u.s. military tribunals in WWII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
Wrong. All you have to do is be behind enemy lines.

...and out of uniform IIRC. Just being behind the lines doesn't make one a spy/saboteur (otherwise all aircrew in hostile territory could be summarily shot.) Being in civilian dress or captured uniform does

---

Exactly. Red I dont now if I can take us agreeing so much any longer.~D

Quote:

---

But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?

---

You certainly could if they were spies. Again any German military personel not in uniform caught behind our lines in Germany could have been shot. I would think if you could produce leave papers ot something like that you could get off. But if you did anything against our troops youd be toast.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Here's an article on FindLaw that I thought was fairly insightful on the matter.

---

Good read. The author claims that the term 'unlawful combatants' for Taliban and Al Qaida members 'is based upon a plausible reading of the Geneva Convention' because 'it would be difficult to come to any other conclusion when applying the Geneva Convention's four-part test to al Qaeda fighters'.

Indeed, these fighters do not seem to meet three out of four criteria of the 1949 Convention, hence there is no obligation to consider and treat them as prisoners of war.

He also sheds some light on the motives of the Bush administration for not granting them that formal POW status. It would, in particular, give them two rights that the White House isn't too keen on: (1) protection from irregular U.S. military tribunals, and (2) the right of repatriation. I believe he omits a third, important consideration: the U.S. wants to keep Taliban and Al Qaida detainees for itself in order to control the intelligence they might provide. This is all the more plausible because the U.S. has notiriously poor human intelligence in the Arab and Muslim world.


So far so good. What the article does not address is the fact that most of these detainees should not be in U.S. custody in the first place.

Irregulars who were caught fighting the U.S. during a war should either have been shot (if they presented an immediate danger to U.S. troops) or detained by the U.S. until the end of hostilities and then released. Shooting irregulars on the spot in a war zone is allowed by the Conventions, but it is not the right thing to do for various reasons.

Irregulars who were caught after the cessation of hostilities (and we are well past that point in both Afghanistan and Iraq) or outside of any war zone altogether should be handed over to the local authorities.

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have reverted to the status of sovereign nations, both have 'invited' the U.S. to help police their territory (although they did not have a real choice in the matter), therefore the U.S. has no business arresting people on their territory, detaining them, deporting them and prosecuting them in secret facilities around the world.

Irsurgents should be tried by the nation that is suffering the insurgency. Terrorists should be tried by the nation that is (or whose nationals are) suffering from their acts of terror. If a Saudi terrorist blows up Iraqi or Indonesian civilians, it is the business of Iraq or Indonesia to try them. If an Iraqi terrorist blows up American soldiers, he should be handed over to the U.S. for a criminal trial.

These suspects should all be convicted in regular criminal trials. This takes care of the issue of justice (fair trial instead of military kangaroo court) as well as the issue of repatriation (those found guilty of terrorism can be sentenced to death or long incarceration).

It is not the ideal solution to all problems, but it would be a fair deal. It would requite the U.S. to stop monopolising the 'war against terrorism' which is not a war at all, but a sustained campaign in which many more nations should participate. And it would allow both American citizens and the rest of the world to sort out the guilty from the innocent and to see that justice is being done -- something that would relieve the U.S. from a very heavy propaganda burden.

Quote:

---

Both Afghanistan and Iraq have reverted to the status of sovereign nations, both have 'invited' the U.S. to help police their territory (although they did not have a real choice in the matter), therefore the U.S. has no business arresting people on their territory, detaining them, deporting them and prosecuting them in secret facilities around the world.

---

I havent seen any complaints from these nations. Also where is your proof that this is actually happening other than unsubstantiated reports? This also brings up another intersting point. Just recently what your speaking of was supposedly leaked about the CIA. Wheres the investigation into this leak? Where Fitzgerald when we really need him? It seems CIA leaks are only bad if its a conservative who leaks them.

You know, I've noticed you neocon apologist types have this habit of starting to whine about "proof" once your back is to the wall... It seems to be a rather less important issue before that point, tho'.

Just pointing out.

Quote:

---

.You know, I've noticed you neocon apologist types have this habit of starting to whine about "proof" once your back is to the wall... It seems to be a rather less important issue before that point, tho'.
.

---

First of Im not a nec con. Of cousre those on the left always say proof is not needed its the seriousness of the charge that needs to be addressed.

Don't know what Gambia has to do with this.
Well perhaps it might be better if you didn't talk about gitmo then until you do .
No, because I'm not referring to those. I'm not discussing the perhaps 10% that might be held taken from outside that zone. I'm talking about the ones in the war zones.
Ah so you are not talking about detainees that you know nothing about , you are only talking about detainees that you know nothing about . Rigggght .

You don't need to be caught 'in theatre' though
True , it is in "zone of operations" which includes your home territory and any allied or ocupied territory where your forces are present or preperations are being made ... Back to this at the end as it deals with the original topic ~:cheers:
It just needs to be proven that they were agents of the enemy forces.
No it needs to be proved that they were operating under certain circumstances and conditions
Ah- but they are being held in accordance with the Geneva Conventions if they're unlawful combatants. We've covered this territory before- none of them would qualify as legitimate POWs.
Some would some wouldn't .

But you couldn't have executed them if they were playing dress up within Germany or a neutral country could you?
Yes you certainly couldn't have .

I havent seen any complaints from these nations
also doubt that Afghanistan wants the detainees captured in their country. Their government has enough on its plate without housing and trying hundreds of dangerous enemy combatants.
oh dear oh dear , Gawain and Xiahou , President Karzai has asked publicly on at least 4 occasions for the Afghani prisoners to be returned .~:rolleyes:

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .

Quote:

---

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .

---

No they surely could have been executed as spies . The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.

No they surely could have been executed as spies
well spotted Gawain~:cheers:
They were not executed and they were given POW status despite being out of Uniform (though some were not military personel at all) and fulfilling all the other definitions of spies under article 30 of the HC .
The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.
Speculation Gawain , try "some" to make it correct .~;)

Quote:

---

They were not executed and they were given POW status despite being out of Uniform (though some were not military personel at all) and fulfilling all the other definitions of spies under article 30 of the HC .

---

Again what does this prove? Only that we are indeed a genorous nation.

Quote:

---

The same goes for most of those in Gitmo.
Speculation Gawain , try "some" to make it correct

---

I dont want to speculate where our national defense is concerned. Ill leave the specualtion to you.

Again what does this prove? Only that we are indeed a genorous nation.

No it proves that a judge thought a bunch of meteorologists were not deserving of execution . I wonder if a judge will think that such dangerous people as a driver , a cook or a cameraman currently in Gitmo will also deserve such leniency, or howabout a peanut oil salesman who has never even been to Iraq or Afghanistan , do you think they will go easy on him ?

I dont want to speculate where our national defense is concerned. Ill leave the specualtion to you.
No need Gawain you have an administration being run on speculation , and they are not very good at it are they . I bet you are glad you never voted for them .

Quote:

---

No it proves that a judge thought a bunch of meteorologists were not deserving of execution .

---

OK how many meteorologists are held in Gitmo? Youve just shot down your argument.

Quote:

---

I wonder if a judge will think that such dangerous people as a driver , a cook or a cameraman currently in Gitmo will also deserve such leniency, or howabout a peanut oil salesman who has never even been to Iraq or Afghanistan , do you think they will go easy on him ?

---

And how many such people do you think are in Gitmo?

Quote:

---

No need Gawain you have an administration being run on speculation , and they are not very good at it are they . I bet you are glad you never voted for them .

---

All administraions run on partial specualtion. This one is no different and niether are you. But yes Im glad I didnt vote for them.

Can you prove there aren't meterologists, goatherds, street winos or circus clowns in GTMO ? Betcha you can't.

Wait, it gets better:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFP

Washington will not tolerate prisoner abuse in Iraq or the infiltration of security forces by militias, US officials said, laying down the law even as Iraqi officials downplayed allegations of detainees being tortured.

"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere," the US embassy in Baghdad said.

---

Quote:

---

Can you prove there aren't meterologists, goatherds, street winos or circus clowns in GTMO ? Betcha you can't.

---

Can you provet here are or is it mere Specualtion on your part? Betcha you can't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AFP
Washington will not tolerate prisoner abuse in Iraq or the infiltration of security forces by militias, US officials said, laying down the law even as Iraqi officials downplayed allegations of detainees being tortured.

"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere," the US embassy in Baghdad said.

---

See they agree with me.~;)

Wait, it gets better:

~D ~D ~D
They didn't really say that did they !!!!! They incorporated militia units wholesale into the security forces , have they forgotten already .
"We strongly condemn mistreatment of detainees anywhere,"
But please please please give us an exemption on torturing detainees~D ~D ~D

You mean, their BS agrees with your BS ?
:coffeenews:
So what else was new ?

Quote:

---

Can you provet here are or is it mere Specualtion on your part? Betcha you can't.

---

Can *you* prove that any of the people held there are guilty of anything ? Of course you can't. Judging by how their jailers refuse to let them out of the legal-status limbo and process them through normal courts, it's a fairly safe bet *they* would have a fair bit of trouble at it too...

Quote:

---

Can *you* prove that any of the people held there are guilty of anything ? Of course you can't. Judging by how their jailers refuse to let them out of the legal-status limbo and process them through normal courts, it's a fairly safe bet *they* would have a fair bit of trouble at it too...

---

Can you prove their not? Look their being held in accordance with the Genva conventions. If you dont like get it changed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

They didn't really say that did they !!!!!

---

Oh yes, the U.S. is laying down the law on torture, Mr President. Those Iraqis are bound to be mightily impressed.

...just go look up the appropriate sections from the Amnesty document I so generously linked in the other thread, will you Gaw ? I think they were in the beginning, kind of building up the case you know. It's late and I don't really feel like finding and copy-paste-quoting the parts about just how fast and loose the US plays with those details...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Now back to German "spies"
Why were the numerous Germans captured in Greenland during WWII not executed as spies ? They were operating clandestinely , out of uniform , using subterfuge in the enemies zone of operations , gathering intelligence that was for the German war effort .
Surely they should have been executed as spies .

---

You're going to have to provide me with some links for that. From what I know of the incident they were almost all either identifiable soldiers or civillians- neither qualify as unlawful combatants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Irregulars who were caught after the cessation of hostilities (and we are well past that point in both Afghanistan and Iraq) or outside of any war zone altogether should be handed over to the local authorities.

---

There are some liberals who would disagree with that assessment. I've heard some say that we're losing the wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq- and should be retreating from Iraq. That hardly seems like a time to release combatants.

Quote:

---

These suspects should all be convicted in regular criminal trials. This takes care of the issue of justice (fair trial instead of military kangaroo court) as well as the issue of repatriation (those found guilty of terrorism can be sentenced to death or long incarceration).

---

If they were in the country legally and commit their crimes, I might be more inclined to agree. However, when they are sent to the country as agents of an enemy force to sabotage or commit terrorist acts I think 'unlawful combatant' still applies. These terrorists certainly believe they are engaged in warfare- they should be treated accordingly.

From what I know of the incident they were almost all either identifiable soldiers or civillians- neither qualify as unlawful combatants.

Which incident , the incidents spanned 3 years, add another year if you wish to add British operations/captures . Since some captures involved non-Germans then they would be unlawful combatants , since there were plans to sabotage the mining facilities they would be sabateurs which means they are unlawful combatants , and since the Germans were involved in intelligence gathering then they were spies operating clandestinely and using subterfuge in the enemies area of operations .

Oh yes, the U.S. is laying down the law on torture, Mr President. Those Iraqis are bound to be mightily impressed.
Since the President , prime minister , interior minister , foriegn minister and nearly all the others stood for election on a policy of getting the Americans out of Iraq do they really give a damn about what the US has to say about their internal affairs~D ~D ~D
In a free Iraq there will be no more torture chambers..... looks like it was a waste of time then eh ~;)
Still at least its not Saddam doing the torturing now , its Iranian backed terrorists , how nice .:shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which incident , the incidents spanned 3 years, add another year if you wish to add British operations/captures . Since some captures involved non-Germans then they would be unlawful combatants , since there were plans to sabotage the mining facilities they would be sabateurs which means they are unlawful combatants , and since the Germans were involved in intelligence gathering then they were spies operating clandestinely and using subterfuge in the enemies area of operations.

---

Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.

Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.
Ever heard of Books Xiahou ?~:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Again, links? You've made you assertion, now back it up.
Ever heard of Books Xiahou ?~:rolleyes:

---

Sure have. You're telling me that your stories arent supported anywhere anyplace on the vastness of the Internet? Fine, what books? ~:handball:

If you cant prove something, it makes for poor support of your argument.

http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/northland.html
Here try this one , but its illegal immigrants not illegal combatants~D ~D ~D

That'd certainly be a creative way of dealing with them. But I'm confused by that part of the account- how could they have been charged with illegal immigration when not on American soil?

I found a, imo, more thorough article on the Greenland events here on the same site. They're reference to the radio team says the following...

A few days earlier the Sledge Patrol had reported to the Northland that a suspicious-looking party of men had landed near the entrance of Franz Joseph Fjord. On Sept. 12, the Northland spotted a fishing trawler flying Norwegian colors in MacKenzie Bay, some 500 miles to the south. The boarding party Smith sent aboard the ship, whose name was the Buskoe, found a sophisticated radio set. Questioning of the Buskoe's crew established that it had indeed dropped off a party of men and a radio transmitter.

That night one of the Northland's officers, LT Leroy McCluskey, went ashore with a party of 12 armed men. They found a supposed hunter's shack and surrounded it while McCluskey kicked in the door. Inside were three surprised but not particularly belligerent German radiomen, who promptly surrendered, offered McCluskey a cup of coffee, and started building a fire to heat it. He confiscated a German codebook just before it went into the flames. The Buskoe and its crew were sent to Boston for internment. The Northland had made the first American naval capture of World War II.

Interesting stories, without a doubt- but I'd need more specific info before I could relate it to this debate. :bow:

Another site

http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/g...x.htm#contents

or for books try any detailed one on the battle of the Atalanic , or Coast guard cutters at war , dogs in warfare also covers it as do several on aerial warfare in europe or any on Kriegsmarine history or forgotten theatres of WWII ,
If you cant prove something, it makes for poor support of your argument.
Would you like a full list of relevant material and authors , many interesting snippets in many varied sources .
For other websites try the Dogsled units , (still in existance as part of the parks/wildlife rangers) , the US airbase in greenland also has a fairly good history section .
Or do you still think I am making this up as I go along ?

how could they have been charged with illegal immigration when not on American soil?

Tricky one that isn't it , like how can people be illegal combatants when they have never been in combat ~;)
A partial answer would be that sections of the Havana act and Greenland defense pact would have been used , though the jurisdiction granted to the US certainly would not have covered all of those captured , but it would have covered any non Danes or non natives . But depending on location then Norwegans and Canadians would also have been out of their jurisdiction as well .

Just for converstions sakes, I wouldn't compare WWII tribunals -of either side!- to modern tribunals. Back then there was a world war going on, and neither side cared -or had time to care -too much about proof.