| Author |
Message |
    
Face
Citizen
Username: Face
Post Number: 526
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 7:04 pm: | 
|
Let’s solve the “unjust” imprisonment problem. In today's NY Post, columnist Ralph Peters offers the suggestion to kill all enemies once they have pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade, or detonated bomb. It makes interesting reading and a clever point that may not sit well with some for it means that “He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.”
Here is a link: http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/kill__dont_capture_opedcolumnis ts_ralph_peters.htm
Agree or not, Mr. Peters basically is suggesting that killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral-or even illegal. It certainly provides interesting fodder. I know what I think. Now what do you think?
|
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3529
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 7:11 pm: |
|
Not sure how I feel about this. I'd say it depends on the circumstances of their capture. If they turn themselves in, should we simply shoot them? If they are captured peacefully, sitting at a table eating dinner, should they be shot?
On the other hand, if they put up any kind of armed resistance, I have no problem killing them on the spot. Unless, that is, there is some intelligence that we think we an get from them. isn't that the whole point of the facility at Guantanamo? To collect intelligence from those that have been captured? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3550
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:30 pm: |
|
Thing is, Peters' suggestion isn't relevant for most of the people being held. The vast majority of them weren't captured after being witnessed shooting at us or throwing a grenade, etc. They were just scooped up and have been held, humiliated, and tortured without ever even being charged, let alone tried. It's so utterly un-American I can't believe it is still going on. |
Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7522
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:56 pm: |
|
Notehead is right. They were minding their own business on the battle field. Holy ignorance, Notehead. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4461
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:02 am: |
|
Peters is a fool. You can't tell soldiers to behave like this on the battlefield. There will be too many mistakes and world opinion will turn even more against us.
And I think Peters is grandstanding as well. As a practical matter, it seems that most who engage our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan directly end up dead anyway. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 10071
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:20 am: |
|
It's an excellent way to deal with suicide bombers. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12097
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:26 am: |
|
I believe a lot of the Taliban and Sadr's militia will fight to the death, much as the Japanese did in WWII. Basically, no quarter is given or expected. However, executing opponents who have surrendered is going to lead to more trouble than it is worth. Al Jazzerra would have a lot of fun with that one and would, as Tjohn says, further issolate us and further alienate Joe Iraqi, the protypical man in the street whose loyalty we need if we are going to have a reasonable outcome. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 1243
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:38 pm: |
|
What does further isolate us mean? This is one of those typical political phrases that mean nothing. The Repubs have many they use and this is one of the Dems. We aren't isolated now and we won't be isolated later. It's all about the Benjamins and the world wants them. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3549
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:11 pm: |
|
Actually, the world seems to want Euros more than Benjamins.
And if that was all the world wanted, terrorism wouldn't exist. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5599
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
Regarding the topic of the thread -
Mr. Peters is advocating the killing of combatants, even if they have surrendered. That would be the the committing of war crimes.
To use a legal term, his proposal is nucking futs. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3558
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 1:57 pm: |
|
Straw, YOU are the ignorant one, as usual.
Time Magazine reports: "A study culled from the government's own data found that only 8% of the camp's prisoners were actually fighters for al-Qaeda. More than half were not determined to have committed any hostile act against Americans or their allies."
So, what "battle field" do you suppose the detainees were captured on? I know how averse you are to facts, but you might want to learn that, at Gitmo alone, the prisoners are from more than 40 different countries, and a lot of them are children. If the government is so certain of their guilt, and if they are really the "worst of the worst" as they have told us many times, then why haven't they been charged? Whatever happened to habeus corpus? |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 12119
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
Southerner, two points on "further alienate".
1. Most Iraqis are at best neutral about us being in their country. To start executing prisoners will put those who aren't actively resisting over the edge.
2. While Bush, Bolton, etal don't really care, The UN, the International Court at the Hague, not to mention the Brits, Japanese, Poles and the handful of other nations that still support our efforts will abandon us.
Not to mention, as Nohero puts it, such an idea is nucking futs. |
fmertz
Citizen
Username: Fmertz
Post Number: 135
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 12, 2006 - 9:17 pm: |
|
Harry Truman made the difficult decision to drop the bomb not once, but twice on Japan. The result was over a 100,000 dead Japanese.
Decide for yourself as to whether you would have made the same decision as Harry, but it also put and end to the war.
During World War II it was, of course, different. We didn't have the press siding with human rights at every turn. In war people die, either you, or the enemy. I'm sorry to report that is how war has always been fought.
And before you go off defending the NY "Slimes," please note that their story about the secret banking measures was a secret they needed to tell? Why? Because they had the story and the world needed to know. Why? Ratings probably.
Things are so crazy in our country, right now an American soldier is being held in leg irons, while facing charges of killing innocents in Iraq, yet he still hasn't received medical care for a toothache. Meanwhile, our "guests" in Cuba have air conditioning and a dietician preparing their meals.....Does the Geneva convention apply to our soldiers? At least they are home in America. If held by our enemies, they'd be tortured and killed. Why isn't there a bigger fuss about that!
If given the chance I agree that we should be killing our enemies on the field of battle. Sure beats the hell outta paying the price for the attorney fees.
|
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3562
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, July 13, 2006 - 2:00 pm: |
|
Fmertz, the point about the story in the NYT (and other papers, including the WSJ) is that our rights -- you know, the freedom which we are ostensibly trying to bring to the Iraqis -- are being eroded in the name of getting the bad guys. It's a shame that you don't get it. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page