US Reverses Stance on Gitmo Detainees

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060711/ap_ ... MlJVRPUCUl

I don't understand some of this. Both sides are wrong to me, and this situation has gotten very out of hand.

I agree with the Bush Administration's original position that those at Gitmo are not Prisoners of War. Why? Because they are a part of no army. The enemy that we fight in Iraq and Afghanistan has no actual organization, leadership, nor are they aligned with any government (although this last part is debatable on technicality and accusations of the Saudis, but oh well). In addition, their "army" is all over the world, being harbored in other countries as well.

I see now valid argument why these people would be treated as POWs.

With that, I don't see how they've been able to sit at Gitmo for 5 years now. Figure out what is up with each of them and try them. Get them into a Fed-Pen somewhere and leave them to rot.

I think that these guys probably are just as bad as they've been made out to be. But it's also obvious that the treatment of the situation has been very sub-par, and at this point it could result in them not receiving the proper punishment that they should.

This is one of those huge gray areas and something we haven't faced in the history of warfare. As you pointed out we are not fighting a nation or an organized army. So technically who are these guys??? I think that's the question at hand that we are having trouble answering.

If they are POWs then they belong in Gitmo, if they aren't they should then be released to the Justice system for prosecution or turned over to their home countries for trial. We have never fought a war like this so in many ways we are making up the rules as we go along.

Some may say we can't make up the rules we need to play fair but this is a new kind of warfare that we have never engaged in before. Let’s look back to the Revolution. We were engaged in a revolt that we never experienced before and to defeat our enemy we used tactics the British didn't agree with. We are in unexplored waters and will learn with each success and failure.

Honestly, in regards to unorganized armies fighting the biggest in the world, we were on the other side of the equation during the American Revolution.

A great column published in Monday's Post by my favorite military/geopolitical writer, Ralph Peters.

Kill, Don’t Capture
by Ralph Peters

The British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil D.

Honestly, in regards to unorganized armies fighting the biggest in the world, we were on the other side of the equation during the American Revolution.

---

Not really Phil, maybe to the British view but we had an organized govt, a regular army, and we were a recognized country to other nations at the time. My point was not to compare the fighting style but more so the learning process as we engaged in our first war and didn't really know how to fight as witnessed by some of our early tactics. Our war today is a first of a new kind of war where we are learning how to fight all over again.

Wll, I'm comparing it to April 19, 1775, before the Delcaration was written and before we had any kind of government. Granted, we became organized and recognized fairly quickly into the war (I don't know if I'd say they were very uniformed though).

The original minutemen had actually been training for such time, and that first battle at Lexington and Concorde was because the British were sent to confiscate arms and powder that the patriots were training with.

Though we may have lost at the first volley at Concorde, we were a gang with muskets, swarming the surrounding woods around British liek guerrillas, pushing their men back through Boston to the very shamed General Gage aboard the HMS Somerset.