Ghost of BiB

I thought they were already having military tribunals, and that several had been released. Others get brought in. It's a continual process. It just seems to me that after the 9/11 fiasco, everyone would prefer to err to the side of caution.

So....you are going to give the acused the precise data that put him in prison, by discussing the particulars at trial...then, possibly allow him to go back to Pakistan and describe all that to the rest of the gang? Plus, America being America-the frenzied masses inflamed by the press will never allow "Secret Trials". It HAS to be a media event.

I wasn't going to go there, but FTIW, our closest hold security stuff is that which pertains to intelligence collection. It is the one category that is unifromly considered NOFORN. It would not be a good thing to bring that to light in a trial. Then you'd have these fish tossed back into the pond for lack of evidence - going by our American humanitarian rights of the accused as opposed to the victims rules, of course.

This is the government. Federal Holiday Monday, which results in extreme screwing off on prior Friday. All the military were out and out off today, most of the civilians took "liberal leave" and when I woke up today I said...nah. didn't go in. I don't think there is anyone there to look for me anyway.

It's usually listed on the back of the trading cards.

yup...same reason I signed up for folk music class as an english elective. Not a bad move in '72.

I can agree with that, but then you'd have the same maroons having the same conversations going on here-only on national and international TV. Would only make it worse.

It isn't objective if the law doesn't have much, if any relevance to the situation. A hypothetical situation for example: "We" are aware that country "A", not an enemy-but not a friend, either-is planning to trans ship a nerve agent pre-cursor to country "B" so it can be used to make Sarin by country "C" with an arrangement to sell the finished product to terror organization "D". It has been determined that the only reliable way of preventing this, is to interdict the shipment either in A or B. Neither of those countries is going to be of any tactical or operational help, so using their own forces or police is not an option. Attacking "C" is not an option because of other political considerations. The solution is to intercept and defeat the material using some particular force package of one kind or another. All of this, by international law is illegal. So, what do you do? Intercept and render safe the shipment? Or, let the nerve gas get made and try like hell to deal with it then? And "You guys" was a generic term. Sorry I was cavalier in applying it to you.

And, as an aside- most nations involved summarily executed, or severely handled combatants caught not in uniform. They were treated as spies, or for lack of a better word-terrorists. Most often they were denied any rights under any convention.

It goes a lot deeper than that, Campy. Maybe it's more like I view things objectively, and you view them emotionally. Without trying to sound melodramatic, I don't have that luxury. And yes, I find a LOT of things this country does an inconvienience at work. This is one of the lesser ones-but due to the attention it gets, not an insignificant one. I just SO love it when you guys are convinced we are creating more terrorists by having 400 guys locked up in jail-and you all completely blow off the riots and demonstrations going on across the Muslim world over the Newsweek incident. Which one do you think is going to increase the radical base more?

And, you ARE aware, aren't you-that some of the very people who's rights you are championing would not give a second thought to slicing your, or your wife's throat from ear to ear. They would consider it an honor and a duty. And, they thought that way BEFORE they got caught. But, I guess it's another case of agree to disagree. That kind of stuff is relevant to me.

OK...who are you declaring war against?

And, once again I have to ask what basic human rights are being violated? As far as I've been able to find out, they have clothes, are well fed and have a roof over their head. Another thing I'm pretty aware of is that AQ has for the most part been rendered a lot less operational than it was a couple of years ago. Might just be because some of their leadership is on ice. So, why don't we have a nice little American Style trial, where they can all be released on the numerous technicalities involved legally in their original incarcerations? As cold as it sounds-it would have been a lot easier to leave them dead on the battlefield, but then it would have also been hard to get any useful information. And PS: Thanks for the kind props, but I'm no hero. I just go to work every day. Save that for those who are.

Well, that's stated pretty strongly-but in essence that's correct. There is no solution that is going to make everyone happy. I dread the next set of elections. This country is tremendously polarized and has become so through a LOT of lack of understanding and misrepresentations or suppression of the truth. I'm not going to touch domestic issues, because I don't know anything about them. I do have a fairly decent understanding of some National Security problems. I would really like to hear how some of our fellows, both here and elsewhere think the problems need to be addressed.

Johnny, there is a lot more to the Rules of Land Warfare than prisoner treatment. Considering the nature of our enemy, why are you and so many others so damn fixated on one small piece of it involving one small group? As CTM points out, they have no signatory-which in practicality is moot anyway. Their entire method of doing business is against the Laws of Land Warfare. Otherwise, they wouldn't have any weapons. So is some of ours, born of necessity due to the nature of those we fight. Most of the conventions being cited and cried over were written with a different form of conflict in mind. This is essentially a "High Tech" Guerilla war. Calls for different methods-and both sides know there is no quarter. I've posted some of my thoughts on re-writing the rules to fit the situation. I'm not writing them a third time. Once again, what is ultimately more important? Some Saudi's "American Style" Civil Rights? Or keeping a fully loaded exploding gasoline truck out of a shopping mall? apparantly, to many-it's the former. And, if we all place nice for the cameras, maybe with a little luck it won't be any of us, or our families at the next ground zero.

To do so would legitimize their cause. Ergo, tacit recognition by the west that their operation is considered within the rules of warfare. Think about what you are saying, all the way through.

Just a logistical concern here. How is "Counsel" supposed to present a case one way or another, for some Saudi guy picked up with 1100 other "Freedom fighters" in the middle of the mountains in Afghanistan? Who are you calling as a witness? Or, do we just take their word that all 400 were just innocent bystanders?

Hate to break it to you, but we ARE in a world war.

This is well past sick.

Whatever. Like I said earlier, you defend their rights and I'll try to keep them from blowing you up. Just an internet tough guy perspective.

He was one of the "experimental animals". Now, we have to lose him without PETA involvement. That will end up being another 20 page worthless thread. Mensa? Go for it. What a friggen idiot.

You have apparantly devoted your life to it. You are also an idiot. Hard to tell what to think.

I just so love the way their eyes cross when you hit them just right. But so many people like cats, too. Go figure.

This still, is going on - right? Just checking.

Well, you worry about their rights. I'll see what I can do to keep an airliner off the top of your head. Fair trade?