u.s. military tribunals in WWII

[Adrian II]

If they are unlawful combatants, we're not required to turn them over to anybody (..)

As long as you are fighting in someone else's land, you are. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

Anyway, I have to sign off now. I may not agree with many of your answers, but you often ask precisely the right questions that make me think hard, Xaihou.
My pleasure.

[Xiahou]

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

[Adrian II]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

.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.

[Tribesman]

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
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 .

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 .

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Tribesman]

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
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 .

[Xiahou]

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.

[Tribesman]

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