Crown

Quote:
dan996 said:
Be glad this won't happen to you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11317424/

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
dan996 said:
Be glad this won't happen to you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11317424/

Those people should grab guns and storm the Kremlin. Maybe Vlad would be a bit more receptive after actually fearing for his life.
Maybe Nick should take this case

Quote:
amazon said:
Put someone in jail for no reason is a common thing in russia. What's frightening is that it happens also in our so-called democracies like US for instance (patriot act + gitmo) and in eastern europe (secret prisons for afghans and irakis)

Quote:
dan996 said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
dan996 said:
Be glad this won't happen to you.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11317424/

Those people should grab guns and storm the Kremlin. Maybe Vlad would be a bit more receptive after actually fearing for his life.
Maybe Nick should take this case

Oh no, you are not going to get him started here too!

Quote:
426h said:

Quote:
amazon said:
Put someone in jail for no reason is a common thing in russia. What's frightening is that it happens also in our so-called democracies like US for instance (patriot act + gitmo) and in eastern europe (secret prisons for afghans and irakis)

wtf are you talking about? no reason?

Quote:
POR911 said:
That is absolutely ridicules!!!!

Quote:
426h said:

Quote:
amazon said:
Put someone in jail for no reason is a common thing in russia. What's frightening is that it happens also in our so-called democracies like US for instance (patriot act + gitmo) and in eastern europe (secret prisons for afghans and irakis)

wtf are you talking about? no reason?

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Amazon --- If the Belgian Army engaged irregular, eg, non uniformed, "franc de tireur" forces in a foreign country, that had used that country as a base to organize the sending of airplanes crashing into the tallest buildings in Brussels, do you really suppose that the Belgian government would treat those foreign combatants each individually as if they were common criminals and accord them the same legal status as Belgians accused of crimes? Or even accord them POW legal status when they were not fighting under any national flag or government authority? And not even vett them before releasing them? Would they free those with
leadership or special skills to come and attack them again?

Would the Belgian security forces be negligent in not seeking to question them extensively to obtain any information about their organizational capabalilities, order of battle, command and support locations and the communications and HQ of its leadership? Or are those items that Belgian police and its criminal courts routinely handle?

And if the Belgian security services were investigating
stateless organizations planning major attacks on civilian targets in Belgium, do you suppose that the Belgian government would be acting responsibly by arresting only some of them publicly, releasing them on bail and in doing so give warning to their co conspirators so they have time to escape, regroup, modify or activate their operational plans for attacks?

And would the Belgian security forces be acting responsibly if they did not detain and interrogate suspects linked to irregular hostile forces to learn of any current or future plans for major attacks on Belgian citizens?

Rather than just slam the USA, enlighten us as to your proposed tactics to deal with transnational terrorism that is stateless and based upon zealous religous convictions that includes viewing civilians as prestige targets of opportunity.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Amazon --- If the Belgian Army engaged irregular, eg, non uniformed, "franc de tireur" forces in a foreign country, that had used that country as a base to organize the sending of airplanes crashing into the tallest buildings in Brussels, do you really suppose that the Belgian government would treat those foreign combatants each individually as if they were common criminals and accord them the same legal status as Belgians accused of crimes? Or even accord them POW legal status when they were not fighting under any national flag or government authority? And not even vett them before releasing them? Would they free those with
leadership or special skills to come and attack them again?

Would the Belgian security forces be negligent in not seeking to question them extensively to obtain any information about their organizational capabalilities, order of battle, command and support locations and the communications and HQ of its leadership? Or are those items that Belgian police and its criminal courts routinely handle?

And if the Belgian security services were investigating
stateless organizations planning major attacks on civilian targets in Belgium, do you suppose that the Belgian government would be acting responsibly by arresting only some of them publicly, releasing them on bail and in doing so give warning to their co conspirators so they have time to escape, regroup, modify or activate their operational plans for attacks?

And would the Belgian security forces be acting responsibly if they did not detain and interrogate suspects linked to irregular hostile forces to learn of any current or future plans for major attacks on Belgian citizens?

Rather than just slam the USA, enlighten us as to your proposed tactics to deal with transnational terrorism that is stateless and based upon zealous religous convictions that includes viewing civilians as prestige targets of opportunity.

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Amazon --- If the Belgian Army engaged irregular, eg, non uniformed, "franc de tireur" forces in a foreign country, that had used that country as a base to organize the sending of airplanes crashing into the tallest buildings in Brussels, do you really suppose that the Belgian government would treat those foreign combatants each individually as if they were common criminals and accord them the same legal status as Belgians accused of crimes? Or even accord them POW legal status when they were not fighting under any national flag or government authority? And not even vett them before releasing them? Would they free those with
leadership or special skills to come and attack them again?

Would the Belgian security forces be negligent in not seeking to question them extensively to obtain any information about their organizational capabalilities, order of battle, command and support locations and the communications and HQ of its leadership? Or are those items that Belgian police and its criminal courts routinely handle?

And if the Belgian security services were investigating
stateless organizations planning major attacks on civilian targets in Belgium, do you suppose that the Belgian government would be acting responsibly by arresting only some of them publicly, releasing them on bail and in doing so give warning to their co conspirators so they have time to escape, regroup, modify or activate their operational plans for attacks?

And would the Belgian security forces be acting responsibly if they did not detain and interrogate suspects linked to irregular hostile forces to learn of any current or future plans for major attacks on Belgian citizens?

Rather than just slam the USA, enlighten us as to your proposed tactics to deal with transnational terrorism that is stateless and based upon zealous religous convictions that includes viewing civilians as prestige targets of opportunity.

Jim, I'm not Amazon, but I'll chime in anyway.
I fully support what you're saying about what the US has done and needs to do (in a sort of Belgian metaphore). I have no problem with "illegal prisons" and torturing people who kill innocents. The only problem that I have is the fact that VERY OFTEN the US forces arrest the wrong people, who have done nothing wrong and then keep them locked down until they establish that they truly aren't a threat.
However, after spending 6 months in prison, do you think that person will really just go home and pretend nothing happened? No, they'll become extremely anti-American and so will their friends and family, who in many cases were indifferent to the US before an event such as this. This is the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq (although prisoners there are usually released within days).
Of course mistakes happen, nothing anyone can do about it, but I really believe that the US is shooting itself in the foot with these prisons. When trying to win over the people belonging to the world's arguably most violent religion, who feel so connected to "their fellow Muslims", this isn't the way.
I don't care what the US does; bomb them, shoot them to pieces, burn them alive with napalm, whatever, nothing is as bad as those third-world religiously-insane sobs seeing their "fellow Muslims" being mistreated.
As long as they have been proven to be enemy combatants, it's all good and you have good arguments, but most people cringe when they think that innocents are imprisoned in such conditions.
Like I said, I support the majority of your views and the US is definitely on the right side in this conflict. It just needs to choose its methods better.
I have received a warning from CF about comments concerning the US policies, but I don't think I've violated any policies with this post. If I have, I will gladly delete it.

Quote:
SoCal Alan said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
Amazon --- If the Belgian Army engaged irregular, eg, non uniformed, "franc de tireur" forces in a foreign country, that had used that country as a base to organize the sending of airplanes crashing into the tallest buildings in Brussels, do you really suppose that the Belgian government would treat those foreign combatants each individually as if they were common criminals and accord them the same legal status as Belgians accused of crimes? Or even accord them POW legal status when they were not fighting under any national flag or government authority? And not even vett them before releasing them? Would they free those with
leadership or special skills to come and attack them again?

Would the Belgian security forces be negligent in not seeking to question them extensively to obtain any information about their organizational capabalilities, order of battle, command and support locations and the communications and HQ of its leadership? Or are those items that Belgian police and its criminal courts routinely handle?

And if the Belgian security services were investigating
stateless organizations planning major attacks on civilian targets in Belgium, do you suppose that the Belgian government would be acting responsibly by arresting only some of them publicly, releasing them on bail and in doing so give warning to their co conspirators so they have time to escape, regroup, modify or activate their operational plans for attacks?

And would the Belgian security forces be acting responsibly if they did not detain and interrogate suspects linked to irregular hostile forces to learn of any current or future plans for major attacks on Belgian citizens?

Rather than just slam the USA, enlighten us as to your proposed tactics to deal with transnational terrorism that is stateless and based upon zealous religous convictions that includes viewing civilians as prestige targets of opportunity.

Jim, I'm not Amazon, but I'll chime in anyway.
I fully support what you're saying about what the US has done and needs to do (in a sort of Belgian metaphore). I have no problem with "illegal prisons" and torturing people who kill innocents. The only problem that I have is the fact that VERY OFTEN the US forces arrest the wrong people, who have done nothing wrong and then keep them locked down until they establish that they truly aren't a threat.
However, after spending 6 months in prison, do you think that person will really just go home and pretend nothing happened? No, they'll become extremely anti-American and so will their friends and family, who in many cases were indifferent to the US before an event such as this. This is the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq (although prisoners there are usually released within days).
Of course mistakes happen, nothing anyone can do about it, but I really believe that the US is shooting itself in the foot with these prisons. When trying to win over the people belonging to the world's arguably most violent religion, who feel so connected to "their fellow Muslims", this isn't the way.
I don't care what the US does; bomb them, shoot them to pieces, burn them alive with napalm, whatever, nothing is as bad as those third-world religiously-insane sobs seeing their "fellow Muslims" being mistreated.
As long as they have been proven to be enemy combatants, it's all good and you have good arguments, but most people cringe when they think that innocents are imprisoned in such conditions.
Like I said, I support the majority of your views and the US is definitely on the right side in this conflict. It just needs to choose its methods better.
I have received a warning from CF about comments concerning the US policies, but I don't think I've violated any policies with this post. If I have, I will gladly delete it.

Crash, you've made some good points. I appreciate your clarity. I agree that there were some held that were eventually released. I also heard of at least one case where the detainee came back and was involved in a subsequent attack on the troops later (in Afghanistan). Anyways, it would definitely be ideal if they are proved to be innocent to release them as soon as possible. Obviously, there's no reason to hold someone for no reason at all. Also, keep in mind that Gitmo is only for the most serious/dangerous detainees. There are prisons in Afghan/Iraq. No reason to transport them all the way for Gitmo without very good reason.

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
It is unrealistic to expect zero mistakes, zero innocent casualties during a conflict and zero pictures of people suffering from something because of it.

I do understand European sensitivity about this. Look at the appalling widespread destruction, injuries and deaths suffered by civilians during both world wars on all sides
that were inflicted upon them by both the Axis and the Allies both purposely and by error.

As for fighting Al Quaida, it is better to risk a few innocents having their time stolen, some bruises and their lives turned upside down, then to bomb and shell the cities, villages and relatives of their irregular combatants into complete oblivion.

As for detained irregular combatants having lawyers present that is not realistic, practical or warranted.

Irregular combatants have no national flag or sovereign government to turn to or for us to negotiate with.

What legal standard would their lawyers be working with? Local? The military or civilian standards of the forces that captured them? The legal customs of the irregulars?

At what point would lawyers knowingly become or unknowingly become conduits of information for the guilty ones to assist their terrorist comrades and visa versa?

POWs are not accorded lawyers, why should irregular combatants receive superior legal status and treatment?

If you want to wage war as a irregular you are taking on greater risks than if you wore the uniform of a soveriegn state. There are good reasons for that. They are not visible off or near the battlefield, have not agreed to any recognized standard of warfare and have zero accountability.

If it were not for a trans national group of irregular combatants dedicated to a religous cause that has declared war on civilians in the West this discussion would not exist.

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
It is unrealistic to expect zero mistakes, zero innocent casualties during a conflict and zero pictures of people suffering from something because of it.

I do understand European sensitivity about this. Look at the appalling widespread destruction, injuries and deaths suffered by civilians during both world wars on all sides
that were inflicted upon them by both the Axis and the Allies both purposely and by error.

As for fighting Al Quaida, it is better to risk a few innocents having their time stolen, some bruises and their lives turned upside down, then to bomb and shell the cities, villages and relatives of their irregular combatants into complete oblivion.

As for detained irregular combatants having lawyers present that is not realistic, practical or warranted.

Irregular combatants have no national flag or sovereign government to turn to or for us to negotiate with.

What legal standard would their lawyers be working with? Local? The military or civilian standards of the forces that captured them? The legal customs of the irregulars?

At what point would lawyers knowingly become or unknowingly become conduits of information for the guilty ones to assist their terrorist comrades and visa versa?

POWs are not accorded lawyers, why should irregular combatants receive superior legal status and treatment?

If you want to wage war as a irregular you are taking on greater risks than if you wore the uniform of a soveriegn state. There are good reasons for that. They are not visible off or near the battlefield, have not agreed to any recognized standard of warfare and have zero accountability.

If it were not for a trans national group of irregular combatants dedicated to a religous cause that has declared war on civilians in the West this discussion would not exist.

Jim, I understand all of that. My point, which obviously hasn't been expressed enough between the lines, is do anything you want with them, torture them, take them bungee jumping into nettle fields, use them for target practice, it doesn't bother me at all. Just don't make those mistakes known and don't make your methods known. Had those dimwits not made a photo album of their prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, it wouldn't have turned into a scandal. Even most muslims wouldn't just jump the gun without any sort of proof.
Do whatever you deem necessary, but keep it under wraps, away from muslim and human rights groups.

Quote:
amazon said:

Quote:
Crash said:

Quote:
JimFlat6 said:
It is unrealistic to expect zero mistakes, zero innocent casualties during a conflict and zero pictures of people suffering from something because of it.

I do understand European sensitivity about this. Look at the appalling widespread destruction, injuries and deaths suffered by civilians during both world wars on all sides
that were inflicted upon them by both the Axis and the Allies both purposely and by error.

As for fighting Al Quaida, it is better to risk a few innocents having their time stolen, some bruises and their lives turned upside down, then to bomb and shell the cities, villages and relatives of their irregular combatants into complete oblivion.

As for detained irregular combatants having lawyers present that is not realistic, practical or warranted.

Irregular combatants have no national flag or sovereign government to turn to or for us to negotiate with.

What legal standard would their lawyers be working with? Local? The military or civilian standards of the forces that captured them? The legal customs of the irregulars?

At what point would lawyers knowingly become or unknowingly become conduits of information for the guilty ones to assist their terrorist comrades and visa versa?

POWs are not accorded lawyers, why should irregular combatants receive superior legal status and treatment?

If you want to wage war as a irregular you are taking on greater risks than if you wore the uniform of a soveriegn state. There are good reasons for that. They are not visible off or near the battlefield, have not agreed to any recognized standard of warfare and have zero accountability.

If it were not for a trans national group of irregular combatants dedicated to a religous cause that has declared war on civilians in the West this discussion would not exist.

Jim, I understand all of that. My point, which obviously hasn't been expressed enough between the lines, is do anything you want with them, torture them, take them bungee jumping into nettle fields, use them for target practice, it doesn't bother me at all. Just don't make those mistakes known and don't make your methods known. Had those dimwits not made a photo album of their prisoner abuse in Abu Ghraib, it wouldn't have turned into a scandal. Even most muslims wouldn't just jump the gun without any sort of proof.
Do whatever you deem necessary, but keep it under wraps, away from muslim and human rights groups.