If you used arguements that were different from the Bush administration's to justify their actions I would respect it.

It is kindof like quoting a child molester saying "I do children because I like it".

Probably a bad example.

If you see no difference between the Lincoln situation and now....well, I guess we aren't going to agree.

Now why would the German commandos be tried in our civilian courts? I see no reason for that. They clearly were military personell, right?

Tom W

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

They were clearly NOT military. Had they been clearly soldiers they'd simply have been put in POW camps. That is the obligation of signatories of the Geneva Conventions. They absolutely could NOT be tried for military operations while under the flag or in the uniform of one of the belligerents.

They were dressed in civilian clothing which according to the Geneva Conventions, removes the obligations of the Geneva Conventions. That is exactly why OSS and British agents in occupied Europe could be legally tortured and executed by the Gestapo, and many were. Those gestapo agents were acting under lawful orders of the period. The Germans captured in the USA were the equivalent of our OSS.

Now, fast-forward to GTMO.

The people being held there were not in uniform nor clearly under the authority of a legally belligerent country. Therefore, they have NO RIGHTS under the Geneva Conventions. They are not citizens of the USA so they have no inherent rights due to citizenship. It becomes the choice of USA how to treat those folks.

That decision concerning the enemy combatants captured overseas has followed a legal path through Congress and the courts and back to the courts again. As it should have done. Additionally, aliens captured in the USA have mostly NOT faced the military tribunal. Mostly they have ended-up in the court system and tried according to the laws of the land.

FDR did NOT follow that path. Illegal enemy combatants that we captured on our shores faced a military court and were executed. End of story and good riddance.

Bot

Captured on our shores. That's key. As far as being illegal combatants, the teeming masses who hate us will see this as us making up rules to suit us.

This particular rule makes excellent sense when large nations, i.e. WW2 powers, are involved, but in the case of Afghanistan., we were up against impoverished, traditionally lightly organized factions, ruled much more by tribal than govt. loyalties.

As I've said before, for them to dress up in uniform and meet us on the open plains for battle would mean their rapid annihilation. Who is going to essentially say, "defeat us at once, imperialist dogs."

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

Oh, well, one more nail in our coffin among what? Hundreds? Again, what loss? They already hate us. What is one more reason?

So why should that rag called the GC be used there then? The intent is to ensure that your people, in the case of capture are treated well. If they aren't going to go with that or play by any of the GC rules, what is the point of us using them? So we can say we know what they are?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

1. Clarify, please.

2. Well golly-gee, Wally, if they can't fight fairly and according to the rules, getting all f**king goody-two-shoes about the interrogation of the murdering bastards in GTMO seems self-defeating.

Oh wait, I got now.

B

FYP.
I see no reason to abandon our morality because they have.

__________________
1984 300TD

Rules? In a knife fight?

Morality transcends rules.

I don't insist they play by our rules. I don't get to decide that. We do get to decide how we act. Or have the illusion of that choice anyway.

__________________
1984 300TD

How about "Because it puts us at a severe disadvantage."? Or how about "Because we would be stupid to insist that they play by our rules instead of us playing by the rules of the game."? Some card games have rules that vary based on where you are playing. Are you telling me you play by the rules of the game at that place or do you play by the rules of the casino you usually go to?

__________________
01 Ford Excursion Powerstroke
99 E300 Turbodiesel
91 Vette with 383 motor
05 Polaris Sportsman 800 EFI
06 Polaris Sportsman 500 EFI
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Red
03 SeaDoo GTX SC Yellow
04 Tailgator 21 ft Toy Hauler
11 Harley Davidson 883 SuperLow

Anyone that has been through SERE had a chance to go through water boarding, it can be the longest 5-10 seconds of your life, people trained to resist water boarding can make it 30 seconds, which used to be a requirement from what I gather this is not longer a requirement. With that said almost all SF personal Air Force pilots and some Soldiers go through the SERE training and go through all of the allowed interrogation techniques so why should it be illegal to put people through the same punishment we subject our own soldiers to?

. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

1. The Germans that Roosevelt had summarily executed were plain clothes agents in our nation, on our shores. Far, far different than us going to Afghanistan and fighting and capturing a bunch of fools who were not part of an army, rather just farmers or similar ilk doing what they thought was defending their country.

2. Rules that we made w/o consulting them. Perhaps someone in their country signed onto it at one time or another but face it, these are zones in the gray area of governance. And with the poverty of these characters, expecting them to all have matching uniforms is unrealistic.

Besides, Batperson and Robin, you may recall our founding fathers didn't play by those rules all the time either cause to do so would have resulted in their certain slaughter by the vastly superior British forces and their aim was something apart from committing a fool's suicide.

Clarify, please.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K

You want us to abide by rules that don't work and want us to excuse the enemy for not abiding by those rules. This is what we call a "double standard", the result of which is a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers. You're okay with that?

The Geneva Conventions did not exist in 1776.

B

The Iron Horse did.

We should abide by our own honor, not debase ourselves by tossing it out because it's inconvenient.





















Could be? I guarantee I'd spout whatever you wanted to hear if you used waterboarding on me. Probably just if you threatened to do it.

__________________
1984 300TD

More hair splitting. Whether the Geneva Conventions existed or not in 1776 has nothing to do with natural human inclinations under such circumstances.

I'm not asking anyone to excuse any enemy, just to note what is likely to happen under long established norms of human behavior. If you were a poor farmer and some foreign force invaded and your neighbors were clamoring for a force to oppose them, and tomorrow if not today, I seriously doubt you'd say, "Oh but wait neighbors, we must first sew uniforms so that we will abide by their rules of warfare."

These characters are not the well developed societies of Germany and Japan circa 1938.

Behaving in such a way as to insure a centuries long animosity from people for whom vengeance is like mother's milk is likely to result in "a higher likelihood of dead American soldiers." Doesn't sound preferable to me.

You apparently think we can insure peaceful compliance with force alone. I do not.

__________________
Te futueo et caballum tuum

1986 300SDL, 362K
1984 300D, 138K