...we followed General 'Black Jack' Pershing's method of dealing with Islamic fundamentalists in the Philippines, back in 1911.  Just what was that method?  From an article by Wes Pruden, of the Washington Times:

*  *  *
So here's a helpful suggestion. We learned only yesterday that U.S. and British commanders intend to drop leaflets on Taliban territory in advance of precision attacks on Osama bin Laden's hideouts and training camps, assuring Taliban soldiers and sympathetic tribesmen that the West means them no harm. This is nice, and it might even persuade a Taliban warrior or two.
   
The leaflets would be far more effective if they relate the story of how Gen. John J. "Blackjack" Pershing dealt with Islamist terror in the Philippines in 1911. Pershing detailed a patrol to bring in six known terrorists who had slain women and children in a backwoods village. [u]The terrorists were required to dig their own graves, and then were lashed to stakes to await the firing squad. Several pigs were brought before them for slaughter[/u].
   
"[b]When you are buried," the officer of the detail told the terrorists, "we will bury the pig offal with you. You'll never see paradise.[/b]" [u]And no virgins, either.[/u]
   
One of the terrorists was allowed to "escape" to return to his fellows to tell the awful story, as Pershing knew he would. There was no more trouble in the neighborhood for years, for long after Pershing was long gone to France to command American doughboys in the Great War.
   
This was the kind of punishment a society like ours would never countenance today, of course, even for Osama bin Laden's evildoers. [u]But merely telling the story would tell the Taliban warriors, loud and clear, just how mean the infidels are prepared to be[/u].

For Wes Pruden's article, go to:
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/national/pruden.htm[/url]

Eric The(SendInThe'JimmyDeanSausage'BrigadeNOW!)Hun[>]:)]

but...but...but...that makes too much sense and would violate the Geneva convention.




BOMB GENEVA!!

You know maybe the airlines could start serving pork rinds as the regular snack instead of peanuts. [>]:)]

Eric


Lets take it a step further,  and require that all passengers must consume pork rinds and beer before boarding the plane, something like communion.  We could even show porn flicks on the entertainment screens while the flight attendants (female only) do lap dances.


JIMBEAM

That wouldn't work because it appears the terrorists were indulging in all of the above prior to the flights.

Well, perhaps not the pork, but they were seen getting drunk at strip clubs.

So, what kind of Muslims are they?

erickm, according to The Hague, only members of the armed forces of a state have the privilege of being a prisoner of war.  Other combatants can be shot, like EricTheHun described.  According to the new Geneva Convention (well, it was new the last time I read it in the early 50's) the privilege of being a prisoner of war also applies to any combatant that carries their weapon openly.  So, in 1911 according to The Hague rules defined in 1907(?), Pershing's actions were legal according to international law, but now according to the new Geneva Convention they are not.  In addition, any person within our borders or our control has constitutional rights which would further impede this suggestion as a solution.

Do you guys really think this sort of horror is a solution?  From my experience, when we heard that prisoners of war were shot and killed by the North Koreans, we forgot about the idea of surrendering, and it steeled our resolve to keep fighting until the end.z

[b]Terrorists might have second thoughts if...[/b]we carpet bombed the hometown of the terrorist.  Then, maybe mommas won't let their babies grow up to be terrorists.

Post from mattja -

Dead.

Eric The(AsDoornails)Hun[>]:)]

Hey Zoom, the clue phone is ringing... Better pick it up!

These guys are ALREADY steeled, surrender is not in their playbook! The actions described here are a psychological violence that recognizes that fact. The hard core guys are already hard core, the only way to change that is to kill them. But there are many thousands of other, softer wannabe's who might think again about their commitment to their jihad.

In the WTC attacks we saw the bad guys throw their very best, most committed operators into action. How long can they keep that up? Not long, they don't have the base of skilled operatives avaiable to waste them in a war of attrition. So we will see the very committed reserved for the big events that are hard to pull off. Not much we can do about that anyway, is there? But we can let them know we even more bad-assed as they are.

Like the Japanese before them, these people's culture sees no virtue in mercy, only a weakness to be exploited.

They are coming to kill you. Play hard!

OK I have been fuming on this subject since the 11th and now it is time to vent. Has anyone heard what they did to the Russians when they were there? Well if you havent I will tell you this, a quick death was not a option. Dismember these people " you wan't to see ala well fat fu*kin chance " ta hell with the Geneva convention these people don't abide by it so why the hell should we have to???? This is going to be a long drug out thing if we play by "the rules" Don't take prisoners just make examples!!! You wan't a holly war, lets make them rember who they pissed off!! go see ala via a gernade in your gut mother Fu*kers

This is horribly off topic, but what was suggested by Wes Pruden in the original article I posted, reminded me of a scene in one of my all time favorite movies - 'The Searchers' a 1956 western classic starring John Wayne and a host of other excellent actors.  John Wayne always claimed that his role as ex-Rebel Ethan Edwards, and the film itself, were his personal favorites.

Well, anyway, there a scene near the beginning of the movie, after the Commanche raid, when the search party discovers a hastily made grave and the corpse inside - and -

Ethan takes his gun and shoots two bullets at the Indian corpse, aiming at its eyes. Although Reverend Clayton interprets his senseless, excessive act as vindictive and contemptuous, Ethan explains how his defilement of the Indian has thwarted the spiritual belief of the Comanche, causing his spirit to wander forevermore:

Clayton: What good did that do ya?
Ethan: By what you preach, none. But what that Comanche believes, ain't got no eyes, he can't enter the spirit-land. Has to wander forever between the winds.

Pretty lengthy buildup for just three lines of dialogue!  I've got way too much time on my hands!

Eric The(WayTooMuch)Hun[>]:)]

EXCELLENT MOVIE!!!!!!!  one of my personal john wayne favorites too.

somehow the barbarity of the "wild" west doesn't seem to awful now, does it?  in fact, i'm all for returning to the days of a fair trial and a first-class hangin'.

ARLady, if you've ever got the time, go to this website for more on 'The Searchers' -
[url]http://www.filmsite.org/sear.html[/url]

It's got a 3 or 4 page analysis of all the scenes, the important dialogue, and it's almost as if you're watching the movie as it explains the action in much detail.

It managed to make me rethink a couple of scenes - I just thought I remembered what was said, and I missed a lot of connections that were obvious when I read this analysis.

Well worth the effort.

You do know about the final scene, when Ethan Edwards is framed by the doorway of the Jorgensen cabin?  John Wayne struck a pose that was forever thereafter associated with him - grabbing his right elbow with his left hand.

The 'kicker' of the scene is that is the very pose that Harry Carey, Sr., as a silent film star, had become famous for in the 1920s. Harry Carey, Sr., died during the filming of this film, and his old friend, John Wayne, struck the now-familiar pose in his honor!  The widow Mrs. Carey, Sr., was on the movie set that day and when the Duke unexpectedly struck that pose in the doorway, she remarked that she almost fainted from the emotion of the moment.

Heck, I almost fainted from the emotion of the moment when I typed that![:D]

BTW, Harry Carey, Jr., played the part of Martin Pawley (Ethan's 'half-breed' nephew), and the foster brother of Debbie Edwards - played by sisters Lana Wood (as a child) and
Natalie Wood (as a young lady).

Eric The(ISureHopeIHaven'tBoredYou!)Hun[>]:)]

That is, without question, one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Would you care you share with us the legal precedents you used to come to this conclusion or do you just make these things up as you go along?

Post from raf -

Sorry. But wasn't Harry Carey, Jr., in the movie at all? I know Patrick Wayne played the young cavalry officer, I thought Harry's son was likewise in the film.

Eric The(MaybeNot)Hun[>]:)]

Looked it up myself, Harry Carey, Jr., played the part of Brad Jorgenson, the 'searcher' that rode his horse, pell-mell into Scar's camp to avenge the rape/murder of his girlfriend, Lucy Edwards, getting killed in the process.

Eric The(Forgetful)Hun[>]:)]

Zoom, I just re-read your entire post in a calmer frame of mind. A certain guy named Floater got me going and I just kept on.

You are obviously familiar with military law and intenational conventions. Am I to understand from your post that you served in Korea? In what capacity?

If you did serve our country in uniform, then I owe you a tremendous apology for the tone of my post, and many thanks for your service. PLease accept my apology.

I think we will have to be attacked again before we start getting to that level of determination.  On the otherhand , don't even think that Americans won't stomach a fight to win.  We didn't want to enter WWII, We did want to drop the Atomic Bomb killing over 100,000 people in an instant.  So our stomach will develop. Just like a Young soldeir. Squemish at first, and by the end of the first year. 1000 yard stare, loose, and deadly.   My father has a friend who went from Africa , Sicily, Italy, then Normandy, Germany. Almost 4 years in Combat.  

Ben

Gunslinger, how is that ridiculous?  Can you show me where in the Constitution it specifies that the limits applied to the government end at the border?  This is a serious question, is there any specific statement in the Constitution that leads you to believe otherwise?  I want to keep this discussion civil, and I'm simply curious as to how you arrived at that opinion.  If you are held by US authorities in or outside of the US, you still have rights.  Otherwise, we could have just had the FBI execute, for example, Manuel Noriega in Panama without having to go to the trouble of giving him a trial.  Instead, he was given due process, which was his right, because he was under our control.  This was a huge topic of discussion after our invasion of Panama.  If the constitutional limits for government ended at the border, the FBI could have a "field day" shipping suspects to international waters to torture them during questioning.  While I think that would be effective, it isn't legal.  I think it is a very good thing that the actions of, for example, the BATF are limited outside of the US in many of the same ways that they are limited here.

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez specifies that the right to unreasonable searches doesn't extend to noncitizens outside of the US, but the rights given by the fifth amendment, due process, are extended to all citizens and noncitizens, alike.  There is a limitation to the previous statement that was previously defined in Johnson v. Eisentrager.  In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone participating in "armed hostilities against the United States" does not have the right to due process.  The only reason they do not have this right is that the Constitution specifies that the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended when public safety requires it.  It isn't because of any limitation within the Bill of Rights.  Technically, they still have the right, but it is suspended.z

cerberus, no need to apologize, well except for that "clue phone" comment. :)  I understand what you're saying, but I was simply trying to make the point that if you corner someone, they'll fight harder.  BTW, I thought you were agreeing with me in your first post.  You said that they were "steeled, surrender is not in their playbook."  I'll agree with that, and that's exactly why a horror like Pershing's, wouldn't scare them off.  See, we agreed, and that's why I was confused by your tone.

Benjamin0001, I hope you are wrong about it requiring another attack to secure our resolve, but it did take a lot to get us into the past two world wars.z

Bold emphasis mine.

[i][b]All persons born or naturalized in the United States[/b], and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.[/i]

I'm sure we can agree that one can not pick and choose which amendments are valid and which are not. We know that the anti crowd would like to keep the first and get rid of the second.
So if we agree that [i]all of the amendments[/i] would apply to POW's by your argument according to the 15th amendment they would have the right to vote. I don't see us sending absentee ballots over seas so POW's can elect our legislators.
No offense intended Zoom. But the constitution does not guarantee the rights of prisoners of war or our enemies in combat.

Edited to add; The example of the FBI taking a citizen into international waters is not valid in this discussion. Once they had apprehended them within the US they would be violating their rights simply by removing them from the US to commit the acts of torture you described. But then you already knew that.

Eric is entirely right.  I too read Pruden's article.  Pershing did a masterful job of psywar on the Moro tribesmen in the PI.  Most of these Islamic Filipino tribesmen lived and still live on the smaller islands down around Mindinao.

My great grandfather (USMA 1891) fought them to a bloody standstill in the 1901-1903 timeframe as a captain.  I have his letters and gruesome pics of these enemy tribesmen his troops killed lined up like cordwood .  They were very tough little dudes who's favorite weapon was a type of machete with a heavier end than haft, making it great for taking limbs and heads.  They were the prime reason the United States Army adopted the 1911 .45 ACP.

As to JW's character Eathan shooting the Indian's eyes out...that too was a masterful stroke of psywar.  When the Commanche were again in that area and went to the grave, as they were sure to do eventually, they would know that their warrior friend had been prevented from achieving peace and was wandering forever...thanks to the very serious white men that they had attacked.  Sends a strong message.

Lastly, I doubt seriously if the Taliban or for that matter any of the Afghan tribesmen have ever heard of the Geneva Convention.  That goes for all of the Islamic fighters in the Hindu Kush area.  I really hope that our military troops have been told the truth about fighting there and that they are prepared for the worst.  Kipling told it well in verse about fighting in Afghanistan when he penned,

"When you're wounded and left,
On Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out,
To cut up your remains,
Just roll on your rifle,
And blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd,
Like a soldier."

Any that may have doubts...just find that hideous video of the Chechans killing that Russian soldier.  That says it all.

We aren't going in there to play pattyfingers and I hope our troops are really ready to be as brutal as it is going to take to win and get home.  During WW II, it took a couple of years for the American citizen soldiers to harden in mind and body to the point that they were regularly crushing all Axis opposition on both sides of the world.

W. T. Sherman had it right: "...War is all Hell".
[soapbox]