Full Version: Kill, Don't Capture
A recent editorial in the NY Post has the headline: Kill, Don't Capture: How to Solve Our Prisoner Problem
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
QUOTE
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
<snip>
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
<snip>
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 10 2006, 03:19 PM) 
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
Ahh... the perfect question.
Rules of engagement are spelled out to all soldiers and specifically to all military leaders. Simply put, when fired upon, you can shoot back when civilians aren't smack in the middle of the way (and even sometimes when they are).
My feeling is that any insurgents who engage US forces should and can be killed when armed and capable of inflicting harm to US troops. This actually, is generally what happens. The stark contrast involves how we handle those that find themselves in precarious situations where capture is inevitable. What would we do then? Shoot them in cold blood? Hmm.... I dunno about that. It kinda goes against what makes you feel American.
I think the sincere issue arises when people harbor terrorists, how we handle the capture and detainment of terrorists/sympathizers, and how heavy our hand is in communities known to be such havens.
I believe that as this is the largest deployment of Special Operations (Special Forces/Seals, etc) in US history, and because this war is being fought in a most unconventional manner, that Special Forces Operators and Seals should have the levity to use force in a less than conventional fashion. Should that be to garner intelligence, so be it.
The question and the article would lead me to believe that there should be cold blooded killings so as to decimate the force and demoralize the mission. My personal opinion is that, as effective as it may be, this is probably as Un-American as there is.
So the real question is what policy will work? Well... I think we can learn from the Russians in Afghanistan that using a large conventional force in a conventional method will NOT work.
I believe that the easiest way to turn the hearts and minds of the civilian population is to ensure that comfort and relative wealth are a consequence of pushing violence out of their communities. Insurgents must rely on the safe harbor of respective communities. This happens either out of sympathy or fear. If our Special Forces offer protection, training, and a methodology that ensures a future... we might just have established an Arab ally. Look just at how well this has worked with the Khurds...
If we plan on killing insurgents in the streets, regardless of their threat level, I don't know how far that will go to win hearts and minds...
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Whenever there is an engagement situation where hostilities are high, I expect our soldiers to follow all the rules of engagement and war treaties signed. While under fire, I expect nothing less then defending themselves at all costs. However, if there comes a situation where the enemy has either surrendered or been caught off guard, they should be captured according to the rules of war. The problem I see with this policy is that our soldiers may be put in a position where they must kill in cold blood and that is not a position we want to put them in. They have enough to deal with then having the knowledge that they killed a man waving a white flag of surrender.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
It would do more harm then good. Yes it is logical to suppose that if we killed all enemy combatants that we would not have human rights groups on our backs complaining about torture of detainees since there wouldnt be any. But i think its a line we should never cross for it is a sacrifice of our principles. We are better then them. We dont behead civilians and we dont massacre innocent people for the hope of political gain in the hopes of instilling fear into the population. As my understanding of world affairs and political philosophy has grown, have come to the conclusion that liberty is not about one man or one nation or one peoples. It is about every individual on this planet. We cannot give freedom to few and deny it to many if it is to survive. I hate Al Qaeda with every inch of my being, but that does not mean i do not recognize the rights that have been endowed to them by our creator.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
This seems reasonable in terms of legal responsibility.
Whenever there is an engagement situation where hostilities are high, I expect our soldiers to follow all the rules of engagement and war treaties signed. While under fire, I expect nothing less then defending themselves at all costs. However, if there comes a situation where the enemy has either surrendered or been caught off guard, they should be captured according to the rules of war. The problem I see with this policy is that our soldiers may be put in a position where they must kill in cold blood and that is not a position we want to put them in. They have enough to deal with then having the knowledge that they killed a man waving a white flag of surrender.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
It would do more harm then good. Yes it is logical to suppose that if we killed all enemy combatants that we would not have human rights groups on our backs complaining about torture of detainees since there wouldnt be any. But i think its a line we should never cross for it is a sacrifice of our principles. We are better then them. We dont behead civilians and we dont massacre innocent people for the hope of political gain in the hopes of instilling fear into the population. As my understanding of world affairs and political philosophy has grown, have come to the conclusion that liberty is not about one man or one nation or one peoples. It is about every individual on this planet. We cannot give freedom to few and deny it to many if it is to survive. I hate Al Qaeda with every inch of my being, but that does not mean i do not recognize the rights that have been endowed to them by our creator.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
This seems reasonable in terms of legal responsibility.
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
1. I believe you need to properly identify what exactly a terrorist is. I a man in Ramadi who has never set foot in the United States and most likely never will set foot in the United States a terrorist? Our administration uses the term terrorist quite frequently, but what is happening is called an insurgency, not terrorist uprising. Though there are certainly terrorists among the insurgents, most of the people we are fighting are NOT Osama Bin Laden or his progeny. To attempt to stretch that reasoning into terrorism, would be to condemn any one who resists our military as a terrorist, a distinction that would include the Chinese, the Russians, the Vietnamese, Koreans, and even the Germans.
2. You have to identify them. Wouldn't it be great if the terrorists all walked around with signs on around the necks saying, "I am a terrorist, please shoot me." Obviously this isn't the case. How do you tell the difference between a man who is paid to bury an IED to feed his starving family (and such men are routinely killed while in the very act of placing an IED), from the careful observer who watches and gathers intelligence to plan strike but is unarmed and hidden in a crowd? Which ones are hired body guards and which ones are merely masquerading as body guards in a country with no security? You simply have to capture them to figure out which they are, and once they are captured they are no longer a combatant of any sort but rather a prisoner. Once a prisoner, regardless of origin in combat, there are rules that do apply (if not from a treaty, then from simply morality -- we are not supposed to kill those that are unarmed PERIOD). Although we could then kill them, the whole point of the US invasion was to bring our values into a country and replace a murderous dictator.
Somehow I don't believe that killing men will help convince the world of US compassion.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
THis would irreparably harm the US war effort. On the international scene it would confirm out status as brazen warmongers and cause the collapse of what little International legitimacy we currently have. Regardless of station, some intelligence can only be garnered from the living. Who paid you? Where is your home ? How were you recruited? Who did you work with? How did you contact him? A dead man answers none of these. If we killed every person we captured we would not only lose valuable intelligence, and quite possibly kill an innocent man or woman, but we would be sending a message to the insurgents that there would be no mercy and to expect only death. Are we willing to resort to blatant torture before murder to garner information that a brutalized prisoner will most likely make up to satisfy our blood lust? Are we willing to send more US troops onto missions based off of information garnered from torture, especially when we know such information is often misleading at best and, at worst, possibly a deliberate plant leading to an ambush? How would this be a good thing?
Brutality has not helped any nation at war. Ask the Germans, or the Serbs.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
I believe Gitmo has been fully publicized, and I believe the insurgents and legitimate terrorists are more aware of what happens to them if captured than any of us can even imagine.
1. I believe you need to properly identify what exactly a terrorist is. I a man in Ramadi who has never set foot in the United States and most likely never will set foot in the United States a terrorist? Our administration uses the term terrorist quite frequently, but what is happening is called an insurgency, not terrorist uprising. Though there are certainly terrorists among the insurgents, most of the people we are fighting are NOT Osama Bin Laden or his progeny. To attempt to stretch that reasoning into terrorism, would be to condemn any one who resists our military as a terrorist, a distinction that would include the Chinese, the Russians, the Vietnamese, Koreans, and even the Germans.
2. You have to identify them. Wouldn't it be great if the terrorists all walked around with signs on around the necks saying, "I am a terrorist, please shoot me." Obviously this isn't the case. How do you tell the difference between a man who is paid to bury an IED to feed his starving family (and such men are routinely killed while in the very act of placing an IED), from the careful observer who watches and gathers intelligence to plan strike but is unarmed and hidden in a crowd? Which ones are hired body guards and which ones are merely masquerading as body guards in a country with no security? You simply have to capture them to figure out which they are, and once they are captured they are no longer a combatant of any sort but rather a prisoner. Once a prisoner, regardless of origin in combat, there are rules that do apply (if not from a treaty, then from simply morality -- we are not supposed to kill those that are unarmed PERIOD). Although we could then kill them, the whole point of the US invasion was to bring our values into a country and replace a murderous dictator.
Somehow I don't believe that killing men will help convince the world of US compassion.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
THis would irreparably harm the US war effort. On the international scene it would confirm out status as brazen warmongers and cause the collapse of what little International legitimacy we currently have. Regardless of station, some intelligence can only be garnered from the living. Who paid you? Where is your home ? How were you recruited? Who did you work with? How did you contact him? A dead man answers none of these. If we killed every person we captured we would not only lose valuable intelligence, and quite possibly kill an innocent man or woman, but we would be sending a message to the insurgents that there would be no mercy and to expect only death. Are we willing to resort to blatant torture before murder to garner information that a brutalized prisoner will most likely make up to satisfy our blood lust? Are we willing to send more US troops onto missions based off of information garnered from torture, especially when we know such information is often misleading at best and, at worst, possibly a deliberate plant leading to an ambush? How would this be a good thing?
Brutality has not helped any nation at war. Ask the Germans, or the Serbs.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
I believe Gitmo has been fully publicized, and I believe the insurgents and legitimate terrorists are more aware of what happens to them if captured than any of us can even imagine.
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
It should adopt a policy that sends troops into a war, not a conflict like this.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
I think that the insurgency would just find a way to make mass casualty attacks or casualties of our forces become more possible.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
I think the US should inform insurgency that the people they want to kill want to survive and that measures will be taken to minimize all possible threat in accordance with the policy the opposition holds for engaging US forces.
It should adopt a policy that sends troops into a war, not a conflict like this.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
I think that the insurgency would just find a way to make mass casualty attacks or casualties of our forces become more possible.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
I think the US should inform insurgency that the people they want to kill want to survive and that measures will be taken to minimize all possible threat in accordance with the policy the opposition holds for engaging US forces.
QUOTE(Amlord @ Jul 10 2006, 04:19 PM)
A recent editorial in the NY Post has the headline: Kill, Don't Capture: How to Solve Our Prisoner Problem
QUOTE
Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.
<snip>
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
<snip>
The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.
Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
First question: Yes of course!
Second question: How could harm occur? Let them bob for catfish suspended from a blackhawk and it they have no comments when surfaced then they have no information to share.
Last question: Let it spread by word of mouth...
The reason I ansered this debate is because when I was stationed at Ft. Bragg, NC in XVIIIth Airborne Corps in 1979 an Army Major told us lowly enlisted a story about why if someone breaks into your house you must kill them or help them load the tv in their van or they will sue you... he went on to say if the theif is in the yard with your tv to say enjoy my tv or shoot him and drag him back into your house and put a knife from your kitchen drawer in his hand.... Guess that pretty much sums up my reasoning....
He cited a truck driver who made long trips in WV to out west that lived in the country... every time he was gone the house was robbed... so the truckdriver set a boobie trap with a shotgun pointing to the point of entry from former losses... the theif was shot while the guy was out on a trip and lost both of his legs below the knee... he sued the truck driver and took his trailor truck and his farm. The Major's day I guess?
The enemy will never surrender if they know they'll simply be shot, so from a military standpoint this could cost us lives. Though it could also save us money, and alleviate some of the bad rep were getting about detaining people without giving them trials.
A bigger issue here, is our better safe then sorry arresting procedures, which are not perfect, and which sometimes result in us taking innocents into custody. One will recall months ago 60 minutes interviewed a man who had been captured by the FBI in Europe, who was guiltless of any criminal activity, and who was released somewhere in northern Africa 6 months after being taken in Greece.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a better safe then sorry approach to terrorism, but I am saying if we kill suspects on site, we risk making mistakes that will be irreversible in any fashion.
A bigger issue here, is our better safe then sorry arresting procedures, which are not perfect, and which sometimes result in us taking innocents into custody. One will recall months ago 60 minutes interviewed a man who had been captured by the FBI in Europe, who was guiltless of any criminal activity, and who was released somewhere in northern Africa 6 months after being taken in Greece.
I'm not saying we shouldn't take a better safe then sorry approach to terrorism, but I am saying if we kill suspects on site, we risk making mistakes that will be irreversible in any fashion.
QUOTE
Rules of engagement are spelled out to all soldiers and specifically to all military leaders. Simply put, when fired upon, you can shoot back when civilians aren't smack in the middle of the way (and even sometimes when they are).
On the surface that seems like a wise rational argument. However, when the human element is introduced, all apparent logic goes out the window. When you speak of 'rules of engagement', people are misled into thinking you have both sides of the coin represented when in fact you portray only one. What I mean is that if you are going to use an army's 'rules of engagement' as a law which justifies killing, then you must be prepared to use an army's 'rules of engagement' as a law which justifies prosecution of killing which do not fall under the army's 'rules of engagement' law.
I've argued this before with many people and for some reason I assume this time will be no different. 'That's an isolated incident' or 'they were stressed' are some likely arguments and excuses. For the record, no one was prosecuted over this illegal war crime murder.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm
"Wounded, another Iraqi writhes on the ground..the Marines kill him. *bang* *bang* *bang*....then cheer. 'Yeah!' Woo hoo!! Alright!'...."Those guys are dead now you know....but...it...it was a good feeling...Afterwards you're like...'Hell yeah that was awesome..let's do it again.".
^^^^^A classic example of a war crime right?^^^^^^
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6147.htm
"He's wounded! Hit him again".
Rules of war are only obeyed when both warring parties comply with the rules in my opinion... officially. Human nature will rule over judgment and if the opponet hits below the belt the you will do likewise. I don't have a problem with that and don't see why anyone should. To be of higher caliber of human than your enemy in a fight with crushed family jewels doesn't make you nobel... it makes you stupid if you allow them to continue hitting you in the family jewels.
The nature of man is to treat all people and animals with compassion... but, when the animal or human group doesn't return the compassion then human nature will demand treatment in kind. If you are an American soldier you must follow the rules of engagement if your command supports the rules and in Vietnam, for example the command lower ranked leaders were given a choice of being shot by the enemy or being shot by their soldiers if they demanded the troops take it in the family jewels... so what is wrong with that?
I heard that France objected to the UN cease fire agreement after hearing from the Arab league points of view. Then they proclaimed their former commitment to support a cease fire with a viable force to ensure continued peace FOREVER would be immoral since they had changed their minds based on a point of view of Arabs presented. So, France was going to support immoral force on Lebanon and then decided to do so would be immoral... Is it immoral to expect Israel to suck it up and give up northern Israel to a target area of terrorist? Is it immoral to hide among civilians and strike Israel? Will it be immoral when Israel sees it is getting hit an the family jewels and asked to smile and suck it up when they take no prisoners? It is all in a point of view on a battlefield and if I were Israeli soldier knowing what has happened to fellow soldiers and citizens my compassion would be just about empty...
If fighting an enemy like Israel is fighting with tunnels with multiple exits among those that lead to civilian innocent houses would you feel sorry for the dead and ask them to take it in the family jewels and smile since it is the rules!!! To do otherwise would be immoral! Immorality doesn't count when your best friend just took it in the family jewels with one (immoral) hand tied behind his back... the brutality is returned in kind and returned times ten if you can. War is cruelty and there is no refining it!
The nature of man is to treat all people and animals with compassion... but, when the animal or human group doesn't return the compassion then human nature will demand treatment in kind. If you are an American soldier you must follow the rules of engagement if your command supports the rules and in Vietnam, for example the command lower ranked leaders were given a choice of being shot by the enemy or being shot by their soldiers if they demanded the troops take it in the family jewels... so what is wrong with that?
I heard that France objected to the UN cease fire agreement after hearing from the Arab league points of view. Then they proclaimed their former commitment to support a cease fire with a viable force to ensure continued peace FOREVER would be immoral since they had changed their minds based on a point of view of Arabs presented. So, France was going to support immoral force on Lebanon and then decided to do so would be immoral... Is it immoral to expect Israel to suck it up and give up northern Israel to a target area of terrorist? Is it immoral to hide among civilians and strike Israel? Will it be immoral when Israel sees it is getting hit an the family jewels and asked to smile and suck it up when they take no prisoners? It is all in a point of view on a battlefield and if I were Israeli soldier knowing what has happened to fellow soldiers and citizens my compassion would be just about empty...
If fighting an enemy like Israel is fighting with tunnels with multiple exits among those that lead to civilian innocent houses would you feel sorry for the dead and ask them to take it in the family jewels and smile since it is the rules!!! To do otherwise would be immoral! Immorality doesn't count when your best friend just took it in the family jewels with one (immoral) hand tied behind his back... the brutality is returned in kind and returned times ten if you can. War is cruelty and there is no refining it!
This is why politics and war make bad partners overall. Politicians cannot really ever experience what the soldier or force is experiencing in the current environment, plus other issues that one could consider, like in Iraq, its an old statistic, but the majority of army rank that is dying is e-4, and then I think e-5, then e-3. These are old stats though, not sure anymore, but that’s basically the ranks out on the streets a majority of the time and having to conduct the nice orders giving. You have to imagine that the army does not train for shake and bake, its trains to obtain submission to rule so it can have waves to charge machine gun nests if need be, the enemy does not play like this, or has not stuck its head in such a box to be confined to or i think makes the choice to at anytime, basically if you cannot guarantee death to any amount of people attacking at any one point it might be hard to ever find them again, so that in itself also lends credence to fighting an ambush and destroy or attrition war another benefit. A U.S soldier has to enter into say a combat situation under control of ROE, the enemy in say Iraq does not hold an ROE, or if they do i imagine its a day to day thing at best, one of the best ways to win the war of intelligence is to simply make your actions not easily understandable in the form of patterns of what not in the environment, being environmental awareness is just about the best tool in regards to survivability. A single guy with a cell phone could simply sit and watch a spot from his house when not working and detonate in when a convoy of US troops come through, after all they are in no rush to go home, or under any real constraint save kill, really at there leisure it seems, being the tempo they hold seems just about enough to keep Iraq nothing more then some chaotic place of death. A long time ago it seemed to me via news sources they were going to change strategy away from what they are currently still doing, and to be honest i thought why would they do that, its winning and the US cannot adapt it seems, and well they never did change the strategy, they just started attacking civilians more often then US forces.
The army tries to have a plan for everything, and well reality is hardly like that, so what have you, the issue of prisoners is no different. The US is trying to give Arabs a reason to be more like us, and i think conservative elements in Islam know this, and not only is they why Iraq may be the way it is but why Lebanon attempting to be democratic and a common place for westerners to visit quickly eroded into combat, Israel is known to be selfishly aggressive in terms of force application, and well what have you now, so I ask if Israel is to be successful this way, and a majority of people view it as acceptable, maybe the US should follow suit in Iraq, after all many times already recorded insurgents have used the idea of surrender as a means to kill US personal.
The army tries to have a plan for everything, and well reality is hardly like that, so what have you, the issue of prisoners is no different. The US is trying to give Arabs a reason to be more like us, and i think conservative elements in Islam know this, and not only is they why Iraq may be the way it is but why Lebanon attempting to be democratic and a common place for westerners to visit quickly eroded into combat, Israel is known to be selfishly aggressive in terms of force application, and well what have you now, so I ask if Israel is to be successful this way, and a majority of people view it as acceptable, maybe the US should follow suit in Iraq, after all many times already recorded insurgents have used the idea of surrender as a means to kill US personal.
Should the US adopt the policy that prefers killing terrorists on the battlefield rather than capturing them?
Capture may be better if it can be done without risking American lives. We may get some information out of them. I would change my mind on this if we were forced to give these terrorists a “trial” as opposed to military tribunal.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
No effect.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
Yes. We should make it clear we will not offer Geneva Convention rights to combatants who fight out of uniform and/or consistently violate the terms of the GC as all of the AQ and insurgents have done. Needless to say this would never fly politically so why even discuss it. I am sure the ACLU would like to give each and every captured terrorist a team of lawyers and a full trial by jury in the US – at our expense of course.
Capture may be better if it can be done without risking American lives. We may get some information out of them. I would change my mind on this if we were forced to give these terrorists a “trial” as opposed to military tribunal.
Would such a policy help or harm or war on terror efforts?
No effect.
Should the US issue a warning to non-uniformed combatants informing them of the consequences of fighting in a non-traditional fashion?
Yes. We should make it clear we will not offer Geneva Convention rights to combatants who fight out of uniform and/or consistently violate the terms of the GC as all of the AQ and insurgents have done. Needless to say this would never fly politically so why even discuss it. I am sure the ACLU would like to give each and every captured terrorist a team of lawyers and a full trial by jury in the US – at our expense of course.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.