Posted on Sep 27, 2015
What should we do with the terrorists whom we capture?
6.85K
56
36
4
4
0
This question is inspired by another related discussion on RallyPoint wherein the RP audience is discussing their reaction to the news that President Obama has ordered the release of another terrorist from the facility at Guantanamo Bay. This question is different in that, rather than being reactive (What do you think about what happened), it is proactive (What do you think should be done?). This should give us a taste of what it is like to govern.
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/while-your-attention-was-focused-on-the-pope-obama-did-this-what-are-your-thoughts
I feel that my response to that other discussion will serve to frame this one...
"What should we do with these people? I'm beginning to think there is no good answer. The President's solution, to release the terrorists who have been captured, certainly isn't it. Although as another member of the RP audience has observed, this returns them to the battlefield where someone may exercise better sense and merely kill rather than capture them. Trying them as criminals so that they may be incarcerated in penal facilities or executed has a serious downside; a public trial would expose the methods and intelligence used to capture them thereby alerting other terrorists. We can't detain them as POWs inasmuch as they are not soldiers of a belligerent state as defined by the Geneva Conventions (and there does not yet appear to be an end to the conflict in which they have participated). We've tried returning them to their native lands on the promise that governments there would "keep an eye on them to prevent future terrorism" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Maybe this should be the topic of another discussion thread. Maybe we can "crowdsource" a solution among ourselves. I have little confidence that our government is going to do any better, do you?"
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/while-your-attention-was-focused-on-the-pope-obama-did-this-what-are-your-thoughts
I feel that my response to that other discussion will serve to frame this one...
"What should we do with these people? I'm beginning to think there is no good answer. The President's solution, to release the terrorists who have been captured, certainly isn't it. Although as another member of the RP audience has observed, this returns them to the battlefield where someone may exercise better sense and merely kill rather than capture them. Trying them as criminals so that they may be incarcerated in penal facilities or executed has a serious downside; a public trial would expose the methods and intelligence used to capture them thereby alerting other terrorists. We can't detain them as POWs inasmuch as they are not soldiers of a belligerent state as defined by the Geneva Conventions (and there does not yet appear to be an end to the conflict in which they have participated). We've tried returning them to their native lands on the promise that governments there would "keep an eye on them to prevent future terrorism" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge). Maybe this should be the topic of another discussion thread. Maybe we can "crowdsource" a solution among ourselves. I have little confidence that our government is going to do any better, do you?"
Posted in these groups: 
Terrorism
Terrorism
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 15
8
8
0
6
6
0
As long as we cannot count on keeping them locked up, firing squads would work for me.
There is no recidivism among the dead.
There is no recidivism among the dead.
(6)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
As compelling as that solution is, is it just? Sure, it seems just if the "detainee" was witnessed actually engaging in terrorist activities and there was proof of this beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if the person is detained by US forces during an operation but not actually observed engaging in acts of terrorism? I encountered this problem sitting on panels that had to decide what to do with detainees in Vietnam. They were in possession of "some things" a VC might carry, but many civilians might have those as well. What then?
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
CPT Jack Durish,
Tribunal to determine the facts, followed by release, detention, or firing squad.
Ideally we should keep them prisoners until the end of hostilities and then release them, but the ACLU and their ilk have removed that option. Firing squads are preferable to releasing them to kill again, as so many have already done.
What we have left now are the worst of the worst, and they should not be released in any case.
Tribunal to determine the facts, followed by release, detention, or firing squad.
Ideally we should keep them prisoners until the end of hostilities and then release them, but the ACLU and their ilk have removed that option. Firing squads are preferable to releasing them to kill again, as so many have already done.
What we have left now are the worst of the worst, and they should not be released in any case.
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
While everyone was distracted with the Pope's visit, Obama quietly released another terrorist from Guantanamo... This time he released Bin Laden's bodyguard, Abdul Rahman Shalabi.
Many of the detainees were picked up on a battlefield in a war zone. And typically, they are not from the areas they were picked up in. For example: Yemeni picked up in Iraq walking around in civilian clothes after shots were taken at our troops. Doesn't have a gun on him, but a weapon was found nearby and the rounds came from the direction he was at when captured. If you are not a combatant, not a journalist, and you are not from there, then what are you doing in a war zone? It doesn't take a genius to figure out these detainees are not innocent bystanders. And because they aren't associated with any country, they don't fall under the Geneva Convention. It's not like ISIS follows it anyway.
So what is everyone's beef about keeping these animals in cages?
Many of the detainees were picked up on a battlefield in a war zone. And typically, they are not from the areas they were picked up in. For example: Yemeni picked up in Iraq walking around in civilian clothes after shots were taken at our troops. Doesn't have a gun on him, but a weapon was found nearby and the rounds came from the direction he was at when captured. If you are not a combatant, not a journalist, and you are not from there, then what are you doing in a war zone? It doesn't take a genius to figure out these detainees are not innocent bystanders. And because they aren't associated with any country, they don't fall under the Geneva Convention. It's not like ISIS follows it anyway.
So what is everyone's beef about keeping these animals in cages?
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
Capt Jeff S., that's the way it had always been until the Dems and the ACLU wanted to use the issue to attack Bush. The SCOTUS agreed and re-wrote the law, and now we are stuck with it. Firing squad is better than releasing them to kill again if we cannot keep them imprisoned until the end of hostilities as the unlawful combatants that they are.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
We trade 'em around like baseball cards because our government now negotiates with and bargains with terrorists and those who fund them.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google