Three Strikes and Your Out For Al Quada?

[Opinion]

The US has never let prisoners of war go during the conflict, some prisoner exchange during Civil war.

A former prosecutor at Gitmo stated that 5 - 10% of those released from Gitmo have appeared on the battlefield again.

It is foolish to release enemy combatants while still in conflict. We have no peace treaty with Al Quada.

So should Al Quada have a 3 strike and you are out policy, like some felony laws?

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by Opinion

The US has never let prisoners of war go during the conflict, some prisoner exchange during Civil war.

A former prosecutor at Gitmo stated that 5 - 10% of those released from Gitmo have appeared on the battlefield again.

It is foolish to release enemy combatants while still in conflict. We have no peace treaty with Al Quada.

So should Al Quada have a 3 strike and you are out policy, like some felony laws?

NO. Al Queda is NOT the REAL ENEMY. zg

See - The al Qaeda = CIA Index

[moo321]

Hold them as prisoners of war. Most of these guys weren't even terrorists, they were just irregular infantry captured with their units.

[shadroch]

Actually many of them may not even be regular soldiers. The US was paying bountys on people and the Afgan warlords were handing over anyone they could convince the US to fork money over for.

[QFIT]

Originally Posted by shadroch

Actually many of them may not even be regular soldiers. The US was paying bountys on people and the Afgan warlords were handing over anyone they could convince the US to fork money over for.

True. Plus they were handing over their competitors and using the US to make them more powerful. Plus, many were arrested on the words of people that were tortured and just gave up random names of people they didn't like to stop the torture. Then there are the journalists that the US considered "enemies" because they reported stuff they didn't want heard.

So we kidnap these people, strip them nude, attach wires to their genitals and have a little "fun."

Rush Limbaugh says it's just "blowing off steam" and harmless. Can you imagine if your son or daughter was stripped nude and forced to engage in sex acts, or had wires attached to their arms and told if they fell off a box they would die, it was just some guys "blowing off steam?"

The simple fact is that Rush Limbaugh and people like him would do things to humans that no sane person would ever do to an animal -- for fun.

[zengrifter]

Originally Posted by QFIT

True. Plus they were handing over their competitors and using the US to make them more powerful. Plus, many were arrested on the words of people that were tortured and just gave up random names of people they didn't like to stop the torture. Then there are the journalists that the US considered "enemies" because they reported stuff they didn't want heard.

So we kidnap these people, strip them nude, attach wires to their genitals and have a little "fun."

Rush Limbaugh says it's just "blowing off steam" and harmless. Can you imagine if your son or daughter was stripped nude and forced to engage in sex acts, or had wires attached to their arms and told if they fell off a box they would die, it was just some guys "blowing off steam?"

The simple fact is that Rush Limbaugh and people like him would do things to humans that no sane person would ever do to an animal -- for fun.

Lawrence Wilkerson: Hundreds Of Detainees Died
In U.S. Custody, At Least 25 Murdered

By Think Progress on Jun 18th, 2008 at 8:40 pm

At today’s House Judiciary Subcommittee on Civil Rights hearing on torture, Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, told Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) that over 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, with up to 27 of these declared homicides:

NADLER: Your testimony said 100 detainees have died in detention; do you believe the 25 of those were in effect murdered?

WILKERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think the number’s actually higher than that now. Last time I checked it was 108.

MORE- http://suzieqq.wordpress.com/2008/06...t-25-murdered/

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by moo321

Hold them as prisoners of war. Most of these guys weren't even terrorists, they were just irregular infantry captured with their units.

It is difficult to judge in many cases. For one, anyone not from the country we captured them in we can assume is a battlefield detainee with no rights, unless he can show us proof of a mercenary contract or some other association with an entity that can explain his presence on the battlefield and negotiate on his behalf.

If they're irregulars, or militia, or even mercenaries that's fine, we have procedures for dealing with them as prisoners. But when you have guys from Yemen or Chechnya who just showed up in Afghanistan for the purpose of killing American soldiers, they are called unlawful belligerents under the Geneva Convention and they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. In fact, we are entitled to execute them summarily upon determining their status as unlawful belligerents.

The problem with unlawful belligerents is just what we are seeing: they are fighting for their own reasons and are not going to lay down their weapons when the war is over. This endangers everyone in the region and will make the violence go on indefinitely, possibly dragging additional parties into the warfare. There is also no entity to hold responsible for their crimes. If it were up to me, these guys would not have even made it to Guantanamo; they would have gotten field courts martial and executed on the spot if they were found to be unlawful belligerents.

[moo321]

Originally Posted by Automatic Monkey

It is difficult to judge in many cases. For one, anyone not from the country we captured them in we can assume is a battlefield detainee with no rights, unless he can show us proof of a mercenary contract or some other association with an entity that can explain his presence on the battlefield and negotiate on his behalf.

If they're irregulars, or militia, or even mercenaries that's fine, we have procedures for dealing with them as prisoners. But when you have guys from Yemen or Chechnya who just showed up in Afghanistan for the purpose of killing American soldiers, they are called unlawful belligerents under the Geneva Convention and they are not entitled to treatment as prisoners of war. In fact, we are entitled to execute them summarily upon determining their status as unlawful belligerents.

The problem with unlawful belligerents is just what we are seeing: they are fighting for their own reasons and are not going to lay down their weapons when the war is over. This endangers everyone in the region and will make the violence go on indefinitely, possibly dragging additional parties into the warfare. There is also no entity to hold responsible for their crimes. If it were up to me, these guys would not have even made it to Guantanamo; they would have gotten field courts martial and executed on the spot if they were found to be unlawful belligerents.

It would be fine with me if there were courts martial going on. Give them a trial, then punish them appropriately. But this guantanamo stuff is scary.

[Opinion]

Originally Posted by moo321

It would be fine with me if there were courts martial going on. Give them a trial, then punish them appropriately. But this guantanamo stuff is scary.

How I understand it:
Many detainees see a dentist for the first time.
Many experience AC for the first time.
Our soldiers give them Korans while wearing gloves because we are foolish enough to adhere to their insane beliefs that infedels are dirty and cannot touch their propoganda book.

I would like to see stats on the probable weight gain the detainees experience.

I am sure many Germans and Japanese who were captured during WW2 never fired a shot in anger or were drafted. That did not change the fact that they were held until the end of the war and often beyond.

No one seems to have problems with 5 - 10% of those already released; which means the US has a release program, attacking US troops on the battlefield again! Those already released we obviously thought were safe!!!!!

It is insane to release combatants while still in conflict!!!!!

I will ask again a simple question.

Should Al Quada have 3 strikes and you are out?

[Automatic Monkey]

Originally Posted by moo321

It would be fine with me if there were courts martial going on. Give them a trial, then punish them appropriately. But this guantanamo stuff is scary.

It's better than they deserve. Their just desserts are executions, and we are delaying it looking for a politically correct alternative.

So in response to Opinion's original question- three strikes are too many- one strike for unlawful belligerents. Tried and executed within 24 hours of capture.