[valve bouncer]

I never quite understood this argument. You're mad at people in a country that got invaded on false pretenses because they refuse to put on a uniform and take a FAE right on the head?

Or, you're mad that the enemy won't line up against you and fight the honorable way? It sounded pretty dumb when Redcoats made the same argument, and it still sounds dumb today.

I agree Silver......is the man who pushes the bottom that sends a Tomahawk missile 500 miles to blow the crap out of somewhere in Baghdad also a coward? I mean the enemy hasn't got a hope in hell of touching him, he's nice and safe. Seems a peculiar arguement to me.too Generalpowell.

 

[genpowell71]

I agree Silver......is the man who pushes the bottom that sends a Tomahawk missile 500 miles to blow the crap out of somewhere in Baghdad also a coward? I mean the enemy hasn't got a hope in hell of touching him, he's nice and safe. Seems a peculiar arguement to me.too Generalpowell.

First off, there is a difference. Your average Iraqi insurgent makes his plans, IN SECRET, gets his weapons IN SECRET, does his attack, FROM AN EASY TO GET AWAY POSITION, and runs back to his house and HIDES!!! A missle cruiser doesnt have a whole lot of places to hide. I mean if you look at it, it's a pretty freakin big boat. So, you tell me who's the bigger coward? A missle fired from a huge boat? or a guy that plants a roadside bomb, fires a few bullets from a machine gun and runs away?

Second, we're talking about terrorists versus an organized military. The Navy has a miltary ID card, and is afforded protection under the Geneva convention. On the other hand we have a guy that refuses to stand up to be counted with the enemies of peace. He's all about trying to inflict pain and suffereing on ANYONE that supports the opposite of what he believes. He goes so far as to be-head his hostages. Tell me where it says in the Geneva convention that beheading is a right for a captor. OH thats right, because he's a terrorist, he doesnt have to play by the rules. SO Again, tell me which is more cowardly? Someone that volunteerd for the Navy and takes a side and follows the rules, or someone that blows up his own country's people because they support the new government?

 

[syadasti]

Second, we're talking about terrorists versus an organized military. The Navy has a miltary ID card, and is afforded protection under the Geneva convention. On the other hand we have a guy that refuses to stand up to be counted with the enemies of peace. He's all about trying to inflict pain and suffereing on ANYONE that supports the opposite of what he believes. He goes so far as to be-head his hostages. Tell me where it says in the Geneva convention that beheading is a right for a captor. OH thats right, because he's a terrorist, he doesnt have to play by the rules. SO Again, tell me which is more cowardly? Someone that volunteerd for the Navy and takes a side and follows the rules, or someone that blows up his own country's people because they support the new government?

The present administration bypassed the Geneva Convention when they established Guantánamo Bay. So basically the administration (and Bush) is almost on par with terrorists - it didn't work though, the law caught up with the administration's corrupt actions (BTW pentagon respresentatives where against g-bay):

Supreme Court Strikes Down Indefinite Detention Without Legal Process for Guantanamo Bay Prisoners; Inmates Have A Right To Challenge Their Detention.

 

[valve bouncer]

First off, there is a difference. Your average Iraqi insurgent makes his plans, IN SECRET, gets his weapons IN SECRET, does his attack, FROM AN EASY TO GET AWAY POSITION, and runs back to his house and HIDES!!! A missle cruiser doesnt have a whole lot of places to hide. I mean if you look at it, it's a pretty freakin big boat. So, you tell me who's the bigger coward? A missle fired from a huge boat? or a guy that plants a roadside bomb, fires a few bullets from a machine gun and runs away?

Mmmmm.....I see we need a lesson in rhetorical questions here. Hint- I don't think the guy launching the Tomahawk is a coward but I also don't think the guys fighting the Americans are necessarily cowards either. Misguided, misled and and altogether pretty nasty pices of work. But cowards, no I don't think so.

 

[fluff]

Mmmmm.....I see we need a lesson in rhetorical questions here. Hint- I don't think the guy launching the Tomahawk is a coward but I also don't think the guys fighting the Americans are necessarily cowards either. Misguided, misled and and altogether pretty nasty pices of work. But cowards, no I don't think so.

Plus which a missile cruiser is a pretty damn secure place compared to a house...

Actually it's not a good comparison, the insurgent is more likely to get killed than the guy on the boat. The Iraqis have no means of attacking a missile cruiser.

Compare a US marine on the ground in Iraq in a hostile environment and it would come out somewhat different.

 

[MMike]

Oh jesus.... Ok. So if we're calling people cowards, for using the resources that they have (we've already touched upon this), the how about this? You're upset because they aren't "fighting fair", right? So if it's a fair fight that you want, then shouldn't you disarm your cruise missiles, and ground your F-16, and your Apaches? How is it "fair" that the US gets to use all these fancy toys? This is hardly a fair fight. So, you tell ME who's the bigger coward?

First off, there is a difference. Your average Iraqi insurgent makes his plans, IN SECRET, gets his weapons IN SECRET, does his attack, FROM AN EASY TO GET AWAY POSITION, and runs back to his house and HIDES!!! A missle cruiser doesnt have a whole lot of places to hide. I mean if you look at it, it's a pretty freakin big boat. So, you tell me who's the bigger coward? A missle fired from a huge boat? or a guy that plants a roadside bomb, fires a few bullets from a machine gun and runs away?

Second, we're talking about terrorists versus an organized military. The Navy has a miltary ID card, and is afforded protection under the Geneva convention. On the other hand we have a guy that refuses to stand up to be counted with the enemies of peace. He's all about trying to inflict pain and suffereing on ANYONE that supports the opposite of what he believes. He goes so far as to be-head his hostages. Tell me where it says in the Geneva convention that beheading is a right for a captor. OH thats right, because he's a terrorist, he doesnt have to play by the rules. SO Again, tell me which is more cowardly? Someone that volunteerd for the Navy and takes a side and follows the rules, or someone that blows up his own country's people because they support the new government?

 

[RhinofromWA]

The present administration bypassed the Geneva Convention when they established Guantánamo Bay. So basically the administration (and Bush) is almost on par with terrorists - it didn't work though, the law caught up with the administration's corrupt actions (BTW pentagon respresentatives where against g-bay):

I have been wondering about that.....what does the Geneva convention say about un-uniformed soldiers? Isn't fighting in civilian clothes a no-no? According to the Geneva Convention I did a quick search via MSN and only found discussion/opinoin but nothing sourcing on the web regarding the GC but I didn't look very long.

Anyone care to look or already know? Does it change anything? I don't know.

Rhino

 

[syadasti]

Anyone care to look or already know? Does it change anything? I don't know.

Rhino

It doesn't change anything, Guantánamo Bay was established to try bypass the GC - the legal team on the administration came up with the idea but it obviously didn't work since the Supreme Court has shot them down and will probably find them guilty of other illegal actions that occured in G-Bay. What is even worse is they knew it was wrong and did it anyways - they are corrupt and have criminal minds...

This isn't even considering the fact that now any doubt our enemies had in their mind about mistreating US prisoners will be quickly dismissed since even we don't live up to civilized standards anymore (i.e. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay). Who authorized these changes in POW policies - the Bush Administration...

 

[BurlyShirley]

It doesn't change anything, Guantánamo Bay was established to try bypass the GC - the legal team on the administration came up with the idea but it obviously didn't work since the Supreme Court has shot them down and will probably find them guilty of other illegal actions that occured in G-Bay. What is even worse is they knew it was wrong and did it anyways - they are corrupt and have criminal minds...

This isn't even considering the fact that now any doubt our enemies had in their mind about mistreating US prisoners will be quickly dismissed since even we don't live up to civilized standards anymore (i.e. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay). Who authorized these changes in POW policies - the Bush Administration...

Do you just say things and hope that they're true? The fact that those guys werent in part of an orgnized military had everything to do with their treatment. They simply do not fall under Geneva convention rules at all, and their treatment reflected that. The new ruling will allow the prisoners access to lawyers, but not treatment under geneva convention law. Get your facts straight before you go spouting off.

 

[RhinofromWA]

It doesn't change anything, Guantánamo Bay was established to try bypass the GC - the legal team on the administration came up with the idea but it obviously didn't work since the Supreme Court has shot them down and will probably find them guilty of other illegal actions that occured in G-Bay. What is even worse is they knew it was wrong and did it anyways - they are corrupt and have criminal minds...

This isn't even considering the fact that now any doubt our enemies had in their mind about mistreating US prisoners will be quickly dismissed since even we don't live up to civilized standards anymore (i.e. Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo Bay). Who authorized these changes in POW policies - the Bush Administration...

So have you looked or are you ready to dismiss without looking?

RE: Guantanamo
Did Bush people know it was wrong? Or did they feal it was right legally (becuase teh lawyers told it was) to handle the prisoners that way? What you made is an accusation. Just so you realize that.... Doing the wrong thing (while thinking you are in the right) and finding out later, is different than knowing it was wrong and doing it anyway....if not in the eyes of the detained but in the grand scope of things and your criminal minds comment.

Enemies we are refering to NEVER had any doubt about misstreating US prisoners....but beleive it is Bushes fault, go ahead. Al Queda is not bound and does not follow the Geneva Convention....never has.

 

[syadasti]

Do you just say things and hope that they're true? The fact that those guys werent in part of an orgnized military had everything to do with their treatment. They simply do not fall under Geneva convention rules at all, and their treatment reflected that. The new ruling will allow the prisoners access to lawyers, but not treatment under geneva convention law. Get your facts straight before you go spouting off.

Those are the facts, there is public correspondence among staff during the planning stages for the prison specifically mentioning how they could make sure they could get away with it using legal maneuvering. The Pentagon legal staff was against this plan and was over ruled - they mentioned concerns for US POWs among others. This has been covered by various news outlets and most recently on 20/20 last Friday...

 

[Silver]

Enemies we are refering to NEVER had any doubt about misstreating US prisoners....but beleive it is Bushes fault, go ahead. Al Queda is not bound and does not follow the Geneva Convention....never has.

This rationale pisses me off to no end.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS. WE ARE A REPUBLIC, WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

Therefore, I expect more from us than I do from a group of terrorists. Which means we don't get to throw out the rules whenever we feel like it. They don't have to worry about the rules. So what? We sink to their level to show them who is boss?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Those are the facts, there is public correspondence among staff during the planning stages for the prison specifically mentioning how they could make sure they could get away with it using legal maneuvering. The Pentagon legal staff was against this plan and was over ruled - they mentioned concerns for US POWs among others. This has been covered by various news outlets and most recently on 20/20 last Friday...

well go ahead and post a link to one of your "various news outlets" that says the prisoners at Gitmo will now be treated under Geneva convention law then.

 

[syadasti]

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/US/2020_guantanamo_040625-1.html

On Nov. 13, 2001, with no advance notice to Congress, President Bush signed a military order that gave the Pentagon the power to try, sentence, and even execute anyone he identifies as an "illegal combatant" — a suspected terrorist who had violated the laws of war.

...

Mark Jacobson, a member of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's prisoner policy team, said the administration had been preparing to hold tribunals for the men who surrendered in Afghanistan back in September and October of 2001, which, he said, is standard procedure for the military when it captures persons on the battlefield.

But based on the president's military order, everyone taken into U.S. custody had already been deemed an illegal combatant. The tribunals never took place.

...

Guantanamo had been chosen deliberately. It was, one official said, the "legal equivalent of outer space."

"No serious thought was given to bringing these terrorists and Taliban militia within the territory of the United States. That would be unwise for a whole variety of reasons, starting with security and also including creating the possibility of extended litigation," said Brad Berenson, a lawyer in the Office of the White House Counsel.

 

[Silver]

well go ahead and post a link to one of your "various news outlets" that says the prisoners at Gitmo will now be treated under Geneva convention law then.

Have you thought this one through? On cursory reading, it looks to me like if they aren't soldiers, then they are criminals in US custody, which means they are under the supervision of the US court system.

Which also means that they are afforded the protections of the US Constitution.

Looks like the Gitmo end run is started to backfire badly here...

 

[syadasti]

well go ahead and post a link to one of your "various news outlets" that says the prisoners at Gitmo will now be treated under Geneva convention law then.

Also from story above

Camp officials said repeatedly that no prisoners have been tortured at the base. "All of our interrogations are conducted consistent with all the provisions laid out in the Geneva Conventions. We are not torturing anybody, and anybody who has asserted so previously is lying. That doesn't happen here. Detainees are not beaten; they're not starved; they're not abused in any way," Hood said.

But the interrogations can be tough. They can occur any time of the night. Prisoners can be woken at any hour for interrogations, but they must be given five consecutive hours of sleep, Steve Rodriquez, chief of interrogations at the camp, said. And we have learned since that in late 2002, lawyers in the Justice Department and the Pentagon were arguing that under his wartime powers, the president could authorize "interrogation methods that might violate" laws forbidding torture.

"Infliction of pain or suffering per se," one memo said, does not "amount to torture." The pain or suffering must be "severe."

A few months later, the defense secretary approved a classified "matrix for stress and duress," listing the coercion that could be used at Guantanamo. It included holding prisoners isolated in dark cells and interrogating them for 20 hours at a time.

 

[syadasti]

Have you thought this one through? On cursory reading, it looks to me like if they aren't soldiers, then they are criminals in US custody, which means they are under the supervision of the US court system.

Which also means that they are afforded the protections of the US Constitution.

Looks like the Gitmo end run is started to backfire badly here...

It is clearly a camp established to break long established laws that are the essence of America and other civilized nations.

They put who ever they want there - the prisoners are from all over the world:

Today, nearly 600 prisoners from 40 countries are being held by U.S. forces at the base. The standard cell in Camp Delta (the successor to Camp X-ray) is essentially a metal box a bit larger than a king-size mattress. There's a spray-painted arrow pointing toward Mecca for daily prayers. The lights are never off.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Syadisti. You could have just said "I was wrong" instead of posting a bunch of crap that doesnt relate to what I said. Or are you having comprehension problems again?

 

[syadasti]

BS BS...

Here is another good one for our upstanding administration, our government holds children in GB and say they are the worst offenders they have

The detention of children at Guantanamo poses grave risks to their well-being, Human Rights Watch said today, in response to the U.S. military's acknowledgement that at least three children, ages 13 to 15, are among the detainees at Guantanamo. In a letter sent today to U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Human Rights Watch urged the United States to strictly observe international children's rights standards regarding the detainees.

"Secretary Rumsfeld called those detained at Guantanamo the 'worst of the worst,'" said Jo Becker, child rights advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. "It's hard to believe that a 13 year old could fit that category."

A Pentagon spokesperson has said that the children are being questioned to obtain possible intelligence.

 

[RhinofromWA]

This rationale pisses me off to no end.

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE THE GOOD GUYS. WE ARE A REPUBLIC, WITH REPRESENTATIVE GOVERNMENT.

Therefore, I expect more from us than I do from a group of terrorists. Which means we don't get to throw out the rules whenever we feel like it. They don't have to worry about the rules. So what? We sink to their level to show them who is boss?

It was in response to the accusation that they were playing nice with their prisoner or had compasion for them........but Bush killed any hope.

That is the rational that amazes me.....Bush is just their rally cry to do teh same old same old they would have done.

Yes we are doing better to theirs than they are doing to ours. If you think different than you need help. I agree we should be better.....in fact we are. Sit and think on that one for a while.

We are fighting them with atleast one hand tied behind our back....because we try to follow the rules. If you think the troops jobs are easier following the rules when the enemies are not you are mistaken. Gorrila war fare is effective because the other side can't answer to it like they do. "Because we are better"...gets us killed. We haven't followed the rules at times, but to say we stoop at even close to their level is baseless.

 

[MMike]

Gorrila war fare .

Sorry I can't let this one go...the mental picture cracks me up to no end.

"Guerrilla"..... Gorilla warfare would be something completely different...

 

[syadasti]

We haven't followed the rules at times, but to say we stoop at even close to their level is baseless.

That logic doesn't make any sense at all. You either break the law and are a criminal or you follow the rules and aren't - there is no middle ground.

Immoral and undemocratic means lead to immoral and undemocratic ends. The end does not justify the means.

9/11 is a good example - We funded, delivered arms/simulators, and trained the people who would later organize the attacks.

U.S. policy toward Afghanistan, Russia and the region [Afghanistan] during the 1980s helped, at least indirectly, nurture the growth of anti-American and fundamentalist forces now controlling Kabul, and indeed, even some of the terrorists now being sought by the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks against New York and Washington.

Iraq was another one of our efforts to push our agenda before they became a problem - we gave them weapons when it was in our best interests even when they were known UN violators:

In addition to 24 companies home-based in the USA are 50 subsidiaries of foreign enterprises which conducted their arms business with Iraq from within the US. Also designated as suppliers for Iraq's arms programs are the US Ministries of Defense, Energy, Trade and Agriculture as well as the Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories."

 

[fluff]

We are fighting them with atleast one hand tied behind our back....

US military capability is so formidable it could fight with both hands behind its back and still outgun anyone else...

The point is that there is no justification for mistreatment of prisoners whoever you are and who ever you're fighting. It very much sounded like you were trying to justify that the US should be able to mistreat prisoners because of who they were fighting. Did you mean that?

Also regarding Guantanamo Bay, the detainees are either POW's or civil prisoners. They should be treated as one or the other but they have been treated as neither, almost as non-people. That is wrong and that is what the US Supreme Court ruled just this week. They have been held for two years wthout charge or access to legal counsel. After a war that has supposedly been won.

They were detained after an invasion/war/military intervention, not a terrorist attack, surely they must therefore be POWs, no?

 

[RhinofromWA]

That logic doesn't make any sense at all. You either break the law and are a criminal or you follow the rules and aren't - there is no middle ground.

Immoral and undemocratic means lead to immoral and undemocratic ends. The end does not justify the means.

I can type slower for you if that will help.

There are degrees to everything. I can punch you in the face or I can remove your head from your body....both are illegal (in most states ) one is MUCH different than the other.

We have different sentences for different crimes....all criminals break the law but different levels of crime bring with it different punishments. You are saying a kid who shop lifts candy is no different than a serial killer. I agree they are both criminals but you have to admit they are not the same beast.

I do not beleive the US is anywhere near the beast Al Queda is....

What part of "we aren't at the same level as Al Queda" don't you understand?

 

[RhinofromWA]

US military capability is so formidable it could fight with both hands behind its back and still outgun anyone else...

They can kill whomever (military or civilian) we are not supposed to (collateral damage is different that grabbing an Iraqi citizen and cutting their heads off). They don't have to answer to anyone for their actions, we do. We cannot use our strength and massive might and turn that chunk of land into a big peice of glass. So no we cannot fight all out like they can. You seem to think "guns" are the best weapon here....when it is the fighting style that is slated.

The point is that there is no justification for mistreatment of prisoners whoever you are and who ever you're fighting. It very much sounded like you were trying to justify that the US should be able to mistreat prisoners because of who they were fighting. Did you mean that?

Uh, no. (forgive me if I am not totally with you here, it has been an active thread day ) The Gov. Lawyers defined and made the justification....not I. Did I say it was OK? No.

Also regarding Guantanamo Bay, the detainees are either POW's or civil prisoners. They should be treated as one or the other but they have been treated as neither, almost as non-people. That is wrong and that is what the US Supreme Court ruled just this week. They have been held for two years without charge or access to legal counsel. After a war that has supposedly been won.

They were detained after an invasion/war/military intervention, not a terrorist attack, surely they must therefore be POWs, no?

OK? The terrorist in the attack are no more....that is what terrorist do. The prisoners are now defined, right? So go forth and handle them as you will. Noone was sure how to handle them....right?

But I know non uniformed military combatants were executed on site in WWII. How would you lable these detainees?

 

[N8 v2.0]

They were detained after an invasion/war/military intervention, not a terrorist attack, surely they must therefore be POWs, no?

It would be interesting to see how suspected IRA terrorists are held and treated in the UK...

 

[fluff]

They can kill whomever (military or civilian) we are not supposed to (collateral damage is different that grabbing an Iraqi citizen and cutting their heads off). They don't have to answer to anyone for their actions, we do. We cannot use our strength and massive might and turn that chunk of land into a big peice of glass. So no we cannot fight all out like they can. You seem to think "guns" are the best weapon here....when it is the fighting style that is slated.

Way to go overboard on a one-liner...

Actually when 'collateral damage' (such a wonderful term, I'm sure the families of collateral damage love it) runs into the tens of thousands it certainly does become different. There are more civilians dead. It does not justify the beheadings, but neither do they justify some of the dubious targetting (TV stations, power stations) that lead to huge numbers of 'collateral damage'.

Uh, no. (forgive me if I am not totally with you here, it has been an active thread day ) The Gov. Lawyers defined and made the justification....not I. Did I say it was OK? No.

I'm with you on the no. But why can you not acknowledge what shoudl be a universal truth without so much hedging, and if you believe it to be so, why did you argue so hard about Silver's point? This is not a black and white world, but that kind of moral relavitism from the US is so damaging to itself it is almost incredible to hear it.

OK? The terrorist in the attack are no more....that is what terrorist do. The prisoners are now defined, right? So go forth and handle them as you will. Noone was sure how to handle them....right?

But I know non uniformed military combatants were executed on site in WWII. How would you lable these detainees?

Well, a terrorist should be tried as a terrorist, convicted and sentenced if proven guilty. If they aren't to be tried as terrorists they should be treated as POWs or released, it has been two years.

A non uniformed military combatant? The US invaded Afghanistan, they did not possess any much other than militia, it's the third world, executing them on WWII precedents would be wrong and I think you can see that.

How long can you justify keeping a man in prison without charge? Where is the justice?

 

[fluff]

It would be interesting to see how suspected IRA terrorists are held and treated in the UK...

Go ahead, google and find out...

 

[RhinofromWA]

Way to go overboard on a one-liner...

Well I do what I can.....doesn't make what I typed any less relavent...against your one-liner.

Actually when 'collateral damage' (such a wonderful term, I'm sure the families of collateral damage love it) runs into the tens of thousands it certainly does become different. There are more civilians dead. It does not justify the beheadings, but neither do they justify some of the dubious targetting (TV stations, power stations) that lead to huge numbers of 'collateral damage'.

I dont like collateral damage either...but if you think that the military does, Iraq would be plowed under..... because we are so powerfull, right? Colateral damage is a term for dead civilians...I know that you know that. It is also what happens when countries fight....almost should be expected.

The military's job is not to make sure no civilians are killed....but they try to lesson the numbers. They try to take out a building, instead of 4 city blocks. Collateral damage is inevitable especially in city fighting. And when the enemy dresses the same as civilians(al queda) or uses them as human shields (iraqi and al quada) They do it for a reason...protection...public opinion....etc.

I'm with you on the no. But why can you not acknowledge what shoudl be a universal truth without so much hedging, and if you believe it to be so, why did you argue so hard about Silver's point? This is not a black and white world, but that kind of moral relavitism from the US is so damaging to itself it is almost incredible to hear it.

I said we are not perfect, but to compare us to the enemy is a BIG stretch. I believe that thread volley started when Bush was blamed for the fact that al queda is beheading instead of holding them in a nice warm place....because of what we do/did. I was saying that they didn't care to follow any rule before and were not tied to any...Bush didn't affect that at all. Silver acts like we have a ultra moral high ground we must hold....well war isn't going to allow that....I may have blended a couple threads today so for that I appologize but still stand by what i typed. Moral relavatism.....when I acknowledge the enemy fights dirty then we do? We have made mistakes but are not like them? How is that anything about morals? Just saying I would rather be a POW under US care than a POW under Al Queda care.

Well, a terrorist should be tried as a terrorist, convicted and sentenced if proven guilty. If they aren't to be tried as terrorists they should be treated as POWs or released, it has been two years.

I agree....someone needed to define these detained peoples status as POW or Terrorist or ?...........

A non uniformed military combatant? The US invaded Afghanistan, they did not possess any much other than militia, it's the third world, executing them on WWII precedents would be wrong and I think you can see that.

How long can you justify keeping a man in prison without charge? Where is the justice?

I was falling asleep to the History channel (I think) and it was plain clothed soldiers fighting on the inside with everything they could, but knew if they were caught it was a sure death. The Weirwolves or something they called themselves.

Being descernable (right word?) from joe schmoe on the street is very important in the rules....as I heard it drifting off to sleep. I can see that as a benefit to reducing colateral damage....you can see your enemy.
Alqueda does/will not....creating more colateral damage and drawing this war out. Is it smart? Yes. Is it right? I am not to say.

 

[genpowell71]

Ok, try this out...

If a man pickes up an AK47 and shoots at American soldiers, that makes hiim a enemy combatant. Therefore is entitled to Geneva. BUT, if a man blows up a car bomb by remote, and then melts back into the civilian populace, does that make him a terrorist or a combatant?

If he's a war criminal, under Geneva, the only thing he gets in fair treatment. He has NO legal rights under the US justice system. As far as Afghanistan goes, the scale to which the governement used was if they were captured in action, then they were EPW's (Enemy Prisoners of War). If they were rounded up after the action was over doing bad things, then they were terrorists. No gray area, your either a POW or a terrorist. Ad just so you know, 90% the bad guys in Gitmo were captured in action. The other 10% were detained for intelligence value and are in protective custody due to death threats against their lives. You never see or hear about the people that are cooperating with us, just the ones that are "being mistreated".

As far as Collateral Damage goes, take your pick, prescision guided munitions, or an Arc light strike. Its an easy question. One building vesus all of Baghdad being leveled by B-52's. If you have any questions about what an Arc-light strike is, google it and see the pictures of the landscape were we bombed in Vietnam.