-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
How To Stop Terrorists
- Thread starter DFSpence
- Start date
We operate by UCMJ, Geneva Conventions and Law of Armed Conflict, especially when it comes to POWs. We can't act like that, especially when our servicemembers are POWs and we want them to be treated fairly and get them home alive in one piece. In essence we have to take the higher road. But I agree, it'd be effective.
So we exclude military members from carrying out said justice (thus UCMJ exempt), blow my mind with your answer on how an execution with a little showmanship of terrorists is against Geneva Conventions or the LOAC.....especially with said terrorists being unlawful combatants who would be tried beforehand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
DFSpence
New Member
Good to know.
Who carries it out then? And how would we do it? And part of the key, we have to prosecute them. Hasn't worked out so well for us so far.
The unfortunately easy answer that no one ever takes is a formal declaration of war. We haven't declared war since WW II. Had we declared war on Afghanistan post 9/11 then all the Taliban are no kidding unlawful combatants (no uniforms, no marking etc) and can be shot as spies etc legally. Not declaring war puts us in the gray area we find ourselves in now where what to do depends on the political winds.
We lack the political will so this is all hypothetical.
We lack the political will so this is all hypothetical.
There you get to another sticking point, who do we declare war against? The Taliban are not monolithic, and neither is al Qaeda. What happens when they change their name?
And far as I can tell an unlawful combatant does not necessarily make them a spy like Skorzeny's commandos who infiltrated allied lines in US uniforms during the Battle of the Bulge.
I suspected this to be the case.
Even if it were true, it is hard to believe that it would actually work. Regardless of limitations by the UCMJ an act as described above would likely only inflame the situation, not solve the problem
You declare war on "Afghanistan" yes international law does not have the ability to deal with non nation state players but they are the "sovereign" government of Afghanistan. International law is pretty clear: uniform or in the absence of a uniform something identifying and "blatantly" carrying arms. No uniform strip of cloth etc or concealing weapons makes one an unlawful combatant and subject to summary court martial and execution. The lack of a formal declaration leads us to debating constitutional rights for these unlawful combatants on one extreme and waterboarding etc on the other-both are wrong in my humble opinion (political winds).
I guess I'll go ahead and be the crazy one to say that some things are morally wrong, regardless of whether or not they're legal or pragmatic.
They were, but even then they were not recognized internationally and thus probably not 'sovereign'.
As little as it seems they would be able to argue some part fo their dress acts as a uniform.
The most important part though is that we have to try them, not just take them out back and shoot them. The problem with that is we have not worked out a good way to do it. The military commissions have been a failure, hopefully something will be worked out soon. Personally I think 'special anti-terrorism courts' would be the way to go, bench trials held in camera when necessary.
I have no first hand experience "over-there" outside of the Gulf so take the following with a grain of salt...
From the guys in my JPME class, it seems that responding by using harsh tactics like that (e.g., not playing Mr. Nice Guy) is the best way to get respect in that part of the world. Apparently the British knew this from the get-go but we did not. When you can have a dictator like Saddam be the bully on the block and get plenty of respect, why can't that work when a new sheriff arrives in town? Right or wrong (morally*) isn't the issue. What works is the issue, right?
*From a purely operational point of view
From the guys in my JPME class, it seems that responding by using harsh tactics like that (e.g., not playing Mr. Nice Guy) is the best way to get respect in that part of the world. Apparently the British knew this from the get-go but we did not. When you can have a dictator like Saddam be the bully on the block and get plenty of respect, why can't that work when a new sheriff arrives in town? Right or wrong (morally*) isn't the issue. What works is the issue, right?
*From a purely operational point of view