Former Gitmo Resident Now Senior Taliban Commander

[armyvern]

Declaring them POWs and holding them captive until the war comes to an official conclusion does follow the rules of the Geneva Convention...

Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition); and, in the case of the the Taliban and  Al-Qaeda, the day after the war reaches it's "official conclusion" and you let them out --- I bet dollars to donuts the "war" starts again the very next day ... because they can.

Your proposal does nothing that the current status doesn't also do; it also does not prevent further fighting by those "enemy combatants" after their release (via whatever means that release happens). Nice thought though - in an ideal world where your enemy also follows the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, that's not the case in this war.

 

[George Wallace]

Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition);............

On that note, if we look at what is said about armed persons, not fitting the definition of uniformed combatants, we will find that "execution" may be fitting.  Do we want to encarcerate them, or execute them?

 

[geo]

Taliban & AQ ... are comparable to the IRA.
What are your views on the new "troubles" that have happened over the last month.

If we are to treat our prisonners as POWs, then I contend that the TB & AQ are bound to take prisonners AND treat them as POWs - allow for inspections by the Red Cross/Crescent, etc, etc, etc.

The TB & AQ jihadists will enter villages & indiscriminately kill local tribesmen who do not toady up to their rule by thuggery.  Killing men, women & children is of no particular concern to them.... that is not the kind of behaviour of people who deserve to get POW treatment.

 

[OldSolduer]

On that note, if we look at what is said about armed persons, not fitting the definition of uniformed combatants, we will find that "execution" may be fitting.  Do we want to encarcerate them, or execute them?

As hard as this is to say, we MUST hold ourselves to a higher standard. If the AQ and Taliban continue to behave in such a fashion (hacking heads off, murderering, etc) then once captured, put them on trial, much as we did for the Serbs, the Nazis etc.
Then incarcerate them for a very long time with NO access to the media.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Look up the definition of POW (I'm, for one, pretty sure they don't meet the definition); and, in the case of the the Taliban and  Al-Qaeda, the day after the war reaches it's "official conclusion" and you let them out --- I bet dollars to donuts the "war" starts again the very next day ... because they can.

Your proposal does nothing that the current status doesn't also do; it also does not prevent further fighting by those "enemy combatants" after their release (via whatever means that release happens). Nice thought though - in an ideal world where your enemy also follows the Geneva Conventions. Unfortunately, that's not the case in this war.

You are missing the essence of what I was trying to get at.  Perhaps this is my fault for not spelling it out more clearly...  The Bush style detainee system, although functionally sound, and effective, was not palatable to certain elements of society because keeping people locked up permanently without trial or perhaps unfair trials doesnt sit well in happy perfect world democracy land.  However, you call them POWs, thus allowing you to keep them until the war ends, and the detractors no longer have a leg to stand on.  You see, this is a war that I dont beleive will ever fully come to an end.  There will always be some sort of Taliban or AQ presence, and as long as there is, you dont declare an end to the official war on terror.

If you follow this line of thinking, our detainees, now POWs, would die of old age in prison.

My suggestion, is meant as a loop hole if you will.  Give em a different name, and all of a sudden you can hang on to them as long as you want.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Taliban & AQ ... are comparable to the IRA.
What are your views on the new "troubles" that have happened over the last month.

If we are to treat our prisonners as POWs, then I contend that the TB & AQ are bound to take prisonners AND treat them as POWs - allow for inspections by the Red Cross/Crescent, etc, etc, etc.

The TB & AQ jihadists will enter villages & indiscriminately kill local tribesmen who do not toady up to their rule by thuggery.  Killing men, women & children is of no particular concern to them.... that is not the kind of behaviour of people who deserve to get POW treatment.

Beleive me I agree with you.  My proposed solution is by no means a perfect one, rather, the lesser of too many evils.  If the decision were purely up to me, I would develop a solution with a great deal of effectiveness, and absolutely zero degree of political correctness  ;D

But unfortnately, that does not strike me as realistic...