"cheap scotch and Snausages" sounds like a good diet to me!

yentl?! Your evil.

Hmm. I had to walk a mile and a half home tonight after the engine in my BMW bit the big one. After 4 or 5 (or 6) gin and tonics, I was just about to retire with some semblance of peace in my mind. Then I read this…..

Well golly Steve, we didnt teach them a trade when they were in cuba, so they just went back to their old line of work. the rackets, extortion, kidnapping a little gunrunning on the side.

ok, the cold warrior in me takes over and says that maybe we turned these guys and this is part of their cover story. How do you catch a thief except with another thief. but the realist in me knows that once again, being nice as payed its dividends.

LOL yentl, that is evil! But they are too, so fair game.

Better to release them and kill them, than let the ACLU make symbols of repression out of them.

Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico

Is that a real name? Sounds like something from Fireside Theater.

ed

That's Firesign Theater.

Why dont they just have an "Accidental" fire at that prison and take care of the garbage in one fell swoop.

Part of the problem is this all or nothing approach. We either take away all their freedoms or completely set them free. Put them on trial sentence them carry out the sentence. Don't just say we are done with them now so buh bye.

What a dang blame nuisance!

Fly them all back to Afghanistan, release them in a "remote village" in the middle of nowhere, then use them as target practice.

Cheap scotch (shudder) and snausages are bad, but Yentl is beyond the pale. Or, you could have Babs give a concert for the terrorists, but leave them unchained. It'd be interesting to see what lasts longer.

The only reason they're treated as nice as they are is because we're America, and we're stupid enough to treat non-signatories of the Geneva Convention as if they were signatories even after they or their allies intentionally violate every standard of human decency there is.

Once we're done wringing them out, we should eliminate them with extreme prejudice... hey, we gotta test the targetting systems on those bunker buster somehow, right?

God, I'm going to have to play bleeding heart liberal again. I totally think that every guilty person in Guantanimo should hang, frankly. I have zero issues with killing anyone guilty of terrorism. What bothers me is that we can throw out any semblence of justice and rights when it suits us, satisfies our not so sweet side because we are pissed off. Yeah we're pissed off. Absolutely. But there are several important reasons why we can't just carpet bomb the prison killing everyone whether they are guilty or not. For one it is just wrong. I'd be a lot more satisfied when we've proven that these assholes are guilty and hang them knowing that we're doing the right thing. I would hope that we would want to be better than they are. I would hope that we would want our soldiers treated the same way, with fairness. If these people are guilty, why do we need to resort to blanket vigilante justice? I'm not trying to say they aren't deserving, but I know how quickly we swept into Afghanistan and I find it hard to believe that there aren't a few people we picked up that probably are innocent. I know they don't treat us the same way and we see that when they behead innocent civilians who are in Iraq. It bothers me and outrages me and I want justice. I get really torn between knowing we have to do the right thing and wanting to just drop a bomb right in the middle of it all and get it over with. But we're better than that. And if you think otherwise, then why are we over there in the first place? We certainly aren't spreading freedom and liberty. We're spreading hypocrisy.

"Put them on trial sentence them carry out the sentence."

Blaine -- There are several reasons why this is unworkable in a lot of cases, including:

(1) There may not be enough evidence to try them criminally; battlefield prisoners aren't subject to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for conviction, or even probable cause for arrest, and the kind of evidence gathering done for criminal cases isn't feasible on the battlefield for reasons which should be obvious.

(2) In some cases, trying these prisoners would be more dangerous than letting them go because it would entail release of sensitive intelligence materials.

I posted the new set of rules for detainees back int he spring:

New Rules for treatment of detainees in Iraq:

1. Each detainee must be afforded a suite of rooms of no less than 4,000 sq.ft total. Suite must be equiped with large screen television (plasma when possible), 20-ton air conditioning units, king-sized beds, and custom-made prayer rug.

2. Any detainee above the rank of street thug must be afforded the services of a French chef, a French whore and a a French combat advisor, who will instruct the detainee on the prudence of retreat.

3. Police dogs shall not be permitted in proximity to detainees, however any detainee, upon request, must be given a French poodle. (Note: If detainee eats dog it is not required that he be given seconds.)

4. Detainees are not permitted to view comedy programs, therefore televised sessions of the Armed Services Committee are not allowed. (If detainees are especially morose and need a comedic uplift, they may be given pictures of Ted Kennedy or Hans Blix. If they are diagnosed with terminal depression and in danger of total mental meltdown, a photo of Jacques Chirac may be used to bolster their spirits.)

4. All interrogation of detainees must follow strict and specific guidelines. Permissable questions are as follows:

A. Are you comfortable or shall we turn the air conditioning up a notch?
B. Would you care for another bowl of falafel while you watch Survivor?
C. If we can't find 72 virgins will 12 do?
D Is you is or is you ain't my baby? (It is permissable to throw this one in to possibly confuse them, while remaining within the scope of the Geneva Convention as it applies to American captors. It may be used only one time, and then in a "joking manner.")

Remember, we are Americans thus the rules apply only to us.

I say implant them all with RFID chips and turn them loose. After a couple of weeks we can deal with them and those who escaped the daisy cutters the first time.

Oooh! I love the implanted chip idea. Implant them and release them, then follow the signal and kaboom. I also favor giving captured thugs two options: talk to us or take a bullet in the head. And I really don't give a shit about the ACLU anymore, but then again I'm mean.

This is about us, not them. It is about how we act, not how they act. Yes, they are comitted to our destruction. But, if we give up who we are or who we aspire to be (we, or at least I, want to be better than them) then they win.
If we had accorded them POW status, we could continue to hold them. The "enemy combatants" status was a serious mistake.
And yes, I am still voting for Bush.

Jazz -

#2 is easy - all three services can be provided by any given frenchie.

I agree with Scott's last post. We need to inform anyone we release that they only get one chance. If they're caught again, they're dead.

Then we need to enforce it.

I LOVE the chip idea.

A while back the WSJ published an article about a health group that had comissioned Leapfrog (the talking child book company) to make medical versions for Afghanistan. The good news: The program was a great success. The unusual news: Many Afghanis talked back to the book, thinking it was magic and could understand them.

What are the odds of these guys even knowing what an RFID chip IS, let alone being able to track a frequency hopping one?

Anon,

1 Interrogation of POWs is forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

2 Under the Geneva Convention, "enemy combatants" is exactly the status they should be accorded. Do you really think that the ACLU etc wouldn't have demanded their release regardless? By the GC, enemy combatants and POWs can be held until the hostilities end, as anyone bothering to read the GC would know.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
http://www.genevaconventions.org/

Anon,

I have to agree with Larry G. Declaring them prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions would make a mockery of the Geneva Conventions. The major point of the Conventions is to agree that civilized nations will respect each others' lawful combatants; and the most potent enforcement mechanism is that if we don't respect their guys when we capture them, they won't respect ours. It's sort of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) at the level of the individual soldier.

But this agreement requires a few things:

1. Both sides have to be signatories to the Conventions, declaring their intents to abide by them. Al Qaeda isn't a signatory.

2. Troops subject to the Conventions must be legal troops. That means they must fight under a responsible command structure, and they must be recognizably soldiers, by virtue of uniforms, etc. That means that they stick their necks out (being unable to hide among civilians); but in return, those necks are protected if they're captured alive. This requirement is really a "protect the civilians" clause: if soldiers hide among civilians, you'll inevitably have higher civilian casualties when you target the soldiers.

And how do you persuade nations to accept the Conventions? By punishing combatants from nations that AREN'T signatories. If we treat non-signatory troops just as well as signatory troops, then what incentive is there to being a signatory?

So that's why, traditionally, spies may be shot upon capture: they're not wearing uniforms to protect civilians, so they're "fair game" (if I may borrow a phrase from Mary Beth Cahill). And that's why legitimate P.O.W.s are immune from interrogation and torture: they must know that if they follow the rules, they will be treated fairly, else they'll be tempted to doff uniforms and hide among civilians in the face of imminent capture.

And when it comes to these al Qaeda thugs, they don't qualify for the Conventions, hands down. al Qaeda isn't a signatory, they don't have a command structure that's answerable for their actions, they don't wear uniforms, and they hide among civilians. Frankly, if we just shot them all, it would be immoral, geopolitically stupid, domestically poltically stupid, and perhaps a violation of international laws I can't name, but it wouldn't be a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Frankly, I think this news ultimately strengthens the administration's position. They felt that they needed to hold these combatants as long as necessary, because the combatants might still pose a threat. The ACLU and other naive folks argued otherwise. To keep domestic peace, the administration interrogated, processed, and released some of those deemed least threatening. And surprise! Even some of those low-threat combatants went right back out and demonstrated that they ARE a threat. That proves that it's right to take caution and to hold combatants even longer in the future.