So much for Obama's promise of tough civilian trials of terrorists

[MicroBalrog]

If we do not hold trials, how do we find out who is responsible for the attacks?

Sure. Ahmad abu-Sumsum is captured in Afghanistan, rifle in hand, shooting at our guys. Drumhead trial, execution. Simple enough.

But what if Ahmad is detained at an airport in, say, Europe, because intel states he planned a bombing back in 2007. How do you know it's the guy?

[De Selby]

We're at war with them.  Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something?

The problem with this is that you're not distinguishing between fighting in a war on the field of battle (which isn't a crime, even for the other side), and criminal activity, ie, like torturing captured soldiers or dressing as a civilian and killing civilians.

Arresting a guy who is part of an organised group, fighting uniformed troops, is not in and of itself enough to warrant criminal punishment.  You also have to determine that he was fighting illegally; that requires a fact-finding trial and always has. 

Soldiers have never considered it lawful to just shoot captives, even captives who were caught shooting at them.

[TommyGunn]

The problem with this is that you're not distinguishing between fighting in a war on the field of battle (which isn't a crime, even for the other side), and criminal activity, ie, like torturing captured soldiers or dressing as a civilian and killing civilians.

Arresting a guy who is part of an organised group, fighting uniformed troops, is not in and of itself enough to warrant criminal punishment.  You also have to determine that he was fighting illegally; that requires a fact-finding trial and always has. 

Soldiers have never considered it lawful to just shoot captives, even captives who were caught shooting at them.

In short you "problem" is not a "problem" at all; it's a figment of your own imagination.

Do I HAVE to distinguish everything?  Do you think our soldiers detaining insurgents in A'Stan are having difficulty determining if they're part of an "organized group,"  or are accountants or something? 
I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.
Last I checked the dimbulbs who perpetrated Abu Ghraib were being processed through the military criminal system or have been convicted.  Was there some problem "distinguishing" what they did?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Last I checked the dimbulbs who perpetrated Abu Ghraib were being processed through the military criminal system or have been convicted.  Was there some problem "distinguishing" what they did? Popcorn

apparently there was/is  thats why the guys getting gigged are mostly lower ranks. more and higher heads shoulda rolled. or at least thats what the jag brigadier claims

Do you think our soldiers detaining insurgents in A'Stan are having difficulty determining if they're part of an "organized group,"  or are accountants or something? 


well since some of the folks kicked loose from gitmo were part of that process .   yea  sometimes they do


I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.

according to my grandkids who've been there you are mistaken

then of course there is this
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/world/asia/13afghan.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/09/us-soldiers-afghan-civilians-fingers


not troops here
http://articles.dailypress.com/2010-09-16/news/dp-nws-blackwater-trial-20100916_1_drotleff-suv-afghan-national-army

not our troops
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,3602953,00.html


brit troops
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jul/25/british-troops-afghan-civilian-shootings


more if you need em

[TommyGunn]

  CASD, mistakes are made in every war.  One of the earlier stories I recall about A'Stan was bombing a wedding party. 
I wish those things didn't happen, but they do.  If someone could arrange so that we wouldn't fight wars because we might screw up then fine, but show men how to do it and keep America safe from the evil out there.
As for Gitmo, people were indeed released and some of them were recaptured on the battlefield.  When we can convince the Islamists all to wear uniforms, perhaps this difficulty can be remedied, however since that seems rather unlikely, the onus is on them, not us.

[dogmush]

I don't think our troops in A'stan are having any problems at all determining the "legality" of those they're shooting at, and who are shooting at them, and whom they occasionally manage to capture alive.

Actually we are.  I know of (and was peripherally involved) with several incidents in iraq that involved good solid intel, that we acted on to capture insurgents/terrorists only to find out later we were being used to settle a debt of 5 goats (or some such) from the late 1800's. My buddies in A-Stan tell me the same thing happens there.

Yes, the ones actually shooting at us are easy to tell apart, but those are actually pretty rarely captured.  The ones we capture are most often not actually shooting at the moment of capture.

* which is not to say I think we need to import these guys to New York civilian courts, but pretending that everyone we catch is definatlly a tango is absurd.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so tommy  is that a tacit admission that maybe some guys ARE having trouble discerning friend from foe?






edited because dog mush types too fast for me

[dogmush]

so is that a tacit admission that maybe some guys ARE having trouble discerning friend from foe?

Umm......No:

Actually we are.  

It's an explicit statement of such.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

sorry i meant to be replying to tommy gunn  your opinion agrees with that of my grand kids who were over there  i might argue with the boy but the grand daughters will kick my butt if i give em any sass about things they know about

[TommyGunn]

  Maybe we should just pack it up and come home until we find a way to wage a war without any "collateral damage" at all.

Have a nice Thanksgiving.  Don't kill the wrong turkey. 

[TommyGunn]

Actually we are.  I know of (and was peripherally involved) with several incidents in iraq that involved good solid intel, that we acted on to capture insurgents/terrorists only to find out later we were being used to settle a debt of 5 goats (or some such) from the late 1800's. My buddies in A-Stan tell me the same thing happens there.

Yes, the ones actually shooting at us are easy to tell apart, but those are actually pretty rarely captured.  The ones we capture are most often not actually shooting at the moment of capture.

* which is not to say I think we need to import these guys to New York civilian courts, but pretending that everyone we catch is definatlly a tango is absurd.

That doesn't sound like "good solid intel" to me....
Sounds like we should be killing them all and let God sort it out.

During WWII the Germans had "good solid intel" we had poison gas we were shipping over to use.  This came to light when some G.I.s  stumbled into a cave in Germany that was below ground level and in which canister after canister of German munitions (poison gas) had been stored.  It had begun to leak out and a couple of the soldiers died.  This was after surrender and when the German Top brass were confronted with this they were asked why they didn't use it.  They replied by claiming that they didn't dare because they knew we had much, much more of it.  We said that's cr@p, we don't, and one German officer went off and came back with a stack of photos showing an American supply ship offloading doezens of pallets all loaded to the gills with gas canisters.  The German challenged his American counterpart with this "proof" and the American officer simply laughed and told him -- correctly -- it was nitrogen gas canisters used in American artillery recoil systems.
The Germans had a different artillery recoil system and thus had "misidentified" inert Nitrogen containers.
So much for "military intel."
Most wars we've fought are replete with stories like that.  There's "good" intel" and "bad" intel, and the only way it can be ascribed "good" is if it turns out real. 
The problem is confounded because the other side is usually going to be trying to mislead you.

So long as we allow ourselves to become distracted, we're going to prolong this war indefinantly.  Engaging in "nation-building" before you achieve a clearly defined victory is wrong. 
We ought to be fighting this war with a great deal more ruthlessness than we are.  It's going to be Vietnam redux if we don't start clobbering the terrorist camps in NW Pakistan and other places they're holing up.
And predator drone strikes, nice as they are, aren't enough.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

so do you have a more detailed strategy figured out? with some of the fussy details ironed out? sovereignty and such? and whats was/is your diplomatic strategy?

[TommyGunn]

"More detailed strategy?"  ....
Do you think I should call Obama on my redphone and tell him where to drop the nukes?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i was wondering how you overcame all that sovereign nation stuff. what your plan was for getting more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such.  and you planning on going nuke?  that will be a tough sell.

[Jamisjockey]

Enough with the ad hom.  The tone around here has abandonded civil for some reason.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i would liken what we need to do as similar to union busting.  we want to displace a group(s)  that are harmful to the greater organization.  without killing the whole staff off. when i had to do that my most powerful tool was "being nice". it wasn't nearly as hormonally gratifying as going in and firing everyone but the end results were much much better. is it harder?  heck yes  but lots of good things are difficult. but still worth doing.  i tried both methods and got a heck of a rep using the chainsaw method.  and it was fun. the other way is not near as much fun and much harder but the end result is an order of magnitude better.i understand the emotions that motivate the kill em all and let god sort em out crowd but policy driven by emotion is often a poor plan.

[roo_ster]

As for non-US-citizens caught in an active war zone shooting at our guys, without the sanction of a recognizable uniform and/or State entity, I would say a military tribunal is most appropriate and actually quite generous considering they have zero protections as a proper prisoner of war under the Geneva conventions due to their choice in the manner that they are waging war.

This.  Not rocket science, by any means.

Lumping terrorists in with criminals is just plain dumb.  It's willfully ignorant.  And it's dangerous.

You cannot build good policy on a foundation of lies and falsehoods.  That's what Obama did when he kicked these guys into civilian courts, saying that civvie courts would be able to deliver justice in matters of terrorism and war.  It seems he's beginning to see the error inherent in this, but it's too late.  The genie is out of the bottle.  He now has to either abide by the decision of the civilian courts, or refuse to honor their decision.  Neither option will result in true justice.

The really painful thing is that all this was perfectly foreseeable.  Anyone with a room temperature IQ should be able to understand that foreign terrorists are not at all similar to domestic criminals, and that whatever is appropriate for one isn't going to be appropriate for the other.

Yup.

We're at war with them.  Soldiers exist to attack and kill the enemy, not to question them, collect evidence, maintain a chain of custody for the evidence, and present what they have to a D.A.
Put the detainees in court, and then you have to put together a case against them, and if you haven't done the business of putting together a case, it won't be effective, even though the detainee was taken off a battlefield after shooting (at) American troops.
Is this quantum physics, or something?

KGBS beat my sig line to the punch.

[roo_ster]

the accounts of our own service men after ww2 might work.  you know the ones we used to convict those japanese of war crimes.  the guys we executed for those same crimes

CSD:

While some may use the same terminology for these, they were different as night & day.  I'd suggest reading some of those accounts and comparing them to accounts of how we waterboarded the Big 3  or waterboard our own folks in training.  

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

CSD:

While some may use the same terminology for these, they were different as night & day.  I'd suggest reading some of those accounts and comparing them to accounts of how we waterboarded the Big 3  or waterboard our own folks in training.  

i read the trial testimony of one of our guys who was a pow  does that count?
i don't have a problem with torture  just don't try to bring the testimony to court

[TommyGunn]

i was wondering how you overcame all that sovereign nation stuff. what your plan was for getting more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such.  and you planning on going nuke?  that will be a tough sell.

Apparantly you don't get sarcasm.  For some reason people have problem with nukes ... I guess they make people deader than other weapons ... or maybe it's the "glow-in-the-dark" landscape that is left behind.  I would not really use them unless I was told by my top commanders we'd lose otherwise and losing would have really horrific consequences for America.
I think nukes would actually be pretty useful in NW Pakistan and would strike terror in our enemies.  The problem is it would horrify our allies and probably cause them to pack up, most likely.  Shame, because we could save a lot of our soldiers' lives with nukes, but that's just the rotten political reality of the situation.  Our own soldiers' lives and those of our allies lives just aren't worth the horrid anti-PC stigma of using nukes. 
As to getting "more countries to lay down for airstrikes and such" what are we doing to get Pakistan to "lay down" for our predator strikes?  Our problem is basically in A'Stan & Pakistan.
Pakistan is -- to some extent -- "cooperating'' with us.

[MicroBalrog]

I've read memoirs of some Russian vets who  'worked'  on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They write the landscape is so complex, it's sometimes difficult to figure out where the border is. There are some horror stories about reconnaissance teams accidentally deploying into Pakistan and even destroying things there.

[TommyGunn]

I've read memoirs of some Russian vets who  'worked'  on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. They write the landscape is so complex, it's sometimes difficult to figure out where the border is. There are some horror stories about reconnaissance teams accidentally deploying into Pakistan and even destroying things there.

That was before google.earth came along ... wait ...     never mind.

We were also very meticulous about keeping our operations strictly inside Vietnam in that war ....

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

i remember the pres told us so!

[Jamisjockey]

Daisycutters.  Why are we not dropping more of those?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

we do more precise stuff nowadays