Reply With Quote
But that's the point. He's not aiding the enemy, at least not in any way that we can prove. He just happens to be in the wrong place and not 100% compliant.
You'd summarily execute him?
Because he doesn't want a bunch of soldiers on his property; the harvest of his grove, which provides 100% of his annual income, is a week away, and trampling by soldiers will prevent him from earning any income.
Kill him?
But that's the point. He's not aiding the enemy, at least not in any way that we can prove. He just happens to be in the wrong place and not 100% compliant.
You'd summarily execute him?
i think farmers that sell navel oranges with seeds in them should be killed.
is that the same thing?
You can't bluff someone that doesn't know how to play poker, and you can't argue with someone that can't have rational thoughts (or doesn't think we are worthy of his sharing of them).
I have no response to you, other than to tell you that I'm not responding.
i don't consider anyone being rational that says american citizens will end up charging terrorist bunkers.
let us know when you land.
I'd leave the option open to the commander in the field. It's a judgment call I would like to let him be able to make, which is illegal for them to make now...
Look at the scenario the SEAL team found themselves in in "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Lutrell
From Wiki:
"On June 28, 2005, Luttrell and SEAL Team 10 were assigned to a mission to kill or capture Ahmad Shah (nom de guerre Mohammad Ismail), a high-ranking Taliban leader responsible for killings in eastern Afghanistan and the Hindu-Kush mountains.[5] The SEAL team was made up of Luttrell, Michael P. Murphy, Danny Dietz and Matthew Axelson.[5] Luttrell and Axelson were the team's snipers, with Lutrell also being the team Medic; Dietz was in charge of communications and Murphy the team leader.
Three goat herders stumbled upon the hiding spot of the four SEALs. The men were detained by the team but the SEALs were unable to verify any hostile intent.[6] Murphy, the officer in charge of the SEAL team, put the fate of the goatherds to a vote. Axelson voted to kill the Afghanis, and Dietz abstained. Murphy told Luttrell that he would vote the same as him so with his vote it was decided to let the Afghans go.[5][7]
The released herders disappeared and likely immediately betrayed the team's location to local Taliban forces and within an hour the SEALs were engaged in a fire-fight against a force of 80-150 enemy fighters. The SEAL team engaged the Taliban for over two hours in a running fire-fight through the region's hills and valleys.[8]
Team leader Lt. Michael P. Murphy was awarded the Medal of Honor for exposing himself to enemy fire to reach higher ground from which to transmit a call for backup. The four-man SEAL team had killed around 70 of the Taliban despite most of them being shot several times but still carried on with the fight, however, Axelson, Deitz and Murphy were eventually killed . Luttrell barely survived after being blown off a cliff by an RPG.
An MH-47 Chinook helicopter was hastily dispatched upon receiving Lt. Murphy's distress call with a force consisting of eight SEALs and eight 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment "Nightstalkers" to rescue the team, but the helicopter was shot down by an RPG upon reaching the site of the battle. All 16 men on the Chinook were killed, including Shane Patton, whose place on Operation Red Wing had been taken by Danny Dietz.[9]
Luttrell was the only survivor of the SEAL team. Badly wounded, he managed to walk and crawl seven miles to evade capture, during which he killed six more Taliban fighters. He was given shelter by tribesmen from Sabri-Minah, a Pashtun village. (This was done because of "Lokhay Warkawa", a Pashtun belief that any stranger in need of shelter must be given it.) [10] The villagers sheltered him and provided medical aid, and refused Taliban demands that Luttrell be turned over to them. After several days one of the village elders trekked twenty miles to a US base to reveal Luttrell's location, and he was finally rescued six days after the battle by US forces.[9]"
Well, if a foreign army came to your house and took a vote to kill you, I'm sure you would greet them as liberators.
how do you know the terrorist hadn't taken control of the herders families and brutally beat them for being late and threatened to kill them if they didn't explain where they were?
other than that, go get your rocks off on a movie.
Nothing wins hearts and minds like summary executions.
But it's interesting that you wouldn't even take the guy in for waterboarding . . . er, questioning, and risk the possibility that there would be no evidence to support further detention. . . . and then executing the guy anyway.
Marcus Luttrel voted to not kill those 3 goat herders... and as a result... his 3 teammates died.
I bet he wishes he had that one back.
you mean the same villagers that protected his life.
got it.
On that note, why bother sending troops and risking soldier's lives when you can simply launch a nuke and level the entire place. I mean, they look like terrorists and some of them might actually be!
Those pesky civilians are just stopping us from progress and achieving our goals!
Last edited by ElNono; 03-23-2010 at 10:30 PM.
I don't understand...if we have pictures of these people, and catch these people, and call them terrorist organizers, how do we not have enough proof to hold them? Why does it take so long to charge them and try them? Isn't this whole system that we set up for them devoted simply to them, so it's not like we have to worry about the long line of Marijuana/Theft/Drunk cases holding up the legal process? It's a giant bin full of "alleged" terrorists...how can we not have proof??!?!?!
Furthermore, after giving them "enhanced" interrogation and holding them for 5+ years...why would we want to set them free? They'll be angry and if they weren't terrorists before, there's a decent chance they'll be terrorists now. Oh wait, I get it, the idea is that if they get released and sent back to the middle east, the terrorists will be su ious of them being double agents and AQ and the Taliban won't want anything to do with them. That's cool yo, I get it now.
According to torture supporters, the 'formally accused' should go back to their home countries, sing kumbaya and praise the US for its eventual 'humanity'...
You might not be not far off with this. It does win hearts and minds, in the USA. A theme like this might already be an electoral wedge. Americans like torture to a significant degree, and they seem to like the separate tier of justice in principle.
An outraged and insecure public cries out not only for justice but for bloody vengeance and even cruel and sadistic countermeasures like torture, indefinite detention and Presidentially defined assassinations.
Why not summary battlefield executions too?
(boom)
Sorry, you got too close.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-23-2010 at 11:46 PM.
I'd like to know the answer to that question too.
Because they didn't do , they have zero intelligence value for us and they deserve their freedom back. The USG is losing 4/5 Habeas cases against these guys, forty guys in. Bush-appointed judges are setting them free.
So what? Such is the situation of every man who is wrongly detained. One would think anger would be a natural, even predictable emotional response
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-24-2010 at 12:49 AM.
You can't just take the guy back into custody because you fear he has been radicalized by the conditions of his wrongful detention. You have to set him free.
You can't use abusive detention as an excuse not to release the guy, after the court says you have no grounds to detain.
There will be hard feelings.
Criminalizing the hard feelings expressed during a long, hard and unjust captivity, is a wuss move. JMO.
You can't jail him just because you fear he'll take it too hard that you jailed him, etc., in the first place, when he finds out you have no legal basis to detain him at all.
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-25-2010 at 02:42 AM. Reason: etc.
Really? So you're just willing to trust the word of the government? What kind of conservative are you?
Don't you have certain rights, SPECIFICALLY LISTED UNDER THE CONS UTION? What type of conservative is willing to forfeit the rights of his friend?
I'm pretty sure that all these people who are saying it's kill or be killed, wouldn't be so cavalier if they weren't living in the one hyperpower the world currently has.
If Afghanis were in our country, snatching away people in the middle of the night and possibly confining them for years with little to no legal recourse, there'd probably be more outcry. Empathy is not a universal trait though, sadly.
You're damn ing right I wouldn't be. I would be whining about human rights and equality and money for climate change for Africa... BECAUSE I WOULD WANT TO BE ON TOP.
When you are on top EVERYONE ELSE wants to knock you off. All of you can guys can throw them bread from this vantage point. But me and people like me will be the ones beating them the off when they start charging up the hill... and I'm not sorry nor will I feel guilty that I was born in the most powerful country on earth.
My father and my father's father worked and fought and bled to make this country what it was... and what it still can be. It is a slap in their face and in my grandfather's memory to give it all away so other people around the world can feel good and "like" us more.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions