Quote:
Because irregular warfare that does not conform to the rules of irregular warfare
/Quote

I think you mean "rules of REGULAR warfare".

In the late 70's I was on a SF A-Team. Our battalion was taxed with South America. However, we had our bit if the Warsaw Pact decided to drive for the Alantic. For us, supposedly, it was a drop into Poland. In civilian clothes. We were all told, and knew anyways, it meant up against the wall upon capture, although we more or less never expected to get there alive anyways, and if so to be in the front row for incoming nuclear weapons.

Anyways, no organization, no uniform or arm band, not carrying weapons in the open, then say hello to Allah, right then and there.

I'd like to see the members of the world of Islam, that are American citizens, but working for the Islamist, executed here. But, heck, you can murder in most of America, over and over again, and not be executed.

We don't have leaders in America, we have managers managing our decline. It happens. Happened to Athens, Rome, the British, the Soviet Union.

In this war which side is known as the torturing side? Which side executes civilians at random as policy? Which side is notorious for using human shields?

Um, we are, actually. The media shapes public opinion, and they make it pretty clear that the U.S. are torturers and killers of random civilians. Maybe we aren't notorious for using human shields, but... oh wait a minute. Seems to me we were taking into custody the families of key Iraqi insurgent leaders. So I guess we were using human shields to. There you go, squared the circle.

So what's the problem here? We're in a war, our MSM is on the other side. That's the way it is in this country and the way it's been for at least 40 years. When I served not terribly long ago, we knew the media was the enemy and if they showed up, they were to be shunned, and never trusted. I'm pretty sure the relationship is unchanged at the grass roots level, based on what my friends who still serve tell me; though the brass make some efforts to better educate them.

So why the heartburn? Accept that they hate pretty much everything you stand for, and don't mind undermining the U.S. to get the domestic political results they desire, and then set about building alternative methods of reporting the facts. Seriously - we all know they're crooked as hell, let's stop wasting time pointing it out. You're beating a greasy spot on the ground where a dead horse used to lie.

jon,

No. I meant exactly what I said. To be treated as an enemy combatant you have to be easily identified - an armband, distinctive head gear, something.

Hi.

My dad was in the British Army in North Africa and Italy during WWII. He and I were discussing the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq. I asked him what was the standard practice with people who fought you without uniforms. His answer was very simple. "Anyone fighting who is not in a uniform is a spy. They were shot." Compared to this standard, Guantanamo is Club Med.

Al,

So true.

But you have to admit puppy stories are popular.

I cannot believe how much liberals worry about the scum who would slit their throats in a second if they were given the chance.

Brian G. - to paraphrase Winston Churchill, they are feeding the alligator in hopes that it will eat them last.

"Now that may be a true legal opinion. It says nothing about whether it is wise."

Kind of the direction Paul gives us about moral questions - While all things are permissible (you do have free will), not all things are recommended. Sooner or later the thing will become the master and you will become enslaved to it.

1CO 6:12 Everything is permissible for me but not everything is beneficial. Everything is permissible for me but I will not be mastered by anything.

Good advice.

"We want easy fights - not fights to the death. "
Tarawa, Saipan, Okinawa, etc. It's pricey up front. However, if you win, the opponent is rather docile afterwards showing a remarkable change of attitude [like several hundred years of militarism].

"A man who changes sides is more valuable in terms of victory than a dead man."

Until he turns again, and again, and again.

There's a price to pay. A lot up front or greater over the long haul but in monthly payments. A price none the less. There is no free lunch.

As your link earlier to Jamal McCoy's essay over at Stop Barack Obama shows, the content of statements means very little to some people. To get to use the word "torture" in a sentence and attach it to your opponents, demonstrating your own righteousness, is so delicious that the actual meaning of the sentence is unimportant.

We are still trying to reason with people who want only to emote.

Don - We are still trying to reason with people who want only to emote.

That's the best description of the problem I've ever seen!

So for all the fools screaming Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, Yoo, and Bush too, why no outrage at the random mass murder of civilians as a military tactic?

I take some umbrage with your implication that torture/Yoo opponents are necessarily GWOT softies and moral relativists. Jihadis are, undoubtedly, the most morally disgusting individuals on the planet, and anyone who contends that killing them is wrong is a fool.

But that hardly makes it right or prudent to condone torture or imprisonment without some recourse for anyone who has been erroneously captured. Some Gitmo prisoners were picked-up under the circumstances you describe -- i.e., as irregular fighters on the battlefield -- and, as you say, we would be perfectly within our rights to shoot such people on the spot (nor would I have any moral problem doing so, though it might be smarter to imprison them for interrogation), then execute them. But that's not true of others have been captured under somewhat more dubious circumstances.

I'd like to see the members of the world of Islam, that are American citizens, but working for the Islamist, executed here. But, heck, you can murder in most of America, over and over again, and not be executed.

Executed with or without trial, Jon? If with, I'm there with you 100%; if not, then to Hell with you, sir.

Don,

You will recall with the Japanese that at first Western rules of restraint were tried and when found wanting other rules went into effect.

So far in Iraq, the turned mostly stay turned. They in turn demoralize those they come in contact with. A twofer.

The jihadis have no where near the bottom of the Japanese. They are brigands not warriors. Taking advantage of that is a good idea.

As the Brits loved to say in WW2 a live spy is more valuable than a dead one - although they hanged more than a few of the tough cases.

Adapt tactics to circumstances. Wise in any war.

"Now if you can kill them on the spot why would torture be out of bounds?"

I've never been convinced of this argument. Lets consider another example:

'If you can kill them on the spot, why would rape be out of bounds?'

In both cases you have the right to kill someone, but only to kill them. This right doesn't transmit into letting you do whatever you want with them.

Ian,

You are correct. However, this being the internet I didn't want to make a longer and more convoluted argument.

Obviously there would be some restrictions requiring some justification even if only "he might know about the next attack".

M. Simon,

I agree with you on this point: During a battle, the goal is to kill the enemy soldiers. In that context, a battle-field decision to kill one for some cause is not out too strange.

However, torture is another matter:
- If torture is applied to find out urgently needed information, the problem is that one doesn't know if the person actually knows anything. As Tom pointed out, a number of the Gitmo prisoners were guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. In that situation, what do you say if you've got nothing to say, and are being tortured to speak? In this situation, I would confess to having strangled to death my great-great-great-great-grandmother at birth - and so would you. How useful would this bit of "information" be?

- The other reason to torture people is to demean them. This is just an exercise in cruelty, and demeans one's own humanity.

I love all this self-assured talk about battlefields and such. Go look it up. Ninety-five percent of those detained as enemy combatants were not alleged to have been captured by U.S. forces; 55 percent of those detained were never accused of committing a hostile act; 92 percent were never accused of being a fighter; and 60 percent were not accused of being members of al-Qa`ida or the Taliban, but merely of being “associated” with those groups.
But hey, we can just shoot 'em all as soon as the bounty hunter turns 'em over to us, because they're the worst of the worst.

Neal,

Your point is moot. Torture is not authorized. Period. It may be legal. It is not policy.

How about this scenario. I let you live if you give me information. If it turns out false I kill you. Changes the equation some doesn't it.

Mick,

So would it be better to have the captured in the hands of some friendly Arab government? Or in US hands?

What would you rate the odds in each case. Esp. given the recent Iraqi prison scandals.

BTW Mick your imagination is running wild. Don't let that stop you from blaming the US for something that is not happening.

BTW did you know that it is the fault of the US that people can't breathe in a vacuum?

It is the US's fault that the people of Zimbabwe are starving.

Don't let the truth stop you from beclowning yourself guys. It is most entertaining.

Over at Megan McArdle's place (where the comments are still a-comin') I added:

Man -- You guys have been at this for hours! Let me boil it all down for you:

Imagine, for the sake of discussion, that you suddenly find yourself in Iraq. You are unarmed and in the cross fire between American forces on the west and some kind of opposing forces on the east. Further imagine that you can speak English, Arabic, and the local dialect; and that you look like an Iraqi civilian but have absolutely no identification papers or the like. Your only hope is to surrender quickly. East or west. Which way you gonna run?

Executed with or without trial, Jon? If with, I'm there with you 100%; if not, then to Hell with you, sir.

A field grade court martial, typically convened by a battalion or brigade commander, has always been sufficient process in the past - and practices traditionally accepted in international law can usually be relied on as *the law* unless superceded by international agreement. The process due those who fight outside the laws of land warfare is generally very minimal, or at least it was until the leftist legal project in the U.S. got hold of it a couple years ago.

Uncle Ralph,

It looks like one of Gleens sockpuppets posted right after you.

No name. just a "/" as a designator.

He just can't give it up.

Mick - yes, you can smudge the edges of that group to make them look as innocent as possible. Would you approve if I were to spin their identities the other way, making them look as guilty as possible for PR purposes?

You can stop clutching your breast now.

Jack Okie - that was I, thanks. The titles do bunch up confusingly, don't they?