Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:35 pm

Which only means you should have spent more time and resources in actually checking them out. Theres been "Gitmo" prisoners that have been released that had nothing to do with the fighting at all, and still they were incarcerated with no rights, becouse they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, mistakes will happen. Hell, you might actually release a few of them back when they shouldnt be released, but you would also let the innocents go back to their families.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Mon Jun 19, 2006 10:38 pm

[quote="SunTzu";p="645718"]Which only means you should have spent more time and resources in actually checking them out. Theres been "Gitmo" prisoners that have been released that had nothing to do with the fighting at all, and still they were incarcerated with no rights, becouse they were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, mistakes will happen. Hell, you might actually release a few of them back when they shouldnt be released, but you would also let the innocents go back to their families.[/quote]

Again with the 'rights'? They are afforded (AND given) rights according to laws governening enemy combatants.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:01 am

Actually, the administration is partially winging it. There are things being done to the detainees that are really questionable under the Geneva Conventions, and which would be blocked from use in civilian prisons. I question the efficacy of part of it, but it's hard to gauge it because the successes won't be known for another 75 years.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 2:03 am

I wasn't aware the Geneva Conventions still held any power. I was taught the Law of Armed Conflict in the service, not the Geneva Conventions.

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 1:39 pm

AFAIK the geneva conventions are still in use. Atleast its what sweden follows.

And the problem would still stand even if they were treated according to the letter of the law (which according to most media ive seen, they arent), they would be treated as enemy combatants, when in many cases this has not been established. When you're fighting uniformed Germans in neat rows, its easy to see who's a combatant. When you're fighting people dressed as civilians, where many civlians has an AK47 stashed somewhere, and then automagically assuming they are combatants, you're going to make some horrible mistakes.

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:22 pm

Oh yeah. They break war time laws by not wearing uniforms. And they're not the occassional spy either that we can make allowances for. If they're not going to follow convention why should we?

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:49 pm

I dont care if you shoot the actual fighters as spys, thats not the problem. The problem is that they are not given a trial, and its not uncommon for them to be innocent civilians.

Seraphim · Post by **Seraphim** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 4:29 pm

It's not that simple. They don't wear uniforms, and they refuse to tell us that they are soldiers. What are we meant to do? Just kill them all assuming they're all "spies"? Or do we just hold on to them until we're sure? Say perhaps... years?

I think some of the things that has happened to prisoners are terrible. They should at least get all the rights of a convicted felon in my opinion. But it doesn't change the fact that essentially they are POW's. You don't charge POW's usually. Remember that one guy that got be-headed. I'm sure that they could have traded him instead. We'll give you this one soldier if you give us 10 inmates. We probably would have done it. But they went and executed their bargaining chip instead.

There are two sides here. On one hand everything we hear is propaganda. There are no terrorists, that guy was never be-headed, there is no guerilla warfare, etc...
On the other hand most of what we hear is true. These people truly are vicious and would rather brutally murder their POW's then get ours back. If what we hear is true... well you think we treat out POW's bad, they treat them atrociously.

So what do you do? Sugar a kisses? Capture them, then just set them free to be captured again or shot tomorrow? Execute everyone we suspect? Hold them indefinitely? There really is no good answer.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:45 pm

It's not that simple. They don't wear uniforms, and they refuse to tell us that they are soldiers. What are we meant to do? Just kill them all assuming they're all "spies"? Or do we just hold on to them until we're sure? Say perhaps... years?

What, you have no evidence they're enemies? Why were they incarcerated in the first place, then?

Deacon · Post by **Deacon** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 4:05 pm

[quote="SunTzu";p="645845"]according to most media ive seen[/quote]
Aha! Finally, part of the problem is revealed.

[quote="SunTzu";p="645901"]its not uncommon for them to be innocent civilians.[/quote]
O RLY? According to whom?

SunTzu · Post by **SunTzu** » Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:14 pm

According to what information has been given from themselves, their friends, families and the Swedish media, which have been doing inquiries. Thats the only source ive managed to find, since the pentagon isnt speaking.

I know of atleast one swedish citizen released without trial, and without explanation, and neither swedish police, military police or media has managed to find any links to any terrorist groups. I belive he was in the country for his sisters wedding.

Post by **Martin Blank** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 5:02 pm

Correction: It's not unknown for them to be innocent. It is not, however, uncommon for them to be innocent. Most of them were picked up on the field of battle, or in raids on known hideouts and camps.

Bigity · Post by **Bigity** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:06 am

Officer does not deploy with his unit

Guess I owe him ten bucks.

Although I find it somewhat funny that some painter was consulted for her inside view of the story. Wha?

Aerdan · Post by **Aerdan** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:39 am

I find it extremely funny that he's opposed to 'the war' when it's not even a war any more. I mean, the Iraqi gov't *did* ask the US to keep their troops in.

StruckingFuggle · Post by **StruckingFuggle** » Sat Jul 01, 2006 3:41 am

Meanwhile, I find it funny that you point that out, yet forget that there never was a "war" to begin with.

Real Life Forums

Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Re: Officer plans to refuse to go to Iraq

Who is online