more severe, possibly the death penalty? Reason I am asking is that I am sick and tired of libs saying don't torture the poor terrorist because he has rights! They are not "soldiers" of a government, they are religious radicals that do anything that they think will serve their purpose. I want some more info to throw back in their face. I am not necessarily proposing that we break every bone in their body to get them to provide information, but whatever works, I would be for.

Enemy personell caught out of uniform (weather disguised as a civillian, or in the uniform of another country) are considered spies/saboteurs under international law.

The punishment for such action in a time of war is summary execution....

That said there is sometimes an intel value to keeping 'em alive... Dead men don't talk...

Quoted: Quoted: The real thing is, we are the only ones abiding by the Geneva conventions.  We could have the entirety of Al Qaeda and Al Qaeda in Iraq hauled into a war crimes trial for hiding amongst civilians as human shields, not wearing uniforms, deliberately targeting civilians,... We're the only ones in THIS WAR who are abiding by the Geneva conventions.  The problem with the erosion of the Geneva conventions isn't the affect on Iraq but on future conflicts. There's two issues here: (1) I wouldn't want for us to be involved in a war later with a country that WOULD consider following Geneva conventions, but would decline to on the basis that the US didn't. (2) Despite the MS media's claim that the US is hated everywhere else in the world, the US remains seen as a leader and our behavior should be the example that we want to set for the rest of the world.  I'd like to think that in a war between two arbitrary countries that those countries would still consider the Geneva conventions to be valid.

That's because affirmative action has made it's way into war. The media and liberal elite see the mooslums has a minority and eligible for affirmative action. This translate's into laws applying to us not apply to them as a balance.

Google and then read the laws of land warfare. Then you might actually be able to respond with some slight knowldege of the subject.

A "soldier" is entitled to certain treatments,.  A soldier in the opponents uniform is entitled to summary execution.  An irregular combatant not acting under the rules is also subject to summary execution.  A non-combatant is also defined and their treatment is codified.

The rules are quite specific on how to define legal combatants, illegal combatants and non-combatants and neutrals.

So if the US were ever invaded/occupied by a foreign country, any civilians who tried to fight them would be 'unlawful combatants' and subject to execution?

Quoted: If you have obvious reason to think they are a terrorist then by all means 'interrogate' them. However if you are relying on circumstantial evidence, like "Hey we found this guy and he's Arab so he must be a terrorist" then that's a little different.  Without any oversight who is going to say which is the case with detainees?

This seems to be the problem with Guantanamo Bay--I have read that only 5% of the detainees were captured by United States forces. 86% of the detainees were arrested by either Pakistan or the Northern Alliance and turned over to United States custody (PDF version of report). Of the 95% not captured by US forces on the battlefield, at least some were captured by bounty hunters, with their statements as the only evidence against the detainee.

Quoted: So if the US were ever invaded/occupied by a foreign country, any civilians who tried to fight them would be 'unlawful combatants' and subject to execution?

Yup. Another reason it's important to win.