If the U.S. is at war, why are we "arresting" suspects?

[FlamingoBlue]

Admittedly, I am no expert in wartime actions by the government. Maybe one of our in house info junkies can help me to
understand when an individual paricipating in wartime/terrorist activities becomes subject to military as oppossed to criminal justice.

The current "roundup" of suspects (soldiers/terrorists) are being detained by law enforcement authorities worldwide, rather than the military. Does that mean that those persons will be tried in a civil court? I cannot imagine a trial for Mr Bin-Laden or his supporters, but that's where this venture may take us.

blue

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Soldiers in uniform are "captured" under the rules of engagement. Everyone else is "arrested".

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

Dixon's right, but so are you, Blue. The ideas of "war" and "crime" used to be very distinct, but they've become more and more blurry. Since Nuremburg we've persecuted "war criminals" under the assumption that even during times of war there exists a universal moral standard by which we should all be judged. What we have here seems to be the converse - "criminal warriors", individuals with allegiance to ideals rather than to a state, perpetrating the worst type of acts on society.

I'm reminded of Denzel Washington's speech in the movie "Crimson Tide" in which he declares war itself to be our enemy rather than any particular group. We seem to be moving more and more toward this idea. Even had a particular government been responsible for these attacks, I think we've become so sensitive to the horrors of war and the deaths of innocents that maybe war as we've known it before is gone forever.

I'm talking out of my ass. Who knows?

 

[FlamingoBlue]

I have been doing some research, and....

it just isn't very clear to me how the captured terrorists will be treated. The DOJ and the FBI have primary jurisdiction over terrorist acts within the USA. There is also a provision for the DOJ to authorize the military to become involved.

The idea of a soldier dressed in combat garb being considered to be the only person subject to military justice is unclear. A terrorist may be considered a soldier , uniform or not.

I could use some help on this folks!!!


blue

 

[lavender]

 

[Young Knave]

Actually it predates Nuremberg, this idea of war crimes. It dates back to the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino hundreds of years ago. After this war the concepts of international humanitarian law (the law of war) started to arise. They were codified in the Geneva Conventions. If you want more info, let me know.

Ok, Miss Smartypants. How do you know so much about the battle of Sarrahfinna anyway? Just wondering.

 

[lavender]

 

[lavender]

 

[Young Knave]

The Battle of Solferino. As I've said on this board numerous times my thesis was on the International Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia. The thesis dealt with the history and political theories behind the conflict. It also discussed the emergence of strict adherence to international humanitarian law. The idea originated at the Battle of Solferino. A Swiss man by the name of Henry Dunant walked upon the battle field and saw the numerous wounded soldiers who were not receiving any help. This was the start of the Red Cross. The war was fought between French and Austrian troops (and others) in 1859 as part of Italy's unification efforts.

Interesting. And all I learned in college was how to shotgun a beer. (jjust kidding)

 

[FlamingoBlue]

How did I know that Lavender would be...

the one to help me out?? Well, back to my original question. Why are we arresting folks and processing them as civilian criminals rather than mlitary soldiers??

blue

 

[lavender]

 

[shadowsource]

The "war."

Why are we arresting folks and processing them as civilian criminals rather than mlitary soldiers??

Because this is a war in the same sense that the War of Poverty was a war. Or the War on Drugs is a war. Because the president said so. It's spin. There is no declared war, and there is no formal and legal state of emergency, or martial law. Nothing supercedes the normal civil authority. Don't forget that when we "invaded" Panama (from bases in that tiny country), we arrested Noriega and put him on trial in criminal court. Nothing's changed from the normal course of a chase after extremely dangerous criminals except that the State Department and Pentagon are also involved because of the geography and scale of the problem. And the Attorney General is trying to pass a bunch of laws that won't really affect the criminals in question, but will affect us forever (had to get that in).

Oh yeah, and the Brits are moving very fast toward those ID cards we were discussing here recently.

 

[KillerMuffin]

Myabe because that while there is all this great talk about us being at war with the terrorists, we don't actually mean conventional warfare. See, terrorists lack two basic necessity to actually engage in actual war. Soveriegnty and land. You cannot fight conventional warfare, whatever form conventional means, with the military when there is no place to fight it and no government to fight it with.

Hence, the war is currently in its arresting suspects stages. Terrorists are not soldiers no matter what rhetoric they spout. They are criminals. Governments who harbor, terrorists, however, are things we can actually make war one. That's why we've been posturing against Afghanistan. We want to make war on them. Therefore we make all these demands.

You can not make war on individual persons or sects.
You can not make war on landless and governmentless groups of people. They can make war on us, because we have land and a government. We cannot make war on them. It's semantics.

Therefore, we call them criminals and arrest them. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy to know that we have the death penalty here, duddnit?

You're an intelligent man, blue. I thought you understood the basics concepts of what "war" is. It's very simple and very basic. No government, no war.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

This is about the definition of......

"combatants" and the Geneva Conventions, KM. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. I appreciate your reply. I just find it to be intellectually lacking. Do a little research and get back to me.

blue

 

[Problem Child]

We are arresting them because unlike the people we are arresting, we believe that accused persons are considered innocent until they are proven guilty. As a lawyer you know this.

Why does it need to be made more complicated than that?

If we need to use soldiers to find some of them, they will be captured, and detained...the same words apply whether you call them criminals or soldiers, military or civilian.

If they resist, they will be killed in the field, just as police officers have the right to kill criminal suspects that resist.

Soldiers are our police officers in foreign lands...they just don't have to worry as much about being prosecuted after pulling the trigger.

 

[lavender]

 

[Problem Child]

There's a big difference between the war on drugs and the "war" on terrorism- nobody wants to be bombed, shot, gassed, or infected with biological agents.

There is no demand factor here.

 

[lavender]

 

[sexy-girl]

this isnt just about one man this is about ten's of thousands of people maybe more that need to be caught and stopped ... how else would you want to deal with them apart from in courts and by the law ... send people to camps that we suspect of doing this


if your not going to send them onto trial what else ... gas them ?


it sounds familier to something else that happened in the last century


i agree with everything KM said about this ... i dont think it should of been called a war from the start ... it just glorifys the terrorists and is telling them exactly what they want to hear

 

[shadowsource]

The rhetoric started out as massive BS -

This isn't a war. It's a global law-enforcement action that will sometimes involve troops. Living detainees will presumably be brought back for trial, or tried and imprisoned in host countries. It looks like we'll soon be bombing the Afghanis with food and wanted posters and explanatory texts, which i think is a damned good idea. The sci-fi version: Drop cell phones and ask them to tell us where the bastard is....

 

[KillerMuffin]

Re: This is about the definition of......

"combatants" and the Geneva Conventions, KM. It is not as simple as you make it out to be. I appreciate your reply. I just find it to be intellectually lacking. Do a little research and get back to me.

blue

I cannot believe that you have the unmitigated gall to call me stupid.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I was gonna drop it, but nah.

I used to respect you, blue. I thought you were intelligent, witty, and a pretty decent guy. You seemed generally caring and, in general, above the petty skirmishes I like to wallow in. I overlooked your condescension, I overlooked your paternal better than you attitude, and I overlooked your conceit.

I see that I was completely wrong. You PM me about personal attacks, and I have yet to see myself personally attacking you.

And now you call me stupid.

I tried to answer something in a polite and informed way and you have the temerity to tell me that I misunderstood a simple question, then pat me on the behind and send me scuttling off like some lap dog.

And then you called me stupid.

Fuck you.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

I never called YOU anything, KM....

It was your reply that I referred to as being rather simplistic. And fuck you too, bless your heart.

blue

 

[shadowsource]

Hey, this is depressing -

I like and respect both of you. No advice being offered, but I do hate to see clever and decent folk going at it.

 

[FlamingoBlue]

Re: Hey, this is depressing -

I like and respect both of you. No advice being offered, but I do hate to see clever and decent folk going at it.

Did you see Ashcroft on tv yesterday?? Now that was really depressing.

As for me and KM, that misunderstanding is yesterday's news, as far as I'm concerned. Upwards and Onwards!

I'm planning on emailing the U.S. State Department for a definitive answer to my question. When I hear something, I'll get back to you.

blue