the outcome of the election

[Armin]

The problem is, that is exactly what they are: unlawful combatants. Most or many of them are NOT covered by The Law of Armed Conflict.

The underlying problem is: Who DECIDES what they are? Any random person pointing a finger at someone close to a supposed Al Quaida Base? Who decides who gets held for how long? Who controls the one who decides?

"What the heck, Occhi?" You may be asking at this point. And you seem to forget, when it comes to law and lawyers, weasel in the imperative. Or did you forget the OJ Simpson trial? That idiocy at The Hague with Milosovic?

When in doubt I'd prefer an idiocy that goes on for DECADES to 5 seconds of abandoning the values we were to protect from the "terrorists" in the first place. That way we HAVE already lost.

Al Qaeda are not signatories of the Geneva convention, and are not lawful combatants in accordance with the "rules of war," which leaves them in a rather weird legal limbo. It is not required to force fit them into a template designed for legal combatants. As terrorists, they are an interesting fusion of criminal and user of force for political aims. The rules simply do not cover them, except perhaps as partisans. Maybe.

Again at what point do you DECIDE who is a "member" (of something that isn't even a real organisation, more like a common slogan) and may, thus, be held indefinitely? A human right ceases to exist the very moment that it is possibly to deny it to someone, on whatever grounds. That is, infuriating as it may be, the reason why the axe murderer arrested with the bloody axe in hand with 12 victims underfoot MUST have the right to a fair trial.


Have you thoroughly read the provisions regarding partisan activity in the Geneva Conventions? It sharply defines regular soldiers and irregulars, and how they may be treated differently.

I gotta admit, last time I had to read the Geneva covention was during basic training at the German Air Force in 1987. But I pretty much don't remember it declaring (suspected!) partisans to be automatically excluded from the human race and denied all rights.

However, I will again point out that "war on terrorists" is not the conventional war that the Geneva Accords are aimed at regulating. A new precedent can be set, since all laws are WHATEVER WE MAKE UP AND CAN BACK UP.

First of all, IMO the main American misconception is that terrorism is a thing that can be fought militarily. You can fight nations, armies but not thinly spread fanatics that have no other means but terror attacks.
Blowing yourself up and taking others with you is the desperate last measure of the weak, and you cannot break weakness with military means. By very nature, it's impossible to frighten or force them into submission.
With force you create more weakness, more hate and ultimately, more terror.

Your concern that a step for setting precedent has been taken in the wrong direction is well raised, though. But you appear to ignore that the Information Age, information warfare, is a 24/7 continuum, and that criminals have been exploiting the media for their own ends, have used it as a weapon, for some years. By depriving current soldier-terrorists in the War on Terror, terrorists, with one of their weapons, we are disarming them in the same way as taking away a rifle.

And it doesn't work. One picture from Abu Ghraib and one report from Guantanamo Bay do more damage than 50 videos from Usama in his cave.

I will repeat this. A key tool, a key weapon, of the terrorist, is use and exploitation of international media. Depriving him of that weapon is a step toward his defeat. You do not let a prisoner hold a rifle, you do not allow a terrorist access the media, or you have just re armed him.

But worse, if by attempting to "disarm" him you start to give up the very principles that you pretend to stand for and that they supposedly attack - you have already lost by default.

Do you understand that? Far too many people do not.

I do. So did the people that made the movie "The Siege" in 1998. Frightfully prophetic and I advise every Lurker who hasn't seen it to do so. And remember that the movie was made 3 years before 9/11...

Now, there is a danger here. I am fully aware of it. The North Vietnamese treatment of prisoners in their control was foul, and their excuse was that as a non signatory of Geneva Accords, they were not bound by it. Japanese made similar comments in re the prisoners from Wake and Bataan. We really don't want to go there. ANd, we are not there. About a year ago, there was an interesting comment from a released Gitmo detainee, from Russia, whose observation "that place was not so bad, well fed, thank goodness I was not in a Russian priso" or words to that effect.

And then there's the British report about at least a dozen attempted suicides and 3 completed suicides since it's installation...

Now, Russian prisons are not famous for their humanity, so that may be damning with faint praise, but will the Drama queens please shut up?

Seeing the very principles of our civilization in peril might be overly dramatic, but things do start small. Especially if lines that have been drawn and had been valid for generations can be eroded as easily, as by 19 young men with carpet knives...

By your emotional posts, you appear to assume that Americans will torture and abuse prisoners as a matter of policy. Read that last phrase carefully. You will be incorrect.
What is generally ignored, for example, about the Abu Gharib idiocy was that in November, the DoD was advised that violations of regulations were in progress, the invistigation began, and funnily enough, the lawyers for those charged with the misconduct started to write to their Congressmen asking for help, when they were in clear violation of the UCMJ. (Military Law.) Their Congressmen contacted the DoD, asking for assistance against "persecution." The pictures of their own misconduct was released to the internet, as I understand it, as an act of defiance, since . . . they were going down for their misconduct, they wanted to take someone bigger with them.

And some idiots in the media still claim that Sec Def condoned that crap. I am still waiting for the Colonel and General in charge to be put in jail for failing to get it right. That's why they get the big bucks.

The thing thats MORE than a bit suspicious here is that obviously the 3 people that were put in charge of the US prison system in Iraq had one thing in common: They all had previously been involved in prisoner abuse scandals in the US prior to be sent to the desert...

One last note. "Basic human rights" is a vague term. What do you mean by that? What is a right, and how do you earn it? (Hey, are there worms in that can?)

That is the basic problem isn't it? The day someone thinks that you must "earn" human rights that someone has abrogated them.

Again, one cannot claim to fight for freedom, democracy and rule of law and try to defend these values from those that would attack them by eroding the very principles they are build upon. That way, Al Qaeda has already won.

19 young men with carpet kives cannot do damage to freedom, democracy or even a nation. They can only kill people, destroy buildings and cause fear.

All the REAL damage is done by the means that were supposedly justified by the ends.