Shouldn't Terrorists be treated like POW's and not like Civilians?

Would this not make some sense? as we are at war with terrorism, why treat suspected terrorists or terrorists as civilians, we should treat them like POWs first, then if proved innocent let them go.

[edit on 17-8-2006 by blobby]

No. Declare war on terrorism? How do you claim war on a noun, on an idea? The same could be done in "The War on Drugs" too, treating suspected drug users and dealers like POWs.

No, since there is no offically declared war against any soverign nation right now, terrorism suspects who are arrested in countries should be treated like any other civilian suspected criminal.

Otherwise, youve become a police state. Which from the looks of it, is already happening.

posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

No. Declare war on terrorism? How do you claim war on a noun, on an idea? [Edited by Don W]

Absolutely! Someone much wiser than Bush43 recognized before the dust settled on Lower Manhattan, that the crummy start up of B43's first term was “cured” by this stupendous act of terrorism committed by person or persons unknown. That person was smart enough to know the American public could be whipsawed around this newly born issue of security and hunting down the perpetrators. Sweet Jesus! It was West of the Pecos on a silver platter. Our own quick draw version of Judge Roy Bean was in the White House and knew exactly how to respond to an insult. The decision was made then and there that War trumps Economy!

A perfect storm! The Democrats are muzzled. They cannot say “No” nor can they do much except as Kerry showed us in 2004, not much more than “I can do it better.” Who cares that the stock market fell to 7,000? Who cares that the surplus of nearly $2 T. was squandered in the first few months? Who cares that by extreme tax cuts the R&Fs - Rich and Famous - have effectively shifted the tax burden into the future and onto the backs of the lowers classes.

Bill Clinton responded to this same terrorist attack on the WTC in 1993 by treating it as a crime. Ultimately, the FBI found the master-mind, he was brought to trial, and he is now in prison. We have been unable to find Osama Bin Laden for five years - soon - and in fact, Osama is so valuable to Bus43 that I am cynical enough to think the CIA has been ordered to “cool it.”

Bush43 has launched the US onto a war against an idea, and it is one we cannot possibly ever win. He and VP Cheney have let it slip several times they have no intention of ever ending this War on Terror. My problem is not so much that the US is adding one more “War” to its repertoire, - the 1940s War on Crime - the 1960s War on Poverty - the 1970s War on Drugs - but that we are being jerked around by the terrorists and pushed into mindless national bankruptcy.

The “smart guys” spend a few million and we spend multi billions. Take this last episode in London which is looking more and more like a Tony Blair helps George Bush in November 7 kind of operation - the alleged terrorists have created a new enemy for us to tackle. Cost to them? A half dozen plane tickets to Karachi. Cost to us? Already tens of billions and no end in sight.

We have got to stop acting dumb and begin to fight smart. Or we’ll see each other in Chapter 11 court.



[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]

posted by blobby

Would this not make some sense? as we are at war with terrorism, why treat suspected terrorists or terrorists as civilians, we should treat them like POWs first, then if proved innocent let them go. [Edited by Don W]

It’s a matter of existing laws. Bill Clinton treated the terrorist who attacked the WTC in 1993 as criminals who committed a crime. The FBI tracked them down, we had a genuine open court no secrets trial, and the persons were found guilty and are now serving time in prison. The American system was preserved, the cost was minimal and the issue was laid to rest.

Fast Forward to 2001. The brains behind Bush43 OTOH, saw the Nine Eleven Event as a golden opportunity handed to them by Divine Providence! They immediately co-opted - took for their own devious purposes - the Nine Eleven Event.

This - the Nine Eleven Event - is now the rationale for such un-American practice as rendition. This is the justification offered for such un-American practices as declaring a person - any person - an enemy non-combatant - which in their own distorted minds - say Alberto Gonzales - American’s own Tomas Torquemada - puts them outside all laws! Say hello Guantanamo Bay! Say Hello Abu Ghraib. Say Hello “Black Flights” around the world carrying persons into secret jails and etc.

Laws are not so much for criminals but are rules for good guys to play by.

Those suckers at Git-mo have been there for 4 years. How much do you think they know today that would be of any use to anyone? Why do we persist in keeping them there in that illegal hell-hole reminiscent of India’s Black Hole of Calcutta?

You know something, blobby, in the long run, torture is more harmful to the person committing torture than it is to the victim - assuming he survives being tortured. When it ends for him, it's over and the victim is free to recover. The perpetrator OTOH, is never free of his evil deeds.

The last thing I want in my society is a bunch of soldiers and law enforcement officers who have been committing torture “on my behalf.” Not in my lifetime! And an Administration that does that? May it rot in Hell!



[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]

My understanding is that POW’s have more rights than common criminals. Haven’t you ever heard of the IRA’s Dirty Cells Protests? (So called because part of it involved covering the cell walls with excrement)

query.nytimes.com...
www.cnn.com...
movie-reviews.colossus.net...

One of the terrorist’s key demands was that they be treated as prisoners of war; or at the very least political prisoners. In the end a few of them starved to death which led Margaret Thatcher to publicly retort “we wouldn’t want to interfere with their human rights would we?” I 100% agree.

So it’s a bad idea because treating terrorists as POW’s or political prisoners will give them better rights or at the very least a huge psychological victory. This is unless of course you treat all POW’s less well than common criminals. This is something I am deeply against because I have more respect for someone who captured risking their life for a sovereign nation than I have for ether a paedophile, mugger, or terrorist who abandons a bomb in a busy supermarket.

If…
Terrorist did their up most to avoid civilian deaths then I might think again. This after all would mean they at least behaved within very basic international rules of war; and though they don’t fight for a sovereign nation status as political prisoners would at be on the table. But as long as they deliberately target civilians they are nothing but the worst kind of common criminal (in my eyes at least). And just because I would think again doesn’t mean I would give it to them; after all why give them anything unless you really have too? Who are they to make demands on you?

Of course any terrorist group that went out of its way to avoid civilian deaths would have to worry a little bit about the “terror” in terrorism.
It’s a shame because I think they would be pleasantly surprised by how much public support a less terrifying type of terrorism could-would bring them. But let’s face it nobody is going to be remotely popular with the public as long as they make the public a target (especially if they say it’s legitimate). And as long as that’s the case the political system will remain in control (in fact some would say more in control given the way people instinctively unite round their leaders in times of fear).

Skadi-the-Evil-Elf makes a different good point about the war on terrorism. Terrorism is a concept; it’s like asking how do you bomb an idea? Are we at war with crime? Obesity? Global warming? You can go on and on; fact is the word “war” on terrorism does a damn good job of stopping people comprehend just what terrorism is.

Anyway as I’ve often said if we were really “at war with terror” the first thing we would do is limit the reporting of terrorism in our own media. It’s this which whips the public into a state of yellow paranoia. Personally I would rather sacrifice my “right” to have to watch repeats of 9/11, than I would sacrifice the one of not having a U.K I.D card with my DNA, finger prints, and eye scan on it. So yeah just because we are at with terrorists; it’s barely true of ether terrorism or certainly terror. But as we are also at war with crime I say treat terrorists killers like other killers (until terrorists can at least claim it was a manslaughter accident).

posted by Liberal1984

My understanding is that POW’s have more rights than common criminals. Haven’t you ever heard of the IRA’s Dirty Cells Protests? [Edited by Don W]

Yes to both your statement about rights and the q. about dirty cells. I have always been embarrassed, nay disappointed, by the expressions of contentment by otherwise good people over the real or perceived ill treatment of prisoners. I wonder to myself, how can anyone expect a person who is treated poorly - like an animal in some cases - to act civilized when he is released back into the civilian life? Why is it regarded as desirable to crush a person’s will? I do not understand that.

I respect criminals not because I want to coddle them, but because I want to be able to respect myself. I want to know I did right even if they did not.

“ . . Margaret Thatcher to publicly retort “we wouldn’t want to interfere with their human rights would we?”

I forget, did they call her the Iron Lady or was it the Iron Maiden?

“ . . It’s a bad idea because treating terrorists as POW’s or political prisoners will give them better rights or at the very least a huge psychological victory.

A “ . . huge psychological victory . . “? Au contraire, maltreatment is a weapon they use to arouse their sympathizers and to gain new recruits. But again, it misses my point I urged above. It is my conclusion this concept is counter-productive.

“ . . I have more respect for someone who captured risking their life for a sovereign nation than I have for ether a pedophile, mugger, or terrorist who abandons a bomb in a busy supermarket.”

It’s a new paradigm, L4. Asymmetric warfare. Look at the limit demonstrated by the US - say Coalition Forces since you are a Brit - in Iraq and the just demo’d again in abbreviated style in Lebanon by the once vaunted IDF.

If terrorist did their up most to avoid civilian deaths then I might think again.

L4, are you Don Quixote in disguise? More than 15,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed since March 18, 2003. Not by sandstorms either. More than 700 Lebanese civilians were killed by the IDF in 34 days or a rampage for which a war crimes trial would be held if the Israelis were Serbs and not working under the umbrella of the US of A. Which puts them beyond justice. So why all this harshness on terrorists who are after all, using the weapon of last resort, the only weapon available to the poor and dispossessed?

It’s a shame because I think they would be pleasantly surprised by how much public support a less terrifying type of terrorism could - would bring them.

I think you may have implied what I have said or am about to say. Without the suicide bombings of Israel by Palestinians, there would never be one conversation anywhere in the world to give the Palestinians a state. Since 1967, Yitzhak Rabin was the only PM willing and capable of delivering 'Land for Peace.' Arafat, because of his own personal limitations and ambitions would not agree. But alas, Rabin was assassinated. How much different the world would be today if it had been Arafat who died instead.

The Israeli occupation of the Temple Mount. The world flounders over this issue which is the 'Primo' issue for Muslims around the world. Until that tiny piece of real estate is properly resolved, there will be an endless supply of radical Islamists to deal with.



[edit on 8/17/2006 by donwhite]

Liberal1984 now you mention it like that it probably is bad idea to treat them like POW's, i agree with alot of info on your post and it makes alot of sense, but the laws still need to be changed in some ways against terrorists they have to many rights in UK if you ask me, and their supporters that can burn our flag on our streets is wrong, have they implemented new laws against this yet i think i read some where they are doing so, so it looks quite promising in some ways.

I believe that many people knew that the birth of War on terrorism ideology was a good way to influence the masses for a specific agenda.

But what I think is . . . that they never knew the real power behind that term now they know and is to much to handle even for the same administration that gave birth to the term.

The problem with the term Terrorist is that can be anyone from any background and any nation, but the targeting was to be geared to specific nationality in the middle east.

That targeting can not be controlled, so the term enemy combatant was given birth also but not with the results that were expected . . .

In the end what it started in the hopes to pursue one agenda has turned into a big mess with a lot of ramifications.


[edit on 17-8-2006 by marg6043]

I would prefer they be treated as somebody else instead of POW since they don't abide by the Geneva anyways, not wearing uniforms and violating the laws of war by intentionally targeting civilians instead of avoiding them. But whats good about declaring them as POW instead of war is we get to keep them until the war is over, which means if an Al Qaida member was captured, we get to keep him until the duration of the war which could last for decades, and he be in his 30s or 40s, and by the time the war is over (in this conflict), he be in his 70s or 80s or 90s and is no threat anymore.