I think I’m tapped out on this thread, but I think you deserve a response since you took the time to write. I mentioned the French Resistance, above, so of course I agree with you.

Thanks for your input.

Euphro, yes, I think so. We haven’t started to threaten to kill people for cartoons we don’t like. Yet.

I’m not sure I buy the uniform argument. There will always be people involved in wars like this that don’t have uniforms. Hell, poverty is the main reason it’s such a mess out there to begin with. A uniform doesn’t even enter into the equation for many (if not most) of the local combatants.

I like your argument about “using his appearance as a kid” as a means to an end. However, if we’re going to use this in any sort of court, going after the “kid” is the wrong target. If anything, we should go after the organization that put the grenade in his hands. Unfortunately, in this case, the “organization” is an ill-defined, multi-headed beast. And I’m not exactly sure how the Geneva Convention handles witnesses/collaborators with a 99.9999% flight risk. How do we handle that in the US? Take the 5th and bail until the court charges you with obstruction? That just ain’t gonna work in a war situation.

JS. To answer your question, yes, I definitely have a problem with our soldiers being held over there for years on end w/o trial. But it’s a war. I suspect the only reason it doesn’t happen much to our soldiers is because one of two things happen: 1) our guys are killed and dragged through a city and/or displayed on the local TV channel, or 2) we go in and get them out. I’m not saying that’s necessarily how it should be, but that’s how it is.

I can already hear several people in this thread (especially Dr. Slammy and Euphro) coming back with, ‘Well, if we’re going to act like terrorists, then the terrorists have already won.’ To a large extent, I agree. Yes, by all means, we should be held to a much higher standard and I applaud everyone who is constantly insisting we raise the bar. That’s what’s great about a democracy. But if you’re equating being forced to listen to Barry Manilow 24/7 to having your head sawed off, I don’t know what to tell ya.

If we had a magickal truth serum, I’m sure we’d be using it. For now, we are trying everything we can, within ill-defined limits, to keep our soldiers alive and the rest of us safer. I agree that we sometimes step over the line. I applaud everyone who’s making it their job to hang out our dirty laundry for all to see. I’m just not sure that this has been the case with this particular kid.

Ultimately, the quagmire we are wading through now is due to the fact that we are trying to apply humane rules to something that is inherently inhumane. We’re trying to define logical rules to a situation that defies logic. That’s not to say it’s not a worthy pursuit, just that it’s a bitch to do.

I have great respect for you opinions and feelings on this matter, but it has been quite common, throughout history, for militias to include foreigners. For instance, not all of the Minutemen were native born, nor were a number of other Revolutionary War partisans. Mosby’s group included a German.

I just have a hard time throwing someone in prison without trial for being in the middle of a fight and, well, fighting. Heck, I have trouble throwing anyone in prison without trial for anything, because it means being accused is being guilty.

As for leaving the Taliban in power, if that’s the standard it seems we have a lot of invading to do. Zimbabwe, North Korea, Syria, the list goes on. Who should we invade next?

Like I said earlier Bush and Chaney should be held accountable for Iraq but you must all remember that not only the US but the UN signed off on the invasion of Afghanistan to oust Alquida and the Taliban, or does anyone believe the Taliban was a group that should have been left in power?

Which does connect to the Geneva Convention in a very fundamental way, come to think of it – it was a valiant attempt to keep the key to the electroshock machine out of the hands of the sociopaths… So much for good intentions.

Thanks for looking up the Geneva convention. That’s really helpful.

The argument I meant to make, however, goes beyond that covered by signatories to a treaty. I’m sure that militias everywhere are not signatories. What I’m trying to get at (and badly, I’m afraid) is a lot like what Ingrid posted, above. There’s something fundamentally wrong about invading a country, then imprisoning, torturing, abusing, etc. people who fight back.

Our own history began with people who fought back against not even invaders! The British at the time were out countrymen.

The Soviets did the same things to mujahedeen they captured, so our actions are not without precedent.

To comment on Rho.. and I’m saying this with all due respect since the Dutch NEVER forget their liberation in ‘45.. In war, there will never be clear lines of who kills who.. so often many MANY civillians get killed in the process, it fuels the fire of resistance. (speaking of which, the Dutch have been active in that during different time periods..OUT of uniform) If you consider ‘the uniformed soldier’ to have the only legitimacy of war acts, you will also attract the resistance. Whether as a soldier you were responsible for killing any civillians or not doesn’t matter, you are representative. If you invade another country, no matter what the rationale/excuse, you become an accepted target like it or not. To see it as a personal issue because you are a vet and you feel defensive towards all soldiers getting attacked, that has absolutely nothing to do with it. ‘You’ (speaking in general terms now Rho) are the invader. As such, you are never welcome. ‘You’ will always be the target, whether you have personal responsibility for someone’s demise or not.

This boy could have most likely be inducted into resistance BUT he’s 16 yrs old, 15 when captured. A KID.. I know that in the US people are firm on revenge (imprisonment) rather than rehabilitation.. hence the overcrowdedness and low percentage of people getting out of crime. There are certainly people who should never see the light of day because I personally believe they are ‘born bad’. The majority however I do not believe to fit that bill. Situations/environments effect (sp?) the behaviour.
As for this kid and his treatment, EVEN if he has killed a soldier, I’m sorry, but if you are invading a country, as opposed to defending your country at your own doorstep.. than that is what you can expect. Conceptually, I do not feel sorry for that situation. On a personal level, I feel sad for any unnecessary killing in this supposed war on terror, be they soldier or ‘terrorist’..

How many US soldiers (and don’t forget the upper echelons with their decision making) are not responsible for the many collateral damaged civillians? Who will bring them to justice?

Gitmo should be closed and open court cases should be pursued instead. Then, you can say honestly, these people are guilty vs the ones who end up being innocent. That said, it goes both ways..what about American soldiers who have killed innocent civillians? You can’t have it both ways..

Ingrid

But here’s the thing. Right after the list, there’s this:

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

In other words, if in doubt, the Convention applies. And I can’t believe that the interrogation process and secret hearings at Gitmo fit anyone’s definition of a competent tribunal.

“He’s a terrorist because we say he is” is not enough.

By your definition, I believe the Americans at Concord and Lexington would not have been considered soldiers. Nor would many men in the Army of Northern Virginia, once their initial uniforms wore out. Nor would members of the French resistance, the Spanish irregulars who fought against Napoleon, Francis Marion’s group, John Mosby’s raiders, the Urkranian resistance, etc.

Are all non-uniformed militias not soldiers?

First of all, I agree that six years is an excessive amount of time to wait for a trial and that it should have been held quicker.

I also agree that Bush, Chaney, and crew should be held culpable for violating the Geneva Convention to which we have signed.

I also agree that torture is reprehensible and should not be tolerated.

I will even agree that he is inocent until proven guilty and deserves his day in court.

But here is where I have an issue with your arguments:

First calling him a soldier when he was not in uniform and used his appearance as a kid to get close enough to kill one of our soldiers with a grenade does not fit the definition of a soldier as provided by the Geneva convention instead it fits the definition of a spy or terrorist. So he is a criminal not a POW.

Next, the argument that the report was changed, or updated I can believe and even envision a likely reason. If during a firefight someone is shot multiple times fleeing from grenading one of yours, and that is what he is accused of not of being shot while sitting unarmed, then it is easy to believe he was killed until you find out otherwise.

Now do i believe he deserves torture, No. But if convicted I believe he deserves life without the possibility of parole doing hard time. that is actually lenient seeing as how the Geneva convention allows summery execution for spies, which is the category his actions would place him in.

Now I admit my view is biased and colored by my own experiences during my military career and by seeing some of what was done to our troupes but I can only view life through the experiences I’ve had and that is why I hold this opinion and why I hold it so strongly.

Please respond with your views and I will always respect them but by no means will I necessarily agree with them,then again I might.

I don’t think you were way off topic. Well, maybe just a little.

Let me agree with you on a few things. Yes, one psychological way to get around killing of others is to make it a justified job, as with soldiers. I’m not saying it’s right, because that would make war right. I’m just saying that it’s currenlty legal under international law.

I will also agree that we Americans are geographically isolated and that makes “those people” even more “those” than usual (but I would submit that, historically, Europeans have been very, very good at making others “those”). I will also agree that America acts like an adolescent country on occasion. We have not suffered in war (for the most part), and don’t have the deep abhorence for it that we should have.

I’m going to disagree about the direction of my argument, though. I think it might convince one or two people. Maybe. One of the more gruesome moments in our own history was the terrible mistreatment of prisoners of war during our Civil War. We also had soldiers badly mistreated by the Japanese in WWII, and the North Koreans and North Vietnamese in those two wars. I don’t think the average American will stomach the mistreatment of foreign soldiers, but I also don’t think the average American thinks of any of the Gitmo prisoners as “soldiers.”

But, you could be right. No way to know until you try it.

what happens ‘over there’ is literally too far away for anyone to appreciate. One week of the same endurance of war and bombing in this country like they experience ‘over there’ would humble the biggest loud mouth in no time. Luckily (since I live here and I know better , along with a minority of people) that won’t happen. But having to eat a little humble pie might go a long way in insuring international peace..

oops…waayy of topic.. or was I?

Ingrid

Let me start first with a question for both of you: If one of our soldiers is captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, or wherever, would it be OK with you if that soldier were tortured, held without trial, benefit of counsel, contact with family, etc. for six years? Suppose that soldier was in the act of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy? Would that be enough to convict him of a crime? If so, what crime, under international law, would that be?

I believe that’s really what we’re talking about, here. One soldier (militia) allegedly tried to kill another soldier. Generally, the world looks on that as soldiers doing their jobs; not as criminal activity.

Gitmo is a disgrace and if there is a need to put people in court for crimes, then you can’t have you cake and eat it too. Bush and his ilks are just as responsible for the soldier’s deaths as the individuals who inflicted it on them.. but of course, in this country, the prevailing attitude seems to be ‘the end justifies the means’.. that is why there are standards (for those who lack morals); it never does.

ok, stepping of my soap box into the kitchen..it’s dinner time! [g]

Ingrid

I confess I don’t know the Geneva Conventions enough to know if I agree with all the rules or not. If you have the time, point me to the appropriate sections and I’ll have a look. In the end, if we agreed to them, then we should either follow them, dissolve the treaty, or figure out how to update the rules. The first option assumes the convention is perfect in every situation. The second is politically improbable. The last is probably something we should be doing. But I suspect that would be unlikely as well in this environment.