I think there is justification and rationale for both sides of this question, and since everyone here seems to have their mind made up one way or the other, I thought I'd pose a few questions that I have some internal conflict over:

I have some sincere questions on the topic of treatment of POW's vs. terrorists. Should all combatants be treated as POW's? They do not seem to recognize, nor be bound by the Geneva Conventions. Should they be treated by them? Is this kind of treatment perceived to be a weakness in other cultures? How would you deal with a culture that is bent on the destruction of your culture as a fundamental tenet? And what if that culture did not feel bound by the same code of conduct that your culture is bound by? Does/should terror have a facet in combating terror?

If we declared war on that specific group....then by definition they would be POWs. With all the Geneva Conv protections that we would want our guys and gals to have. Holding people without trials or normal POW rights that we agreed to way back when we are as bad as crazy people flying planes packed with innocent people into buildings. Now if its war...full on...fight them and kill every last one, if they surrender to our troops, lock em up till its over.


What are the rules for "Irregular forces" ?

You're causing some confusion with semantics. First, the bush administration has many convinced that terrorism is a nation of people rather than a tactic employed as a tool of war. Second, enemy combatants become POWs in order to no longer be combatants. However, with the suspension of habeas corpus thousands of men and boys were rounded up and imprisoned as enemy combatants so to skirt international law.

You ask how should we deal with a culture that is bent on the destruction of your culture as a fundamental tenet? I bet people of the Soviet Union asked that same question during the McCarthy era. But what culture are you referring to, exactly? Are you of the opinion that the entire Muslim culture is out to destroy us?

Nice try at obfuscation with throwing in the Bush administration. I'm talking general principles. If you want to rehash the rights and wrongs of the Bush administration, there's other threads for that. I'm not talking about a nation, I'm talking about a culture, thought that was clear. Is there a difference between enemy combatants and terrorists? Should the enemy be treated as they would treat us or as we would like them to treat us? Whole religions founded on that debate!

On one hand I can see taking a high road all the way, but is this wisdom if the other party in war is not? But where do you draw the line? I asked the question on the other board and at least got back an intelligent answer: "Do you fight crime with crime?" Pretty thought provoking question. An (in)famous chapter of Montana law involved vigilante justice. It worked, but was it justified under the rule of law? When does the rule of law break down?

Still confused about semantics?

So you ask questions about terrorism, those that use the tactic, and how we should treat them, yet the administration that has been more deeply involved and influenced by terrorism than any other administration in history cannot be included in the conversation? If we cannot discuss the bush administration, then what metric do we use to compare the treatment of POWs as it pertains to terrorism?

Most educated people would interpret my above reply, "However, with the suspension of habeas corpus thousands of men and boys were rounded up and imprisoned as enemy combatants so to skirt international law" as fighting crime with crime. Sorry my reply is too obscure to provoke thought in you.

go harley, being ex military, is above reproach on these matters. What he fails to see is that when involved in a war, you must never take the "high road" when it come to tactics. I mean when in war you are in war to win, and therefore any tactic available is to be used and exploited for maximum effect, i.e ... the destruction of your enemies. Those that want to either eradicate you and all you stand for, or bring you into their fold, that being blind obedience to an ideal that is just pagan at best will resort to any tactic that helps them achieve their goals, as they see them.

Talk about confusing semantics, or at least the issue.

Is habeas corpus a legally established principle of international law, or is it an U.S. constitutional issue, pertaining only to those governed by U.S. law, or is there legal precedent for the U.S. unilaterally applying it to everyone in the world? Does the international law that you are referring to guarantee habeas corpus to all individuals in the world? Or are you discussing the Geneva Conventions, governing behavior in recognized wars between countries? Is 'war' on terrorism a recognized 'war', governable by Geneva, or is it something else that needs to be defined, along with behavior of participants? And how do you govern participant behavior of independent (read terrorist) groups that recognized no established country or government?

Personally, I can see some really slippery slopes, which is why I am reluctant to wholeheartedly embrace the 'killem all, let god sort it out' philosophy, but I can also see the need to do what is necessary to prevent terror.

Just trying to mine the extant knowledge of the vast experience that Harley has as a result of his military background . BTW, in case I missed it, what exactly is that background?

I say dig a hole, shoot them, burry them, and forget them. Dig a few more holes, because there will be more. There is no reasoning with these muslim extremists. Anybody who thinks that can happen is living in a fantasy land.

Ah, the 3 S's. Shoot, Shovel, Shuddup.

Dogfish, There's no reasoning with ANY Extremist, no matter what color Koolaid they guzzle.

So you condone the beheading of American citizens, which is then publicized openly by our enemies to instill fear. How about dragging through the streets the burned bodies of dead Americans? Or is it only our side that can use any tactic?

"Should all combatants be treated as POW's? They do not seem to recognize, nor be bound by the Geneva Conventions."

Yes and it doesn't matter what the enemy recognizes.

ter.ror.ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]

–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

For us to ignore the Geneva Conventions and the "decider" to choose who is and isn't a terrorist, AKA Enemy Combatant, without a trial is a win for terrorists....see above definition. It's pretty much agreed that the only true way to defeat terrorism is to win hearts and minds lest we create more.

Not all extremists kill Americans, I think we could just shoot/bury the ones that want to kill us...then the copycats...

Shhhh. Allen doesn't want us pointing out the misgivings of his hero. You can only post that kind of stuff in clearly marked "Bash bush" threads so he knows to avoid reading them. Can't sacrifice his delusion.

Good response stlhead. I tend to agree with that assessment. Too much of a slippery slope the other way.

Hardley:

Nice self-portrait, ass-hat.

No I do not condone beheadings or dragging dead americans through the street.
Those are indeed TERRORIST tactics.They use them because they can't stand toe to toe with our military might. I say we should start taking a page from their book and respond in kind. Fight fair and you LOSE!

If you say we should respond in kind (employ terrorist tactics), then you do condone their actions. You can't have it both ways.

For a second there, I thought you were taking about the Christian Right in the US.

A few individuals in each group are willing to kill for their religious belief, as well as to push their extreme adjendas as the "way it should be" for their religious beliefs

Honestly, I don't see a difference between the two.

Not too sure what your religious and/or beliefs are, but saying "I say dig a hole, shoot them, burry them, and forget them." doesn't help your argument any.



PS. Please don't kill me and bury me in one of your backyard holes!!!!

That could apply to the Christian Right as well, and I have a backhoe.

You're safe, Parker.

Go Harley wins my award for the most cogent analysis (so far) in 2009. Very good job!