Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/28/2002 7:55:30 AM EDT
As I remember the spin stories they were part of the lawful government in Afghanistan. If this is the case aren’t they due POW statue under the Geneva Convention?
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:05:05 AM EDT
Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate form of gov't.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:05:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:06:39 AM EDT
I have another question.... Why weren't these POW's converted to corpses over in Afghanistan???
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:07:30 AM EDT
Originally Posted By garandman: I have another question.... Why weren't these POW's converted to corpses over in Afghanistan???
View Quote
Most likely because of the intel we *think* they have Bulldog OUT
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:28:58 AM EDT
If we make this an act of war the insurance companies will not have to pay one dime.We also limit ourselves on how we may conduct this.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:43:44 AM EDT
A.) POW's are by definition soldiers, uniformed and in compliance to the Geneva convention. The Taliban and Al Queida personnel captured are not part of an army. B.) We never recognized Afghanistan as a country, so they weren't warfighters, they were terrorists. Either way I think the difference between POW and 'combat detainee' is academic.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 8:49:49 AM EDT
I posted in another thread about this. I thought of something else though: Our CIA and special forces guys were wearing jeans and t-shirts over there--in other words, they were out of uniform or had now recognizable uniforms on. CIA agents are not part of any army either. Therefore, by the US definition, they are "illegal combatants." It's total strong-arm, arguing from a position of power, bullshit. It's embarrassing, frankly. I can't see why they took these people prisoner and brought them to Cuba. The average field soldier only has 48 hours of useful intelligence, and that time has long past.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:09:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By trickshot: I posted in another thread about this. I thought of something else though: Our CIA and special forces guys were wearing jeans and t-shirts over there--in other words, they were out of uniform or had now recognizable uniforms on. CIA agents are not part of any army either. Therefore, by the US definition, they are "illegal combatants." It's total strong-arm, arguing from a position of power, bullshit. It's embarrassing, frankly. I can't see why they took these people prisoner and brought them to Cuba. The average field soldier only has 48 hours of useful intelligence, and that time has long past.
View Quote
CIA are not considered as combatants...its a gray area but Special Forces? They carry identification IAW Geneva Convention and are legal combatants. Their presence in country is only with the permission of the interim government and their role is mostly as an observer. The reason for their clothing is not to offend the Afghani people. Consider the Taleban as a foreign force which was for the most part, undesirable. The withdrawl of the Soviets in 1989 left a political vacuum which was filled by the Pashtun Taleban, mostly from Pakistan. There is more than 48 hours of intel in the prisoners held in G'itmo.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:29:44 AM EDT
Keith_J So if the Taleban had “dog tags” they would have been treated as POWs? The Taleban should be considered as “undesirable” by whom? (probably the US) Didn’t we “install” the Taleban as the legitimate government in 89? Your saying that standard US military BDUs would offend the Pakistanis? In most countries the U.S. CIA are considered spies and if caught they are killed or traded. Calling a SEAL an observer is like calling a Lion plant challenged.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:30:23 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineGrunt: Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate form of gov't.
View Quote
Marine G., actually both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (If my memory is correct)recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:36:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 9:36:56 AM EDT by Sukebe]
The Geneva convention gives recognition and status to persons serving in the armed forces representing a legitimate government. To recognize the Taliban and Al Queda as POW's would give the same status to any individual in plain clothes who commits acts of aggression against U.S. interests or citizens in the name of a political cause. The individual no longer would be regarded as a terrorist, criminal if you will but a bonified soldier in a legitimate war against the U.S.. The U.S. has as compared to any other nation a stellar record regarding the treatment of legitimate POW's. How do you suppose the Taliban or Al Queda would treat American service men and women if/when they capture one. I personally don't care how these people are being treated other than how it reflects on our national honor. I have lived in much worse conditions as a member of the U.S. Marine Corps and no one made a fuss for me.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:36:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5:
Originally Posted By MarineGrunt: Pakistan was the only country to recognise the Taliban as a legitimate form of gov't.
View Quote
Marine G., actually both Pakistan and Saudi Arabia (If my memory is correct)recognized the Taliban as a legitimate government.
View Quote
I stand corrected. However my point remains true, we did not see them as a legitimate gov't.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:41:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: As I remember the spin stories they were part of the lawful government in Afghanistan. If this is the case aren’t they due POW statue under the Geneva Convention?
View Quote
308wood, actually only Pakistan and, I believe Saudi Arabia recognized the Taliban as the legitimate government. The United States recognized the "Northern Alliance" as the legitimate government. (Please check it out before anyone starts the flames.) Were we to give POW status we (legally) could not question these prisoners beyond name, rank and serial number - and I have little doubt these folks have many names, probably little formal rank and I doubt there's a serial number in the lot. For now our government is better served to view these prisoners as 'criminals' as opposed to POW's. Whether the actions of our government are right and correct is now being debated at the highest levels in Washington.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:43:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By MarineGrunt: ......my point remains true, we did not see them as a legitimate gov't.
View Quote
Agreed. The United States recognized the Northern Alliance as the legitimate government.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 9:47:37 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Sukebe: The Geneva convention gives recognition and status to persons serving in the armed forces representing a legitimate government.
View Quote
I believe you are correct. But I'm not certain. (There's no more to my reply than what's stated. I believe you're correct but I'm not certain.)
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:05:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:16:11 AM EDT
Didn’t we “install” the Taleban as the legitimate government in 89?
View Quote
No. The Taliban's primary foreign sponsor was Pakistan.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:21:21 AM EDT
Our CIA and special forces guys were wearing jeans and t-shirts over there--in other words, they were out of uniform or had now recognizable uniforms on. CIA agents are not part of any army either. Therefore, by the US definition, they are "illegal combatants."
View Quote
Illegal or not, they wouldn't have received the benefits of the Geneva Convention had they been captured anyway.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:22:08 AM EDT
The primary reason I see is that these people were not soldiers who surrendered to our soldiers (ASFAIK none were apprehended by US soldiers). They are people who are at the request of the lawful government of the country they were apprehended in being detained by the US Military. The reasons for this detention are not an issue here as far as I am concerned. I have seen no formal complaint from the lawful government of Afghanistan or even a request to see these people to make sure they are being treated well. What business Britain and Australia and whoever else has in this is questionable since they are neither the lawful Government of country A (Afghanistan) or Country B (The United States). If US groups wish to protest this that is fine as well, but they also are working with limited knowledge. -Velveeta
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:29:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 10:32:36 AM EDT by 5subslr5]
Originally Posted By raf: Please read this slow-to-load link for the whole story:[url]http://www.projo.com/report/html/06923621.htm[/url]
View Quote
Thanks raf. To anyone who reads please go all the way through as there's some 'pabulum' in the first portion. The author has, in my mind, legitimacy as he is a "Professor of Strategy" at the Naval War College. In reading the article I was reminded of the first definition (other than a dictionary) of "OUTLAW" that I read. As I recall I was reading something that brought into focus the word 'outlaw' (as used today) in conjunction with old English "Common Law." At any rate the words were two - out law - and the definition roughly - an out law was someone who lived outside the law and therefore had no protection under the law. No protection extended to killing an out law with no consequences. Although too long I thought this worth mentioning here. (raf, I do wish the sucker (author) could spell "United States" - first line, second paragraph.)
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:39:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/28/2002 10:41:15 AM EDT by JIMBEAM]
.308 wood do you have a better option? Their living conditions seem more than humane. Would you prefer that we release these men who fully intend to attacking us if set free? If these men, I use this term loosely, are granted POW status I suggest we keep them until every memeber of their organization is killed or detained. That should only take 50 years.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:40:12 AM EDT
Once again, media terminology is way off on this. The correct US terminolgy is: POW (Prisoner Of War): An American Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine (with some other categories in there like Coast Guard, activated NPHS and few more) taken prisoner by an enemy during actual armed conflict. EPW (enemy Prisoner of War): A uniformed combatant of a recognized fighting force captured by American forces during the course of an armed conflict. The "Battlefield Detainee" is a legal fiction. By using this category, the US does not have to treat them as EPWs, because if they did, we would have to release them and could not execute or permanently imprison them. Letting these guys go is not an option; they are just too dangerous. If they were treated strictly as civilians being held for offenses against the US, we would have to let them go because they would be entitled to Haebas Corpus hearings and due process under the current federal legal system, which would also have to let them go, because there is currently insufficent proof to charge most of these folks with violations of the law. That is also one of the reasons they are being kept outside of the Continental Uninted States (hence, Cuba) because the moment they set foot on American soil, all of the rights that you and I have automatically kick in for these guys, under the 14th Amendment. If they were actually brought into the US, a federal judge somewhere down the line (within a few months) would have no choice under the law but to order most of these guys released. The "Battlefield Detainee" status is a newly invented legal fiction so that we can hold these guys, do what we need to with them (gather intel and possibly build criminal cases against select ones), and not have to let them go in the immediate future. If things work out right with the newly installed Afghan government, I bet you probably see them being "released" to the custody of the Afghans in the next few years to face quick trials and quicker executions. If that doesn't pan out, we'll fade the heat and do it ourselves.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:40:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Velveeta: What business Britain and Australia and whoever else has in this is questionable since they are neither the lawful Government of country A (Afghanistan) or Country B (The United States). -Velveeta
View Quote
V.Veeta, maybe the Brits should have something to say (I didn't say we must listen !) as they've had the "SAS" in the Afghan fighting since 9/13/01. (The "SBS" is there too but I do not know their date of entry.) I'm guessing that much of this noise is for their domestic consumption.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 10:57:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ARMALITE-FAN: If we make this an act of war the insurance companies will not have to pay one dime.We also limit ourselves on how we may conduct this.
View Quote
This is a fact and should not be overlooked. I 'BELIEVE' (read not certain) that a deal was cut between Washington and the insurance companies where insurance company losses were limited to $13 Billion(?)regarding the 9/11 attacks. Further I seem to remember that in the very early days GWB referred to 9/11 as an "Act of War" and then he quickly changed terminology. (This happened soon after 9/11 and I may have some errors and omissions.)
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 11:05:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: V.Veeta, maybe the Brits should have something to say (I didn't say we must listen !) as they've had the "SAS" in the Afghan fighting since 9/13/01. (The "SBS" is there too but I do not know their date of entry.) I'm guessing that much of this noise is for their domestic consumption.
View Quote
Maybe they should be looking in the mirror at REAL issues: [url]http://www.larkspirit.com/bloodysunday/[/url] and not pointing the finger. -Velveeta [url]http://www.larkspirit.com/bloodysunday/[/url]
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 11:18:28 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Velveeta:
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: V.Veeta, maybe the Brits should have something to say (I didn't say we must listen !) as they've had the "SAS" in the Afghan fighting since 9/13/01. (The "SBS" is there too but I do not know their date of entry.) I'm guessing that much of this noise is for their domestic consumption.
View Quote
Maybe they should be looking in the mirror at REAL issues: [url]http://www.larkspirit.com/bloodysunday/[/url] and not pointing the finger. -Velveeta [url]http://www.larkspirit.com/bloodysunday/[/url]
View Quote
V. Veeta (I'm determined not to obsess ! [:D]) While the issues you bring are "real" these are real "old" issues. As the civilized(?) world's attention span closely approximates the thirty minutes required to view a 'sitcom' you require too much !
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 11:27:34 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 5subslr5: V. Veeta (I'm determined not to obsess ! [:D]) While the issues you bring are "real" these are real "old" issues. As the civilized(?) world's attention span closely approximates the thirty minutes required to view a 'sitcom' you require too much !
View Quote
The fact remains they have never been US prisoners of war. They surrendered to Afghani troops. The US was asked by the Afghani government to secure these men for some unknown/undisclosed reason. The British detained many [I]alleged[/I] NRA members for far longer than these men have been held in worse conditions and with little to no due process. They never considered these men POW’s. Some of these actions were not that long ago though the situation I cited did happen in the early 70’s. -Velveeta
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 12:07:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Velveeta: The fact remains they have never been US prisoners of war. They surrendered to Afghani troops. The US was asked by the Afghani government to secure these men for some unknown/undisclosed reason. The British detained many [I]alleged[/I] NRA members for far longer than these men have been held in worse conditions and with little to no due process. They never considered these men POW’s. Some of these actions were not that long ago though the situation I cited did happen in the early 70’s. -Velveeta
View Quote
I do not believe either morally or legally the Taliban prisoners to be POW's. I do believe some allowances must be made for Great Britain's statements as I believe these statements are primarily for British home consumption. Neither the British government nor the British populace will choose to remember their own questionable past actions.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 1:50:21 PM EDT
They are whatever we say they are to suit our purposes. If we say they're dogpoop, they're dogpoop. That's just the way it is because we own their asses. Would anybody have it anyother way?
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 3:42:47 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 308wood: Keith_J So if the Taleban had “dog tags” they would have been treated as POWs? The Taleban should be considered as “undesirable” by whom? (probably the US) Didn’t we “install” the Taleban as the legitimate government in 89? Your saying that standard US military BDUs would offend the Pakistanis? In most countries the U.S. CIA are considered spies and if caught they are killed or traded. Calling a SEAL an observer is like calling a Lion plant challenged.
View Quote
Dog tags are NOT legit forms of military ID under the Geneva Convention. Next time you see a military ID, look carefully. That's the idea. The Taleban were NOT put into power by any country, not even the ONLY country that recognized them, the Pakistani government. The Taleban rose to power in the post-Soviet political vacuum but it was not until 1996 they actually had control of the country. Its not the Pakis we are worried of offending but rather the local tribes who have seen nothing but war for the last 30 years. 30 years of infighting, outfighting, foreign armies, foreign advisors from no less than 5 countries and 12 nationalities. The last thing they want to see is a foreign army back in their country. The role of the Special Forces (mostly Army) is to win the confidence of the local militia and assist them in location and detention of FOREIGN nationals. Our Special Forces SM's are intertwined into the militias, adopting their customs and learning their language. The CIA is called in after aprehension of Foreign nationals for turn-over to US authorities. If we were not there, these prisoners would be shot on site.
Link Posted: 1/28/2002 5:24:48 PM EDT
Tonight on "The Factor," O'Reilly had some International Red Cross jerk-*off but one interesting item was discussed. No criminal acts of a POW are protected under the Geneva Conventions. So if Usama Dim kills civilians even though he may be captured and held as a POW once a crime has been discovered he's just another criminal and subject to the laws just as anyone else. Does this really add anything to the posted topic ? Hell I don't know.
Top Top