PoliceLink

Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?

Riot says ...

firefly241 says ...

Who here thinks intensive interrorgation of terrorist prisoners is acceptable?

I do...but to a limit. I believe that we, as a NATO/UN participant, have a moral obligation to be ethical in our interrigation techniques. However, I beleive that there are certain limits as to what you can accomplish from "nicer" interrogation techniques.

Like looping the Red Hot Chillipeppers, for example. Or is that too cruel?

I personally wouldn't have used the RHCP though. I would have looped The Village People, or Smashing Pumpkins. Yes, The Smashing Pumpkins would be my choice. That whiney voice should make anyone give up the info asap, or try to off themselves after a few minutes of that torture.

When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.

Also, what is classed as harsh?

Different methods are needed for the different mind set.

ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.

Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.

firefly241 says ...

taz1964 says ...

When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.

Also, what is classed as harsh?

Different methods are needed for the different mind set.

ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.

Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.

 

Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.

TALK, DAMN YOU!!!

firefly241 says ...

SEO says ...

firefly241 says ...

taz1964 says ...

When you say terrorists, I am presuming you mean those of so called Muslim faith. I say this as " the terrorist" has a very broad application.

Also, what is classed as harsh?

Different methods are needed for the different mind set.

ie........the suicide bomber, by nature is a coward. he has little formal military training, apart from basics in fighting, and weaponry skills. Then you have the insurgents, these are, or can be, very highly trained individuals. Better than some countries military. Some of them are veterans of the Afghan war, which makes them battle hardened operators, and very tough cookies indeed. Some of their warfare skills and training can be compared to SF`s in some ways. They will probably have recieved some sort of teachings in the art of interrorgation and methods used. So, again, different methods would be needed.

Imo, use any methods at your disposal to get the desired results, and f*%$k the PC brigade.

 

Insurgents or terrorists or any non-uniformed combatant does not qualify for protection under the Geneva convention therefore I believe they have no rights or protections of any kind and deserve no humane or human treatment.

TALK, DAMN YOU!!!

In previous wars when an enemy combatant was discovered behind our lines, he was shot at once as a spy.  This is allowed under the Geneva Convention.

Where are the lines in the war on terror? Abroad? In the States?

firefly241 says ...

According to the Geneva Convention a person in order to be protected as a lawful combatant must fit this criteria:

 

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
   
   


3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_combatant

 

 

Al Quaeda does not qualify for this, thus they are spies or terrorists and can be shot at once

Under what conditions? If some dude is running toward a crowd screaming "Allahlalalalaaaa!", is that reasonable grounds for shooting him dead? You didn't answer my first question though. WHERE are the lines in the war on terror? In Iraq and Afganistan, there are obvious lines. But in the States or another country where there is no active military on the ground blowing sh*t up?

Damn, you beat me to it.lol

firefly241 says ...

taz1964 says ...

Damn, you beat me to it.lol

Yeah, International law is an area of interest to me especially since I think its crap.

International law cannot be that crap, broadley speaking. International law has bonded many countries military interests and support.

Did I miss the answer to my question?

SEO says ...

firefly241 says ...

According to the Geneva Convention a person in order to be protected as a lawful combatant must fit this criteria:

 

To qualify for prisoner of war status persons waging war must have the following characteristics to be protected by the laws of war:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict


2. or members of militias not under the command of the armed forces
   
   
   
   • that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
   
   
   • that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
   
   
   • that of carrying arms openly;
   
   
   • that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
   
   
   
   


3. or are members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.


4. or inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawful_combatant

 

 

Al Quaeda does not qualify for this, thus they are spies or terrorists and can be shot at once

Under what conditions? If some dude is running toward a crowd screaming "Allahlalalalaaaa!", is that reasonable grounds for shooting him dead? You didn't answer my first question though. WHERE are the lines in the war on terror? In Iraq and Afganistan, there are obvious lines. But in the States or another country where there is no active military on the ground blowing sh*t up?

Thats a good question, and the answer in my opinion based on what I have read is that this a new kind of war where the classical paradigms do not apply.  This supports my position in that the Geneva Convention was intended for classical war between nation states and not against criminal thugs like Al-Quaeda.

Terrorism is not new, it is as old as war itself.

Do you really think we are playing by the "rules"? no we are not, and rightly so. On the face of it, our militaries stick to the "rules" set out, but it goes much deeper than that. 

taz1964 says ...

Terrorism is not new, it is as old as war itself.

Do you really think we are playing by the "rules"? no we are not, and rightly so. On the face of it, our militaries stick to the "rules" set out, but it goes much deeper than that. 

I think our military should be given maximum latitude to conduct the war and not worry so much about pr.

taz1964 says ...

There are "rules of engagement" and then there are "rules of engagement"

Your comment that the US is the only country following the rules is plainly innacurate. Please remember that this is a "Global" war on terror, and that many other countries are in this fight too. Many good, brave, and selfless men/women laying their lives on the line daily.

I know, and I want them to do whatever it takes to win and come home and not worry about offending some cleric or imam.

Riot says ...

Okay let me make this clear before people throw in their 2 cents and have absolutely no clue what the heck they are talking about...

*Any persons currently apprehended overseas are classified as DETAINED persons. Not prisoners, not captives, DETAINES. We (the United States) are not at war with any country; therefore, we have no prisoners.

Detainees do not get rights granted by the Geneva/Hague Conventions, hence their classification as a detaine.

 

Now, about the shooting scenario...since we're not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, the Use of Force Continuum applies to all US forces and armed contractors. What does that mean? ANY persons displaying the threat of life, limb or eye-sight to another person can be neutralized with as much force necessary to diffuse the situation.

 

Thanks for the info, and I am sure you will agree that giving our servicemembers every advantage needed to win is more important that following some arbitrary rules that are intended to keep us from offending a bunch of clerics.