Bergdahl release
Forums › General Discussion › Bergdahl release-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
I already covered that. Perhaps not as eloquently, but I did point it out."Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations." Convention III Article 2. So forget US policy, and US law, and your opinions. The Geneva Conventions says USA must be bound by the conventions regardless of who they fight.
-
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."
Members of a regular armed force must wear something easily identifiable from a distance that distinguishes them as members of said force. The Taliban does not do this, therefore they cannot claim to be acting as an armed force. Hiding among civilians to cover their movements and prevent their identification is a war crime.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
To the contrary. I believe we should treat out prisoners well. I just think they should be held accountable under the rule if law, when they violate it. Have you read the bio's of the five men exchanged. At least three of them could be prosecuted under war crimes provisions. They never should have been released under any circumstance.Your argument seems to be that we should sink to whatever levels our enemies will sink to. I disagree. Countless American lives are saved by having an enemy know that they will be treated well if they surrender rather than fight to the death. It's really basic stuff.
-
YOU wrote:
At least not without a trial.★fnord★ wrote:
To the contrary. I believe we should treat out prisoners well. I just think they should be held accountable under the rule if law, when they violate it. Have you read the bio's of the five men exchanged. At least three of them could be prosecuted under war crimes provisions. They never should have been released under any circumstance.Your argument seems to be that we should sink to whatever levels our enemies will sink to. I disagree. Countless American lives are saved by having an enemy know that they will be treated well if they surrender rather than fight to the death. It's really basic stuff.
-
And the law is under the 2013 national defense authorizations act. I'm having trouble finding the exact portion, but it's a huge document, give me a while.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
The Geneva Conventions does not specify that "Members of a regular armed force must wear something easily identifiable from a distance that distinguishes them as members of said force." The fact that they do specify this exact thing for another section means that in the point I highlighted, it is not necessary for them to be identifiable. There are many other cases where regular armies do not wear uniforms that distinguish them.(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power."
Members of a regular armed force must wear something easily identifiable from a distance that distinguishes them as members of said force. The Taliban does not do this, therefore they cannot claim to be acting as an armed force. Hiding among civilians to cover their movements and prevent their identification is a war crime.
-
'In February 2002, newspapers in the United States and United Kingdown published complaints by some nongovernmental organizations about US and other Coalition Special Operations Forces operating in Afghanistan in "civilian clothing." The reports sparked debate within the NGO community and military judge advocate ranks about the legality of such actions. ... As will be seen in the review of the law, dressing in this manner more accurately may be described as wearing a "non-standard uniform" than "dressing as civilians." Special Forces personnel who had served in Afghanistan with whom I spoke stated that al Qaeda and the Taliban had no difficulty in distinguishing Northern Alliance or Southern Alliance forces from the civilian population.' Excerpted from Special Forces Wear of Non-Standard Uniforms by W Hays Parks
-
Now, this is merely a legal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the DoN or DoD. The author goes on and on, and expresses multiple points of view definitely worth a read. The point I am illustrating, however, is that if the Taliban was the de facto government until we usurped them in 2001, and the Taliban fighters can easily distinguish non-uniformed alliances operating in the country, then they were not operating dressed in civilian clothes, but were dressed in non-standard uniforms, much like our own Special Operations forces.
-
Or perhaps more accurately, they were dressed in uniforms easily recognizable by their own countrymen, but simply indistinguishable by our own forces.
Furthermore, I would argue, and I would not be alone, that the Geneva Conventions does not differentiate on this particular instance. Not only is it currently US policy to treat Taliban operators as POW-eligible, but the Geneva Conventions states that we should treat them according to the golden rule, albeit in much more legal terms (see above). Are they in non-standard uniforms? I think so. Does it matter? I don't think so. Did we give up persons we treated as POW's in exchange for persons they treated as POW's? Yes, and therefore it was right to do so. If both sides treat them as POW's and exchange them accordingly, then nothing was done wrong. I could go on, and on, and on, using actual written evidence to support my arguments, but I've grown tired of making arguments that are countered by opinions and phrases taken out of context.
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
When our special operations forces recieve extensive briefings on what they can and cannot do when wearing nonstandard attire. If they are actively planning for, or about to engage in and attack, they must don uniforms, or at least partial uniforms. When not actively engaged in combat operations, they can, and often do dress in the custom of the local population.Now, this is merely a legal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the DoN or DoD. The author goes on and on, and expresses multiple points of view definitely worth a read. The point I am illustrating, however, is that if the Taliban was the de facto government until we usurped them in 2001, and the Taliban fighters can easily distinguish non-uniformed alliances operating in the country, then they were not operating dressed in civilian clothes, but were dressed in non-standard uniforms, much like our own Special Operations forces.
-
If US personnel are activley participating in an attack while not wearing easily identifiable apparel, they have been briefed that they are in violation of the laws of land warfare. Now if they are dressed as the local populous and attacked without notice, that is different thing entirely. Then they would not be in violation. The same applies the other way around. Except the enemy almost certainly has not been briefed by JAG.
-
The US Governndnt should have went down the road of UKs Good Friday agreement with the IRA a long time ago. Many lives would have been saved.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote: At least three of them could be prosecuted under war crimes provisions. They never should have been released under any circumstance.
Khair Ulla Said Wali Khairkhwa - Taliban official, when Taliban was de facto government of Afghanistan. Knew bin Laden, friend of Karzai. Governor of Harat and opium drug lord. Arrested January 2002, shortly after fall of Taliban government. NOT al Qaeda.Mullah Mohammad Fazl - Led fight against US-backed Northern Alliance in 2001. Accused of war crimes from the 1990's. Surrendered in 2001.
Mullah Norullah Noori - Governor of Balkh. Surrendered in 2001. No mention of al Qaeda.
Abdul Haq Wasiq - Deputy Chief of Intel. Denies al Qaeda, probably lying.
Mohammad Nabi Omari - minor Taliban official. Comms Official. Accused of being al Qaeda, claims he was working with a US spy to locate Mullah Omar.
So, 1 war crimes accusation, not 3. The rest don't seem that highly valued or dangerous.
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
US Special Ops personnel DID actively attack while wearing non-standard uniforms. That's what sparked the debate in the first place.If US personnel are activley participating in an attack while not wearing easily identifiable apparel, they have been briefed that they are in violation of the laws of land warfare. Now if they are dressed as the local populous and attacked without notice, that is different thing entirely. Then they would not be in violation. The same applies the other way around. Except the enemy almost certainly has not been briefed by JAG.
-
λΙΙuviøη wrote:
Non standard uniforms, you answer your objection in your response. They were wearing uniforms, or more likely parts of uniforms that readily identifiers then as combantants.✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
US Special Ops personnel DID actively attack while wearing non-standard uniforms. That's what sparked the debate in the first place.If US personnel are activley participating in an attack while not wearing easily identifiable apparel, they have been briefed that they are in violation of the laws of land warfare. Now if they are dressed as the local populous and attacked without notice, that is different thing entirely. Then they would not be in violation. The same applies the other way around. Except the enemy almost certainly has not been briefed by JAG.
-
Mullah Mohammad Fazl (Taliban army chief of staff): Fazl is wanted by the UN for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiites. Fazl was associated with terrorist groups currently opposing U.S. and Coalition forces including al Qaeda, Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, and an Anti-Coalition Militia group known as Harakat-i-Inqilab-i-Islami. In addition to being one of the Taliban’s most experienced military commanders, Fazl worked closely with a top al Qaeda commander named Abdul Hadi al Iraqi, who headed al Qaeda’s main fighting unit in Afghanistan prior to 9/11
-
Mullah Norullah Noori (senior Taliban military commander): Like Fazl, Noori is wanted by the United Nations for possible war crimes including the murder of thousands of Shiite Muslims. Beginning in the mid-1990s, Noori fought alongside al Qaeda as a Taliban military general, against the Northern alliance. He continued to work closely with al Qaeda in the years that followed.
-
Abdul Haq Wasiq (Taliban deputy minister of intelligence): Wasiq arranged for al Qaeda members to provide crucial intelligence training prior to 9/11. The training was headed by Hamza Zubayr, an al Qaeda instructor who was killed during the same September 2002 raid that netted Ramzi Binalshibh, the point man for the 9/11 operation. Wasiq was central to the Taliban’s efforts to form alliances with other Islamic fundamentalist groups to fight alongside the Taliban against U.S. and Coalition forces after the 11 September 2001 attacks, according to a leaked JTF-GTMO threat assessment.
-
Khairullah Khairkhwa (Taliban governor of the Herat province and former interior minister): Khairkhwa was the governor of Afghanistan’s westernmost province prior to 9/11. In that capacity, he executed sensitive missions for Mullah Omar, including helping to broker a secret deal with the Iranians. For much of the pre-9/11 period, Iran and the Taliban were bitter foes. But a Taliban delegation that included Kharikhwa helped secure Iran’s support for the Taliban’s efforts against the American-led coalition in late 2001. JTF-GTMO found that Khairkhwa was likely a major drug trafficker and deeply in bed with al Qaeda. He allegedly oversaw one of Osama bin Laden’s training facilities in Herat.
-
Mohammed Nabi (senior Taliban figure and security official): Nabi was a senior Taliban official who served in multiple leadership roles. Nabi had strong operational ties to Anti-Coalition Militia groups including al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin, some of whom remain active in ACM activities. Intelligence cited in the JTF-GTMO files indicates that Nabi held weekly meetings with al Qaeda operatives to coordinate attacks against U.S.-led forces.
-
So....these 5 individuals were top Taliban military commanders yet wore no uniforms indicating their high ranking positions? How does a person in undistinguishable clothing command an army? You seem to be arguing at cross-purposes here.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
One can hold the position without wearing the uniform.So....these 5 individuals were top Taliban military commanders yet wore no uniforms indicating their high ranking positions? How does a person in undistinguishable clothing command an army? You seem to be arguing at cross-purposes here.
-
★fnord★ wrote:
So....these 5 individuals were top Taliban military commanders yet wore no uniforms indicating their high ranking positions? How does a person in undistinguishable clothing command an army? You seem to be arguing at cross-purposes here.
Weak
-
Haven't we said for years that the detainees are "enemy combatants" and not "POWs"? We've been fighting for years to keep that label. Now when it's convienent for PR, we change the label?
-
One more quick point; If they are POWs, then they must be released after hostilities end. So if they Taliban surrender, they can all then walk away free?
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I think that the last admin's label. They label they used so they could use "enhanced interrogations." That was an equally misguided idea. Both admins have made grave mistakes in the handling of these guys. I don't follow party lines. I just see BS for what it is. And this is BS.Haven't we said for years that the detainees are "enemy combatants" and not "POWs"? We've been fighting for years to keep that label. Now when it's convienent for PR, we change the label?
-
✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I think that the last admin's label. They label they used so they could use "enhanced interrogations." That was an equally misguided idea. Both admins have made grave mistakes in the handling of these guys. I don't follow party lines. I just see BS for what it is. And this is BS.Haven't we said for years that the detainees are "enemy combatants" and not "POWs"? We've been fighting for years to keep that label. Now when it's convienent for PR, we change the label?
So you find somebody that has your child hid. You're still not down for water boarding?
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
If I find somebody holding my child, all bets are off. If the government finds them, I expect my government to act within the law.✯RagnarLoðbrók✯ wrote:
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
I think that the last admin's label. They label they used so they could use "enhanced interrogations." That was an equally misguided idea. Both admins have made grave mistakes in the handling of these guys. I don't follow party lines. I just see BS for what it is. And this is BS.Haven't we said for years that the detainees are "enemy combatants" and not "POWs"? We've been fighting for years to keep that label. Now when it's convienent for PR, we change the label?
So you find somebody that has your child hid. You're still not down for water boarding?
-
They were enemy combatants. Criminals with knowledge of acts against our solider sand country. What they did was legal. If they start them again, I'll even donate a hose.
-
ᎷᎪᏟᏦᎷᎬᏟᎻ ᎪᎠᎠ ᏦᎷ wrote:
Good for you. It's still a terrible idea.They were enemy combatants. Criminals with knowledge of acts against our solider sand country. What they did was legal. If they start them again, I'll even donate a hose.
![[][]](https://turfwarsapp.com/img/app/ajax-forbutton.gif)
Purchase Respect Points NEW! · Support · Turf Map · Terms · Privacy
©2021 MeanFreePath LLC