Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm no fan of Trump and I think he'll be a disaster as President, but people overlook the fact that with 8 years of Obama, America has had:
----I am no fan of President Obama, though I did vote for him once. Some things here I feel need to have a little more added.

Hundreds of civilians killed by drone strikes he gave the green light to.
-- President Obama did not "green light" strikes to kill civilians, he gave it to kill combatants who happened to be in an area where civilians could and did get hurt. War has changed and that there is even a process to consider whether or not a strike should occur shows that the President is not some bloodthirsty maniac.

A backtracking of his promise to close G'Bay
---- Candidate Obama did not have the same background and intelligence briefings about the monsters locked up there that President Obama did. He had the courage to "break" a promise made on good faith when more information came to light. This is not a bad thing.

More uses of the espionage act than any other President in American history.
--- With social media and the trends in pretty much all western media, he had to.

War declared on whistleblowers, and a shameful betrayal of his Presidential oath to defend the American constitution.
--- Edward Snowden was not a whistleblower, he was a traitor, so were Bradley Manning and this latest spy. No actual whistleblower was brought to charges. Snowden fled the country and provided that information not to congress or any US institution of Justice, the arch hypocrite provided it to Russia and the PRC, two of the most repressive regimes on the planet. He is no hero.

The latest thing making the rounds on Facebook seems to be the whole "People want a $15 minimum wage job, so McDonalds is putting in these self-service kiosks everywhere" issue. Which makes me shake my head for two reasons;

One: Self-service kiosks have been going in everywhere for close to a decade now (fast food, walmart, grocery stores) even with a minimum wage that is effectively the lowest it has been in a decades.

Two: The people laughing and pointing are the same people that think that Trump is going to bring back the jobs that have been replaced by machines on assembly lines.

I think that both Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning could be looked at as heroes. Manning maybe an incompetent hero.

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Point of fact that it's the Greens, not the Democrats, demanding the recount. People seem to be having a hard time with the idea that there are actually more than two political parties in the US, and keep blaming the Dems for what the Greens are doing. Clinton has agreed to participate in the recount, but is not directly involved in it, afaik

The Democrats are backing it, are they not? That puts them on the side of the people who want a recount.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Point of fact that it's the Greens, not the Democrats, demanding the recount. People seem to be having a hard time with the idea that there are actually more than two political parties in the US, and keep blaming the Dems for what the Greens are doing. Clinton has agreed to participate in the recount, but is not directly involved in it, afaik

The Democrats are backing it, are they not? That puts them on the side of the people who want a recount.

He is trying to say there is not just two sides to american politics, and the green party and democratic party don't always align on interests or goals.

The Democratic Party is participating, and I'm pretty sure that the GOP is participating as well. That's what you do when votes are under a recount, you represent your party's interest in the recount process.

AngryElfIgnoresLOS wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Point of fact that it's the Greens, not the Democrats, demanding the recount. People seem to be having a hard time with the idea that there are actually more than two political parties in the US, and keep blaming the Dems for what the Greens are doing. Clinton has agreed to participate in the recount, but is not directly involved in it, afaik

The Democrats are backing it, are they not? That puts them on the side of the people who want a recount.

He is trying to say there is not just two sides to american politics, and the green party and democratic party don't always align on interests or goals.

And what I'm trying to say is that they are aligning in this instance.

Well looks like the ND pipeline will be forced to move

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/dakota-pipeline-protests/army-corps-makes-decision-dakota-access-pipeline-n691771

The secretary of the Army Corps of Engineers told Standing Rock Sioux Chairman Dave Archambault II Sunday that the current route for the controversial Dakota Access pipeline will be denied.

"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," the Army's Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a statement Sunday. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."

 thekingofkings wrote:

A backtracking of his promise to close G'Bay
---- Candidate Obama did not have the same background and intelligence briefings about the monsters locked up there that President Obama did. He had the courage to "break" a promise made on good faith when more information came to light. This is not a bad thing.

If they have committed crimes then charge them. Considering that many people locked up in Guantanamo have been released with no charges ever being filed or getting to face their accusers in a court of law, I find it hard to categorise them all as "monsters", as should anybody who believes in the rule of law.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

A backtracking of his promise to close G'Bay
---- Candidate Obama did not have the same background and intelligence briefings about the monsters locked up there that President Obama did. He had the courage to "break" a promise made on good faith when more information came to light. This is not a bad thing.

If they have committed crimes then charge them. Considering that many people locked up in Guantanamo have been released with no charges ever being filed or getting to face their accusers in a court of law, I find it hard to categorise them all as "monsters", as should anybody who believes in the rule of law.

But you have no idea who those people are, and criminal law is not really applicable in wartime as for rule of law, you are aware that it is perfectly lawful to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict, as they are all members of organizations that are still actively engaged with US forces, they can be detained without charge until the end of the conflict.

 thekingofkings wrote:
But you have no idea who those people are, and criminal law is not really applicable in wartime as for rule of law, you are aware that it is perfectly lawful to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict, as they are all members of organizations that are still actively engaged with US forces, they can be detained without charge until the end of the conflict.

What happened to the idea of the US being better than our enemies?

And no, the laws of war don't apply here because the US is not fighting a war against an enemy state. You don't get to call criminal acts "war" because you've decided to use all of your military toys to fight against criminal organizations, just like the police in the US can't send gang members accused of drug deals/murder/whatever to prison until there are no more gangs left in the US.

The problem with that position is that we are not "at war" with "a nation state", so they are not combatants.

According to Geneva Convention rules, combatants include citizens of a nation who take up arms despite not being regular armed forces.

Combatants have to be treated by normal rules of war as soldiers.

If they are not combatants, they are criminals.

However, the Guantanamo residents are not being treated either as criminals or as combatants. They are treated as "illegal combatants", a new category of armed opposer that was invented by Bush to justify locking people up for ever without trial and is not recognised by international law.

This is not to disagree with your point that there are some bad people in there, however there almost certainly are some not bad people in there who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Therefore the existence of Guantanamo continues to offend against western principles of the rule of law that we are supposedly fighting to uphold.

I don't know if there is any best solution to this overall problem.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
But you have no idea who those people are, and criminal law is not really applicable in wartime as for rule of law, you are aware that it is perfectly lawful to hold enemy combatants for the duration of the conflict, as they are all members of organizations that are still actively engaged with US forces, they can be detained without charge until the end of the conflict.

What happened to the idea of the US being better than our enemies?

And no, the laws of war don't apply here because the US is not fighting a war against an enemy state. You don't get to call criminal acts "war" because you've decided to use all of your military toys to fight against criminal organizations, just like the police in the US can't send gang members accused of drug deals/murder/whatever to prison until there are no more gangs left in the US.

Yes actually you do get to call it war, and it has plenty of precedence in the world. Not least of all that the enemy declared themselves in a state of war and have done so repeatedly and often. It does not require a "state" to be an active combatant. The Tamil Tigers being the most obvious example. As for us being better than our enemies, we clearly are, unless you are a hopeless sympathizer or completely oblivious, this is an enemy that burns captive pilots alive, deliberately targets civilians and intends to continue to do so. But if you want to insist on "statehood" the Caliphate while unrecognized declared itself a state, and Al Qaeda was an active co belligerent with the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan before that states dissolution for the current Afghan government.

I agree with you that we are better than ISIL etc, but that does not make us perfect.

If the ISIL declares itself a state and we do not care to recognise it as such, where does that leave prisoners from ISIL forces?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with you that we are better than ISIL etc, but that does not make us perfect.

If the ISIL declares itself a state and we do not care to recognise it as such, where does that leave prisoners from ISIL forces?

perfect is unattainable, but as for their forces, they are enemy combatants. We do not have to recognize their state any more than Sri Lanka did with Tamil Eelam. which is why we we take them as prisoners of war. US forces have to follow US law ( and international where applicable) our allies and co-belligerents follow their own laws. IF we take them, they become US pows and off to Gitmo or other places they go. The problem with fighting fanatics is the large number of them that return to the battlefield upon release or parole. There are a lot of "grey" areas here that frankly we were not really prepared for.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree with you that we are better than ISIL etc, but that does not make us perfect.

If the ISIL declares itself a state and we do not care to recognise it as such, where does that leave prisoners from ISIL forces?

The US still signed Geneva. ISIL forces are POWs. However, it also means that they can be prosecuted as war criminals.

Not that the US will. Too many countries are demanding that the US hand over wanted war criminals like Calley and Medina, men who's crimes have never really been punished beyond a discharge and three years in Leavenworth.

To return to the subject of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are ISIL as far as I am aware... What does the COTW gain by keeping these people locked up indefinitely without trial?

It seems to me that except for superheroes, individual fighters actually are fairly replaceable. If so, keeping these individual guys out of the firing line has very little practical effect.

Its morale effect may actually be negative, for example by demonstrating to pre-radicalised Muslim youths that we don't truly give a feth about our purported values of law and equity, etc. that we claim make us superior to our opponents.

I am merely advancing points for discussion here.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
To return to the subject of the prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, none of whom are ISIL as far as I am aware... What does the COTW gain by keeping these people locked up indefinitely without trial?

It seems to me that except for superheroes, individual fighters actually are fairly replaceable. If so, keeping these individual guys out of the firing line has very little practical effect.

Its morale effect may actually be negative, for example by demonstrating to pre-radicalised Muslim youths that we don't truly give a feth about our purported values of law and equity, etc. that we claim make us superior to our opponents.

I am merely advancing points for discussion here.

The common footsoldier is not detained in Gitmo, these are the planners, leaders etc.. people who while can be replaced, would be of both propoganda and experience wise a boon to the warring parties. As for a morale effect. we are not going to ever make these people love us, at the very least we can make them hesitant. A sad reality is that their propogandists are alot better than ours. You can see it in the amount of sympathy they garner throughout the world. the battle of Mosul is a prime example, there is alot of western influence that puts all the onus on the iraqi army for casualties and the destruction in general.

 thekingofkings wrote:
perfect is unattainable, but as for their forces, they are enemy combatants. We do not have to recognize their state any more than Sri Lanka did with Tamil Eelam. which is why we we take them as prisoners of war. US forces have to follow US law ( and international where applicable) our allies and co-belligerents follow their own laws. IF we take them, they become US pows and off to Gitmo or other places they go. The problem with fighting fanatics is the large number of them that return to the battlefield upon release or parole. There are a lot of "grey" areas here that frankly we were not really prepared for.

No, this is completely wrong. The laws of war (including the taking of POWs) apply to wars between recognized states. If a group is not fighting on behalf of a recognized state then they are civilian criminals, just like gangs in the US shooting each other over drug deals can not be declared "enemy combatants" even if they shoot at the police.

And no, "gray areas" are not an excuse. If the people we are holding are legitimately guilty of crimes then try them, convict them, and sentence them to prison. The issue is not that we can't handle the concept of "this person shot at US soldiers" without inventing a whole new category to put them into, it's that giving them civilian trials allows the possibility of them being found not guilty and released and/or requires the US to present secret information in court instead of declaring "we have proof". Imagine if we applied the same standard to civilian crimes: "we know you're guilty of this murder but we can't prove it, so we'll just hold you indefinitely until the War on Murder is over and there are no more murders in the US".

How do we know that, without a trial that allows public disclosure?

In terms of morale effect, we don't need to make our enemies love us, we need to stop neutrals from coming to hate us for our hypocrisy and lies, and instead bring them to understand that the western way is the best way. This is where the problem lies, IMO.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
perfect is unattainable, but as for their forces, they are enemy combatants. We do not have to recognize their state any more than Sri Lanka did with Tamil Eelam. which is why we we take them as prisoners of war. US forces have to follow US law ( and international where applicable) our allies and co-belligerents follow their own laws. IF we take them, they become US pows and off to Gitmo or other places they go. The problem with fighting fanatics is the large number of them that return to the battlefield upon release or parole. There are a lot of "grey" areas here that frankly we were not really prepared for.

No, this is completely wrong. The laws of war (including the taking of POWs) apply to wars between recognized states. If a group is not fighting on behalf of a recognized state then they are civilian criminals, just like gangs in the US shooting each other over drug deals can not be declared "enemy combatants" even if they shoot at the police.

And no, "gray areas" are not an excuse. If the people we are holding are legitimately guilty of crimes then try them, convict them, and sentence them to prison. The issue is not that we can't handle the concept of "this person shot at US soldiers" without inventing a whole new category to put them into, it's that giving them civilian trials allows the possibility of them being found not guilty and released and/or requires the US to present secret information in court instead of declaring "we have proof". Imagine if we applied the same standard to civilian crimes: "we know you're guilty of this murder but we can't prove it, so we'll just hold you indefinitely until the War on Murder is over and there are no more murders in the US".

You do not have to like it, but its not wrong:

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

you are using comparisons that are not equivalents, you are expecting soldiers on a battlefield to assume the role of law enforcement. That is not their job, and these men were not taken at whim off the streets. They are taken as prisoners in active combat,. there is not now, nor has there ever been a burden of proof required between belligerents.

 thekingofkings wrote:

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

you are using comparisons that are not equivalents, you are expecting soldiers on a battlefield to assume the role of law enforcement. That is not their job, and these men were not taken at whim off the streets. They are taken as prisoners in active combat,. there is not now, nor has there ever been a burden of proof required between belligerents.

Taliban/AQ/ISIS are not a recognized government and do not have citizens, if they were we wouldn't have created Gitmo to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: the other problem IMO is that our own soldiers should know that by not applying the Geneva Convention to the enemies they are fighting, their own Geneva Convention cards are effectively worthless and they do not have any protections themselves and our enemies can do with them as they please.

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

you are using comparisons that are not equivalents, you are expecting soldiers on a battlefield to assume the role of law enforcement. That is not their job, and these men were not taken at whim off the streets. They are taken as prisoners in active combat,. there is not now, nor has there ever been a burden of proof required between belligerents.

Taliban/AQ/ISIS are not a recognized government and do not have citizens, if they were we wouldn't have created Gitmo to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: the other problem IMO is that our own soldiers should know that by not applying the Geneva Convention to the enemies they are fighting, their own Geneva Convention cards are effectively worthless and they do not have any protections themselves and our enemies can do with them as they please.

The Taliban regime was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, three of our allies. AQ were considered by the Taliban as guests and citizens ( dating to their activities as anti soviet mujahideen) the Islamic state does not require recognition it is a de facto state holding territory and with a recognizable capital.

regardless that our troops are on solid legal footing, its painfully obvious that none of those combatants give a rats arse about the geneva conventions.

And why should they?

 thekingofkings wrote:
The Taliban regime was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, three of our allies. AQ were considered by the Taliban as guests and citizens ( dating to their activities as anti soviet mujahideen) the Islamic state does not require recognition it is a de facto state holding territory and with a recognizable capital.

The Taliban regime no longer exists, so you can't keep holding POWs from a war that has ended. AQ/ISIS are criminal organizations, not recognized nations. The fact that ISIS holds territory does not make it a state, just like the tales of "neighborhoods so dangerous the police won't go there" don't turn gangs into governments.

 thekingofkings wrote:
That is not their job, and these men were not taken at whim off the streets. They are taken as prisoners in active combat,. there is not now, nor has there ever been a burden of proof required between belligerents.

That is not wholly true. Some people "detained" in the War on Terror were snatched by, or on the orders of, the CIA miles away from any conflict zone. Many were snatched by people in conflict zones and handed over to the US for money.

I suggest you go out and actually read up on this, go through all of the prisoners of Guantanamo and see how many of them have now been released without any charges being brought, people like Khalid El-Masri, Shaker Aamer, Sami al-Hajj etc.

 Peregrine wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
The Taliban regime was recognized by Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, three of our allies. AQ were considered by the Taliban as guests and citizens ( dating to their activities as anti soviet mujahideen) the Islamic state does not require recognition it is a de facto state holding territory and with a recognizable capital.

The Taliban regime no longer exists, so you can't keep holding POWs from a war that has ended. AQ/ISIS are criminal organizations, not recognized nations. The fact that ISIS holds territory does not make it a state, just like the tales of "neighborhoods so dangerous the police won't go there" don't turn gangs into governments.

The Taliban do still exist, they are not in power in Kabul, but they have not ended hostilities in any way. So their relationship to Al Qaeda remains as well. The Taliban regime continues to fight to reclaim their seat of government and in all ways operates as a shadow govt in areas not under their direct control and de facto govt of territories that they do control. And yes ISIS is a de facto state, A "de facto government" comes into, or remains in, power by means not provided for in the country's constitution, such as a coup d'état, revolution, usurpation, abrogation or suspension of the constitution. ISIS declared their statehood on lands "usurped" from Iraq and Syria, have a declared capital and head of state. And again, using criminal gang mentality to equate to groups like AQ, MNLF, etc. is not a comparison of like.

So the people in Gitmo are POWs? That would mean they are held in violation of international treaties.

 d-usa wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention.

you are using comparisons that are not equivalents, you are expecting soldiers on a battlefield to assume the role of law enforcement. That is not their job, and these men were not taken at whim off the streets. They are taken as prisoners in active combat,. there is not now, nor has there ever been a burden of proof required between belligerents.

Taliban/AQ/ISIS are not a recognized government and do not have citizens, if they were we wouldn't have created Gitmo to begin with.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit: the other problem IMO is that our own soldiers should know that by not applying the Geneva Convention to the enemies they are fighting, their own Geneva Convention cards are effectively worthless and they do not have any protections themselves and our enemies can do with them as they please.

Our enemies already ignore the Geneva Convention...

 d-usa wrote:
So the people in Gitmo are POWs? That would mean they are held in violation of international treaties.

They are POWs and Unlawful combatants are held held legally as previously pointed out. They can be held for the duration of the conflict, which is still ongoing. The US has also allowed the ICRC access to these people and have notified the countries of their origin of their status. You dont have to like it, but its legal.