United States Navy To Build New Training Facility In Thailand

[Ulysses G.]

You might not have noticed, but most of them are "fighting" in the Middle East - if you call slaughtering thousands of innocent fellow Muslims with car-bombs and suicide vests "fighting".

[flying]

You might not have noticed, but most of them are "fighting" in the Middle East - if you call slaughtering thousands of innocent fellow Muslims with car-bombs and suicide vests "fighting".

Man your reaching now

What was the subject you were replying on?

Now your saying Because it is very difficult for foreigners to stage an operation in the U.S.

Due to the fact they are back home?

So this war on Terrorism is based in their home?

Ok forget it man..............Lets give this thread back to the OP

Hey all right a new base in Thailand............

[Ulysses G.]

I'm not the one who is "reaching" oh so clever one.

[soic]

. Have you ever heard screaming coming from an open throat as it's being cut with a dull machete? I have... you'll never forget the sound... EVER.

Believing the media and repeating it as the gospel is the ultimate ignorance. Everyone thinks what they want about the war and believes what ever news agency they want to believe. No one knows all of the stuff they found here,

I do not want to go round & round with you but let me say a few things...

1) You claim folks get it all from Media...You assume your the only one to ever go to foreign soil to fight ?? Are you in a war.....A real declared war? You suppose perhaps others have been? Maybe before you were born? Or you think perhaps a stint of duty in a policing action gives you all the answers? You know Saddam's history with the USA?

2) If you want to claim folks ignorant for getting any info outside of physically being there.... do not then go & use the example for yourself.....

Where you there when you heard the screams? Did you feel the dull machete blade at the beheading?

Well looks like you heard it the same way I did eh? They call that Media.But trust me I rarely watch TV nor do I believe much of what I see on it when I do watch it.

3) You will never convince anyone with a brain that torture is acceptable because someone else did it first or more vigorously. I am sad to say you are probably a boy...You are someones Son & you have been programmed at a time that the military is a shadow of what it was meant to be. I imagine that you are more than likely a National Guard part time soldier.

I hope for your parents sake you get home safe.

Good Luck

You guessed wrong on points 1 and 3.

1)I have 4 grandsons and I hope and pray that they never have to go to war; but I also hope and pray that they don't search the world looking for a cause or excuse to keep them from fighting for their country; just because the president is unpopular. I did not come here to fight... I came here to support those who do fight. I know that other served before me that's one of the many reasons that I'm proud and obligated to serve and support the troops myself. I enjoy the freedoms that they fought and died for; therefore it's my duty and obligation to be will to do the same for them now that they're older, and for the youngsters in the next generation so that they too may know the same freedoms that we have. Am I familiar with Saddam's history? Yes... before both wars and after. In fact, I work in the very building that he was tried in. It's across the street from the brand new American embassy in Baghdad. (specific enough for those that know the area) I've also been to other wars and/or police actions. I was in Bosnia and Kosovo... serving and supporting just as I am now. It's a little more than a stint...

2) A video tape is a type of media, yes. It is not hyped, politicised or someone else's slanted view; it is what it is. It's a recording of an actual event without anyone but the maker's point of view. You're right, I did not hear the screams from 3' away or feel the blade or get splashed with Mr. Berg's blood. I was affected and will forever be disturbed by it though. I didn't see it on TV either. If you were to see a video tape of your grand children playing baseball or at a birthday party; do you not feel the excitement and/or feel at least a little closer to them? I know that I do with my grandchildren... I can honestly say that true horror can be conveyed through video media. It has just a little different feel to it than hearing a newscaster say "And now from Iraq..." Nor does the news show the blood, the machete, or play the full 2 minutes and 40 seconds of screaming or finally rasping gurgle.

3) No, I'm not a boy, I am a male though... Good guess... I am someone's Son... They hope I may it home from this conflict as well, just like my wife, my children and my grand children do. I'm not National Guard or part-time, I'm not programmed... I have my eyes completely open. I don't pretend that America is completely innocent but I'm not quick to condemn her either. I don't start every sentence with those evil Americans and I will not quietly sit by while others do it either. I'm not pretending that any type of torture is acceptable, but I am tired of America being accused of atrocities when the real atrocities are being used on our troops, rather than the other way around. We've never dragged an ememy combatant through the streets of a city for people to defile or spit on (Somalia). Had a soldier on guard stand at the end of a bridge to protect the citizens while being spit on, on TV, and not retaliate (Bosnia). We've never beheaded people with dull machetes (Baghdad), hung burned bodies from bridges (Baghdad). Bodies tortured beyond recognition buried in mass graves (WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan) none of which were dug or filled by Americans. Yet we're the ones that are portrayed as the most evil. I just can't stand it when a group of people point their fingers at us, and call us evil, for pulling the whiskers of a rabid dog when they're standing on a dump truck filled with dead babies.

[dave_boo]

Ulysses, chill man. You're getting worked up over someone who can not and will not understand that the theology behind the attacks condones any and all violence commited simply because it is an ends to a means. And I'm sorry, there is a relevancy to the theory of relativness. I.E., are the actions that one must stoop to acheive peace beyond the advantage that comes from not taking those actions? For instance, dropping the A-bombs during WWII made sense in that it saved many, many lives that would have otherwise been lost in a land attack on the Japanese islands.

Make no mistake, Islamic fundamentalists find justification for their actions from their scriptures. No major Islamic sector has been able to counter their arguments. Even the handwringing by Western Muslims that innocent people should not be attacked is a sham. They know their scripture about as well as the general Catholic. Islam has defined innocent people as those following the teachings set for in their holy books. All others are in violation of their God's directive and are not innocent because they're holding out from 'enlightenment'. That's why they have 'Dar al-Harb' and 'Dar al-Islam'. And since they were instructed to fight those who attempt to pervet their religion, which is what they believe the Jews and Christians have done directly and the non-Abrahamic religions totally gave up, they believe they are well with in their rights to do what is necessary. The expectation that they should follow Mohammed's example, since he was a perfect man, further provides justification that any and all atrocities are allowed. And any attempt to trot out Quaran 5:32 without looking at 5:33 is just plain naieve.

[soic]

Waterboarding induces panic, nothing more. It has no lasting affect on a person.

Because it is very difficult for foreigners to stage an operation in the U.S. - that is why is has been done so infrequently - and Osama is too busy hiding out from all the special operatives that are chasing him. 3 trillion dollars buys a lot of manpower.

Man that is quite the contradiction then isn't it? The whole 9-11 looked pretty difficult didn't it.

Yet sending all these folks over seas & even the National Guards are gone so this made here more safe eh?

But as you say maybe it is too much to dream in 8+ years not one pop not one bang. Not even a single bullet ? Even with 27000 shipping containers arriving in the US each DAY? Hmmm I guess your right....We all just too smart for them dumb Terrorist. Either that or hey maybe they are not even trying?

In any case does make us wonder why bother throwing 3 trillion at a problem that seems very un-problematic eh?

Considering our current economy and all.

Just a little side note... programs, benefits and costs of illegal aliens is almost 3 times that amount. Why isn't anyone screaming about that? They shouldn't even be in America but we are paying for them anyway... Even going so far as to pay their own countries to keep them there. Yell about that one... You're absolutely stupid if you think they're not trying. They're just looking for the way to do it and stay alive or they're looking for the biggest show of terror they can get just to give the bleeding hearts something else to cry over. They'll say that mean old america made them do it and people like you will feel sorry for them.

[bonobo]

Waterboarding induces panic, nothing more. It has no lasting affect on a person.

No problem then....SO you have had it done to you?

Perhaps it would be no problem if later it becomes standard police procedure in Thailand for rousting drunken farangs?

To each their own & everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if ours is such as to ignore the Geneva convention & our own US laws regarding this then no crying later if the shoe changes feet

Trust me I hear what your saying & get as mad as anyone...But if the end justifies the means then folks will just vote from rooftops soon enough eh?

 No, I have not had it done to me.  I have not been sent to prison either, nor do I want to be sent.  BUt I happen to think that that is appropriate for some crimes.

I do know people who have been waterboarded.  This has been done to US military personnel during SERE school.  One of my classmates was waterboarded, and yes, when I asked him about it, he said it "really sucked."  Granted, he had it done to him twice, and both times being boarded probably were cut short sooner that that enjoyed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

I do understand what you write about teh Geneva Convention.  But these were not uniformed soldiers.  I would be 100% against any such action against any uniformed enemy combatant.  But as far as I am concerned, and as far as the former administration was concerned, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nothing more than a common, vicious thug.  He is a criminal, not a soldier. And that is how the Geneva COnvention would classify him. He does not meet the stated requirements for being classified as a combatant.

Edited May 23, 2009 by bonobo

[Ulysses G.]

These scum should be classified as spys and shot. The Geneva Convention is for real soldiers.

[LooseCannon]

Waterboarding induces panic, nothing more. It has no lasting affect on a person.

No problem then....SO you have had it done to you?

Perhaps it would be no problem if later it becomes standard police procedure in Thailand for rousting drunken farangs?

To each their own & everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if ours is such as to ignore the Geneva convention & our own US laws regarding this then no crying later if the shoe changes feet

Trust me I hear what your saying & get as mad as anyone...But if the end justifies the means then folks will just vote from rooftops soon enough eh?

 No, I have not had it done to me.  I have not been sent to prison either, nor do I want to be sent.  BUt I happen to think that that is appropriate for some crimes.

I do know people who have been waterboarded.  This has been done to US military personnel during SERE school.  One of my classmates was waterboarded, and yes, when I asked him about it, he said it "really sucked."  Granted, he had it done to him twice, and both times being boarded probably were cut short sooner that that enjoyed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

I do understand what you write about teh Geneva Convention.  But these were not uniformed soldiers.  I would be 100% against any such action against any uniformed enemy combatant.  But as far as I am concerned, and as far as the former administration was concerned, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nothing more than a common, vicious thug.  He is a criminal, not a soldier. And that is how the Geneva COnvention would classify him. He does not meet the stated requirements for being classified as a combatant.

I think that is the point - he is just a common criminal & as such should be treated as a common criminal. The 'rule of law' is exactly that & once so called civilized societies start to compromise their principles, & start on the very slippery path of dispensing 'justice' that has been tainted & compromised by unacceptable practices, it becomes easier & easier to take it just one little step further.

[dave_boo]

I think that is the point - he is just a common criminal & as such should be treated as a common criminal. The 'rule of law' is exactly that & once so called civilized societies start to compromise their principles, & start on the very slippery path of dispensing 'justice' that has been tainted & compromised by unacceptable practices, it becomes easier & easier to take it just one little step further.

Since this has devolved into a US bashing thread, let's consider what the United States considers a common crime: a misdemeanor. Obviously there's different punishments for those who commit misdemeanors and those who commit felonies. There's even another class of those who commit treason. Further, non-citizens who engage in terror are NOT afforded any protection, especially if they are not aligned with any military. And unfortunately for those poor saps rotting in Gitmo, they fall into the last category.

There is not point in waterboarding jay walkers. There is a point in using 'extreme' interrogation methods for those who have no compunction in creating a stack of dead non-Muslims....

[Ulysses G.]

They are quite happy to kill Muslims if there is no one else around. look at what is happening in Iran.

Like one Muslim fellow said on the BBC, "You call them terorrists, but we call them good Muslims".

[meom]

There is not point in waterboarding jay walkers. There is a point in using 'extreme' interrogation methods for those who have no compunction in creating a stack of dead non-Muslims....

Personally I am not convinced "extreme" interrogation methods will have the result you're looking for. It's ok as some sort of punishment but purely looking as a means to obtain information there might be better ways. Having said that better ways take often more time and patience which is not always available.

[LooseCannon]

I think that is the point - he is just a common criminal & as such should be treated as a common criminal. The 'rule of law' is exactly that & once so called civilized societies start to compromise their principles, & start on the very slippery path of dispensing 'justice' that has been tainted & compromised by unacceptable practices, it becomes easier & easier to take it just one little step further.

Since this has devolved into a US bashing thread, let's consider what the United States considers a common crime: a misdemeanor. Obviously there's different punishments for those who commit misdemeanors and those who commit felonies. There's even another class of those who commit treason. Further, non-citizens who engage in terror are NOT afforded any protection, especially if they are not aligned with any military. And unfortunately for those poor saps rotting in Gitmo, they fall into the last category.

There is not point in waterboarding jay walkers. There is a point in using 'extreme' interrogation methods for those who have no compunction in creating a stack of dead non-Muslims....

Sorry, but I don't think constructive criticism can be considered 'US bashing'. Maybe others but no concern of mine.

The semantics of what's exactly a 'common criminal' is irrelevant - murderers, rapists, thieves etc, individuals that commit crimes. Quite obvious in the context of my comment.

Nobody is is suggesting that jaywalkers should be subjected to waterboarding.

Lots of common criminals have absolutely no reluctance 'in creating a stack of dead non-muslims'.

Should a LA gang member that has murdered some children in a drive-by shooting be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices?

Should a serial killer be waterboarded?

Should a gang rapist be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices?

Child molesters, paedophiles?

How about a person that has committed armed robbery in the company of others?

A gang of street thugs bashing an 80 year old grandma?

You do see where this is going, don't you?

Tell me - where do you draw the line? At what degree does it become unacceptable?

Who determines the guilt or innocence of the person to be waterboarded? Who tests the evidence? A jury in a court of law? A judge? Some faceless public servant? The desperate investigator?

Not much solid evidence on this chap - lets give him a dose of waterboarding & see if we can something more.

[Augustus]

Should a LA gang member that has murdered some children in a drive-by shooting be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices? Yes

Should a serial killer be waterboarded? Yes

Should a gang rapist be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices? Yes

Child molesters, paedophiles? Yes

How about a person that has committed armed robbery in the company of others? Yes

A gang of street thugs bashing an 80 year old grandma? Yes

If not water boarded I would break out the Pantera 5 minutes alone rule

[bonobo]

Waterboarding induces panic, nothing more. It has no lasting affect on a person.

No problem then....SO you have had it done to you?

Perhaps it would be no problem if later it becomes standard police procedure in Thailand for rousting drunken farangs?

To each their own & everyone is entitled to their opinion. But if ours is such as to ignore the Geneva convention & our own US laws regarding this then no crying later if the shoe changes feet

Trust me I hear what your saying & get as mad as anyone...But if the end justifies the means then folks will just vote from rooftops soon enough eh?

 No, I have not had it done to me.  I have not been sent to prison either, nor do I want to be sent.  BUt I happen to think that that is appropriate for some crimes.

I do know people who have been waterboarded.  This has been done to US military personnel during SERE school.  One of my classmates was waterboarded, and yes, when I asked him about it, he said it "really sucked."  Granted, he had it done to him twice, and both times being boarded probably were cut short sooner that that enjoyed by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

I do understand what you write about teh Geneva Convention.  But these were not uniformed soldiers.  I would be 100% against any such action against any uniformed enemy combatant.  But as far as I am concerned, and as far as the former administration was concerned, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was nothing more than a common, vicious thug.  He is a criminal, not a soldier. And that is how the Geneva COnvention would classify him. He does not meet the stated requirements for being classified as a combatant.

I think that is the point - he is just a common criminal & as such should be treated as a common criminal. The 'rule of law' is exactly that & once so called civilized societies start to compromise their principles, & start on the very slippery path of dispensing 'justice' that has been tainted & compromised by unacceptable practices, it becomes easier & easier to take it just one little step further.

I can understand your point, and to an extent, I would agree with it.  But given the same circumstances, I would not object to the three cases of waterboarding. But I certainly respect your  opinion on this.

[dave_boo]

Personally I am not convinced "extreme" interrogation methods will have the result you're looking for. It's ok as some sort of punishment but purely looking as a means to obtain information there might be better ways. Having said that better ways take often more time and patience which is not always available.

You're quite right. However, immediately after taking the terrorist captive the intelligence gathered in as expedient fashion as possible only saves lives.

Sorry, but I don't think constructive criticism can be considered 'US bashing'. Maybe others but no concern of mine.

The semantics of what's exactly a 'common criminal' is irrelevant - murderers, rapists, thieves etc, individuals that commit crimes. Quite obvious in the context of my comment.

Nobody is is suggesting that jaywalkers should be subjected to waterboarding.

Lots of common criminals have absolutely no reluctance 'in creating a stack of dead non-muslims'.

Should a LA gang member that has murdered some children in a drive-by shooting be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices?

Should a serial killer be waterboarded?

Should a gang rapist be waterboarded to get information on his accomplices?

Child molesters, paedophiles?

How about a person that has committed armed robbery in the company of others?

A gang of street thugs bashing an 80 year old grandma?

You do see where this is going, don't you?

Tell me - where do you draw the line? At what degree does it become unacceptable?

Who determines the guilt or innocence of the person to be waterboarded? Who tests the evidence? A jury in a court of law? A judge? Some faceless public servant? The desperate investigator?

Not much solid evidence on this chap - lets give him a dose of waterboarding & see if we can something more.

I wasn't pointing fingers in the observation about the bashing, it was just a general observation.

The 'semantics' are very relevant. Otherwise if you were to commit a 'common crime' such as jay walking, are you willing to let 'semantics' get in the way of the judge sentencing you to 25-to life with a murder who's on the docket right behind you?

Perhaps criminals do have no reluctance in murder; however they don't have a religous belief system that promises them everlasting rewards for such actions.

It's interesting that you want a line drawn, but earlier in your reply you stated that semantics don't matter. This seems rather odd that you agree that at certain levels there should be distinctions and yet you want no distinctions between those non-citizen, non-soldier terrorists.

It may seem odd to you, but courts can not rule on the legality of something without precedence. The precedence from the past would indicate that extra-ordinary measures are to be employeed against these people. For instance consider what General Pershing did in the Philippines...

[Augustus]

For instance consider what General Pershing did in the Philippines...

Yes

[Johpa]

I must say this thread takes the cake for meandering subject matter. Hard to believe it started out about some inconsequential contract for a small fake house or two for practicing hostage rescue techniques.

[LooseCannon]

I wasn't pointing fingers in the observation about the bashing, it was just a general observation.

The 'semantics' are very relevant. Otherwise if you were to commit a 'common crime' such as jay walking, are you willing to let 'semantics' get in the way of the judge sentencing you to 25-to life with a murder who's on the docket right behind you?

Sorry, thought you were referring to me.

You seem to have misunderstood - a 'common criminal' in the Australian/British legal parlance is just that , 'common' used in a derogatory/demeaning context, be they murderer, rapist, thief or whatever. I am not using it in the context of the US justice system as in felony or misdemeanor which reflect the serious of the criminal act.

So - these terrorists should be seen as (common) criminals & treated as such. They should not be afforded any 'political' legitimacy. Being tried by military tribunals is counter productive.

Perhaps criminals do have no reluctance in murder; however they don't have a religous belief system that promises them everlasting rewards for such actions.

I don't understand why you think a terrorist that has killed should be treated differently than a serial killer because of motive. If guilt has been established, motive is irrelevant.

It's interesting that you want a line drawn, but earlier in your reply you stated that semantics don't matter. This seems rather odd that you agree that at certain levels there should be distinctions and yet you want no distinctions between those non-citizen, non-soldier terrorists.

I think they should all be treated equally & be subject to the US criminal code.

The reason they are not is due to the preponderance of evidence that is required to convict in a US court of law is much higher than that of the ersatz US military tribunals.

It may seem odd to you, but courts can not rule on the legality of something without precedence. The precedence from the past would indicate that extra-ordinary measures are to be employeed against these people. For instance consider what General Pershing did in the Philippines...

Yes - and nearly 100 years later the Moro insurgency is alive & well. Tactics that have been discredited by time.

[Jingthing]

They are quite happy to kill Muslims if there is no one else around. look at what is happening in Iran.

Like one Muslim fellow said on the BBC, "You call them terorrists, but we call them good Muslims".

There is no doubt there is a radical clash of cultures/values between the growing Muslim world and the west, not to mention the Muslim conflicts with Hindus, Buddhists, etc. However, they exist and they are growing and we either have to live with them, convert to Islam, or we have to continue to kill each other. There are too many of them to effectively kill so that route could lead to defeat. That is the bad news.

The good news is the percentage of Muslims who actually are willing to commit acts of terrorism (or whatever you want to call it, the naming is debatable) is very small. A much larger portion supports such acts or is indifferent (would never lift a finger to oppose it). When the west appears barbaric (and in actually has been barbaric) to Muslims, this is fuel to fire of the radical Islamic propagandists. They love it! It recruits many more "terrorists" than you could possibly kill/torture. That route is not going to work, exhibit A, Abu Graib, exhibit B, George W Bush.

With Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, there is a golden opportunity to present a more moderate vision of the west to the Muslim world to show in actions that westerners are not enemies of Muslims, only enemies of radical extremist violence. To those who say the radical Islamists have usually been more barbaric to westerners than us to them, well, so what? That isn't the point. It isn't a competition except for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of global Muslims who potentially can be allies to moderate Islamic extremism.

Of course, we also need a Palestinian state, because until that happens, that provides another great excuse for Muslim world hatred of the west.

[Diablo Bob]

I must say this thread takes the cake for meandering subject matter. Hard to believe it started out about some inconsequential contract for a small fake house or two for practicing hostage rescue techniques.

Totally correct...... From the INTELSPEC website: Design/Build – Construction of a Close Quarters Battle (CQB) Training Facility, Camp Erawan, Thailand. The project consists of the construction of a two-story shoot house for military training.

But the project I want a piece of from the same site: Construction management of a 14-villa upscale private residential compound in Jom Tien, Thailand. Project value $3M

[seri thai]

There is camp Era-wan ค่าย เอราวัณ of the Army Special Forces in Lopburi Province? But it has nothing much to do with the Nevy.

It's a secret base for the new Thai Navy submarines. I thought everyone knew that?

[seri thai]

They are quite happy to kill Muslims if there is no one else around. look at what is happening in Iran.

Like one Muslim fellow said on the BBC, "You call them terorrists, but we call them good Muslims".

There is no doubt there is a radical clash of cultures/values between the growing Muslim world and the west, not to mention the Muslim conflicts with Hindus, Buddhists, etc. However, they exist and they are growing and we either have to live with them, convert to Islam, or we have to continue to kill each other. There are too many of them to effectively kill so that route could lead to defeat. That is the bad news.

The good news is the percentage of Muslims who actually are willing to commit acts of terrorism (or whatever you want to call it, the naming is debatable) is very small. A much larger portion supports such acts or is indifferent (would never lift a finger to oppose it). When the west appears barbaric (and in actually has been barbaric) to Muslims, this is fuel to fire of the radical Islamic propagandists. They love it! It recruits many more "terrorists" than you could possibly kill/torture. That route is not going to work, exhibit A, Abu Graib, exhibit B, George W Bush.

With Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, there is a golden opportunity to present a more moderate vision of the west to the Muslim world to show in actions that westerners are not enemies of Muslims, only enemies of radical extremist violence. To those who say the radical Islamists have usually been more barbaric to westerners than us to them, well, so what? That isn't the point. It isn't a competition except for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of global Muslims who potentially can be allies to moderate Islamic extremism.

Of course, we also need a Palestinian state, because until that happens, that provides another great excuse for Muslim world hatred of the west.

Pass the bandages Walt, Obama ain't Lincoln, he's marketing.

[dave_boo]

Sorry, thought you were referring to me.

It's ok, I often make mistakes, I'm not going to crucify you over it.

You seem to have misunderstood - a 'common criminal' in the Australian/British legal parlance is just that , 'common' used in a derogatory/demeaning context, be they murderer, rapist, thief or whatever. I am not using it in the context of the US justice system as in felony or misdemeanor which reflect the serious of the criminal act.

So - these terrorists should be seen as (common) criminals & treated as such. They should not be afforded any 'political' legitimacy. Being tried by military tribunals is counter productive.

I'm sorry, but the USA has to adopt those laws, and the lay person's definition, about the same time those countries have to adopt Somalia's. Furthermore, IIRC, even Australian/British makes distinctions between various classes of criminals, they just call it "summary" or "indictable" offense. And as I pointed out, there are currently no laws in the books, that I am aware of, that grant such terrorists any protections that others, who haven't forfeited their rights by commiting such grevious crimes, enjoy.

Do enlighten me as to why being tried in a military court is counter-productive. They are not a member of any armed force and yet they declared war on the West and have carried out what can only be described as War Atrocities. The Geneva convention does not cover them under capture, and while it would be nice to not have to resort to those tactics the saving of lives, of whatever nationality, is more paramount than the discomforture afforded to those terrorists. Furthermore, the convention dictates that those priosners should be "such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal". Passing of sentences must be "pronounced by a regularly constituted court". Military tribunals have enjoyed that status for quite some time now.

I personally don't like the term "unlawful combatant", simply because it's a term that has little historical value. On the other hand, there is an ancient term that does apply "Mercenary". These terrorists are receiving monies and promise of an easy life after death for fighting in proxy for the immans.

I don't understand why you think a terrorist that has killed should be treated differently than a serial killer because of motive. If guilt has been established, motive is irrelevant.

Motive is very relevant. The reason that they are attacking is their belief system. Unless that belief system is adjusted or stamped out, we need to keep defending ourselves from others. Think about it for a second; if you have tree roots in your garden, do you just cut out the little section as you see it or are you going to trace it back to the main root, go out from there and make sure your garden is tree root free? Serial killers rarely (in fact I've never heard of any) have personal information that will help you prevent another serial killer from killing.

I think they should all be treated equally & be subject to the US criminal code.

The reason they are not is due to the preponderance of evidence that is required to convict in a US court of law is much higher than that of the ersatz US military tribunals.

Yes - and nearly 100 years later the Moro insurgency is alive & well. Tactics that have been discredited by time.

I think the world should have real free trade and be free of bigotry in all its forms. But as my grandpa said, shit in one hand and wish in the other; see which fills up first. A point to consider is that the crimes they committed are not civilian offenses, therefore why should they be tried in a court system that doesn't not cover those offenses?

Until you understand hudna (and more importantly taqiyya), you won't understand the Islamic idea of a peace treaty with non-Muslims. You will notice that during the timeframe when the Americans were a colonial master of the Philippines, and clamped down on insurrections, there was no fighting by those groups. Upon the departure of the Americans and the weaking of the duly elected officials by that loss of American forces, the groups seized upon the opportunity to attack. See also the Barbary pirates, the Moros in Spain, the Mughals in India, etc.

[dave_boo]

There is no doubt there is a radical clash of cultures/values between the growing Muslim world and the west, not to mention the Muslim conflicts with Hindus, Buddhists, etc. However, they exist and they are growing and we either have to live with them, convert to Islam, or we have to continue to kill each other. There are too many of them to effectively kill so that route could lead to defeat. That is the bad news.

Extremely bad news; how can you get through to superstitous people of any faith. Most faiths however don't condone killing those not of your faith, no matter how bigoted they are otherwise. And I wish I could state that I hate having to raid my grandpa's chest of wisdom (but I don't!) the following statement succintly sums up the Islamic world's dealings with EVERYONE else, "If the whole world hates you, maybe the problem is not with the world...."

The good news is the percentage of Muslims who actually are willing to commit acts of terrorism (or whatever you want to call it, the naming is debatable) is very small. A much larger portion supports such acts or is indifferent (would never lift a finger to oppose it). When the west appears barbaric (and in actually has been barbaric) to Muslims, this is fuel to fire of the radical Islamic propagandists. They love it! It recruits many more "terrorists" than you could possibly kill/torture. That route is not going to work, exhibit A, Abu Graib, exhibit B, George W Bush.

What would be your estimation of the percentage that falls in the first group? 1%? Even at that very low number we're looking at approximately 12 000 000 persons. Not a rosy picture. I also take offense at the fact that the West has been barbaric to them, almost as much offense as you wishing to whitewash what they have done by attempting to . If you trace the timeline back, you shall see that the West exhausted nearly every option it had to ensure a peaceful co-existence. And sadly that's not enough.

With Obama, Barack Hussein Obama, there is a golden opportunity to present a more moderate vision of the west to the Muslim world to show in actions that westerners are not enemies of Muslims, only enemies of radical extremist violence. To those who say the radical Islamists have usually been more barbaric to westerners than us to them, well, so what? That isn't the point. It isn't a competition except for the hearts and minds of the vast majority of global Muslims who potentially can be allies to moderate Islamic extremism.

This is one of the attitudes I have an extreme issue with. Not all cultures are worth preserving. The bigotry that you face in your homeland due to your sexual orientation is appalling. The bigotry that the Muslim world is not hesitant to enforce on non-Muslims is even worst. I do not understand why we could break the Japanese Shintoism and emperor worship and drag them kicking and screaming into the 20th century and yet now 60 years on it seems that we no longer can for another religion.

Of course, we also need a Palestinian state, because until that happens, that provides another great excuse for Muslim world hatred of the west.

Yeah, because making appeasements to these guys has worked so well for Pakistan's Swat Valley, Thailand's southern provinces, British partition of India, etc. etc. The fact that Hama's creed states that they will not be satisified until Israel is no longer in existence should be a major part in any consideration of dealings with the people who elected them.

And for everyone who thinks that the Koran isn't all that bad and those groups are just perverting the book need to look at these quotes:

Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers

make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah and your enemies

I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them

And slay them wherever ye catch them

And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression

Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you

Then fight in Allah's cause - Thou art held responsible only for thyself - and rouse the believers. It may be that Allah will restrain the fury of the Unbelievers; for Allah is the strongest in might and in punishment.

The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land:

It is not ye who slew them; it was Allah: when thou threwest (a handful of dust), it was not thy act, but Allah's: in order that He might test the Believers by a gracious trial from Himself

O Prophet! rouse the Believers to the fight.

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem

Fight them, and Allah will punish them by your hands, cover them with shame, help you (to victory) over them, heal the breasts of Believers,

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

Unless ye go forth, (for Jihad) He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place; but Him ye would not harm in the least.

Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an

O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him.

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens.

All culled from their holy book and justification, especially when compared to the 'perfect man's' (their prophet Mohammed) example.

[Jingthing]

This is one of the attitudes I have an extreme issue with. Not all cultures are worth preserving. The bigotry that you face in your homeland due to your sexual orientation is appalling. The bigotry that the Muslim world is not hesitant to enforce on non-Muslims is even worst. I do not understand why we could break the Japanese Shintoism and emperor worship and drag them kicking and screaming into the 20th century and yet now 60 years on it seems that we no longer can for another religion.

Honestly, I do not like the cultural values of Muslim countries. They are not my style. And some of their laws, such as not allowing born Muslims to choose another religion or no religion truly disgust me (don't care if that is PC or not). But it is absurd to think we can wipe out Islam by war. This is simply impossible. So I stand by the general choices I presented: fight them and probably lose, convert (yuck!), or figure out some way to live in the same world with this huge population that btw sits on much of the world's oil resources. We really have to try to figure out how to live together. Is Obama Lincoln? It is too early to tell. However, it is a known fact that people of the Muslim word are much more open to Obama than they were to Bush, so this remains a great opportunity.

[longball53098]

What really amazes me is that the Moderators have let this topic run astray for more than 140 posts and no one is being warned to keep it on topic.

[LooseCannon]

I'm sorry, but the USA has to adopt those laws, and the lay person's definition, about the same time those countries have to adopt Somalia's. Furthermore, IIRC, even Australian/British makes distinctions between various classes of criminals, they just call it "summary" or "indictable" offense. And as I pointed out, there are currently no laws in the books, that I am aware of, that grant such terrorists any protections that others, who haven't forfeited their rights by commiting such grevious crimes, enjoy.

I will try again ..... ( also with regard to folksy old world charm advice dispensed by your grandpa comment)

- I think (my opinion) that these 'terrorists' should be charged & tried as criminals under the statutes set out in the 'US Code'. Normally, United States criminal law does not apply beyond US borders, but as you probably know, non-US citizens are regulary taken to the US & tried in a US court of law for crimes that they are deemed to have committed against the US govt./US citizens whilst never actually having stepped foot inside the US itself.

Nobody should have their right to a free & fair trial forfeited. The nature of their crime is immaterial to this basic human right.

Do enlighten me as to why being tried in a military court is counter-productive.

Simply put - it makes heroes out of <deleted>.Put them on trial in an open court with all the rules of evidence, procedures & ethical standards that apply to the US criminal justice system. These 'Military Commissions' have been well & truly discredited. Denying those charged 'due process' protections that are available in the court system or regular military court martials just gives cause to shout 'unfair trial'. The use of these seriousely flawed 'courts' to convict these terrorists only fuels resentment amongst any future recruits & Muslim populations. It is about real & perceived injustices & double standards. When a nation take the moral high ground & champions itself as the world's policeman it is usually best to actually practice what you preach or you become totally discredited. Transparency is paramount in retaining credibility.

"Passing of sentences must be "pronounced by a regularly constituted court". Military tribunals have enjoyed that status for quite some time now." - these military commissions have been discredited by the US Senate & by independent jurist organizations. The Obama administration has pledged to reform them in pre-election promises but now appears to be backpeddling.

I don't understand why you think a terrorist that has killed should be treated differently than a serial killer because of motive. If guilt has been established, motive is irrelevant.

Motive is very relevant.

If you read what I wrote - "after guilt is established motive is irrelevant". In the court system motive & intent (amongst other things) are used to establish guilt.

Seeking to understand why people commit certain acts requires studying motive(s) but this is not the responsibility of the courts.

I was discussing 'motive' with respect to the legal process, not trying to find out what is the root cause of international terrorism.

"A point to consider is that the crimes they committed are not civilian offenses, therefore why should they be tried in a court system that doesn't not cover those offenses?" - In the first 5 years since September 11 2001 there averaged 35 terror convictions annually in the US Federal courts.

If you require more detail read the "Special TRAC Report: Criminal Enforcement Against Terrorists" or any number of publicly available reports.

"Until you understand hudna (and more importantly taqiyya), you won't understand the Islamic idea of a peace treaty with non-Muslims." - Very important in understanding the root causes of Islamic terrorism, but again irrelevant to how the US govt. goes about the process of convicting terrorists.

"See also the Barbary pirates,the Moros in Spain, the Mughals in India, etc." - see also ETA, IRA, Naxalites, Tamil Tigers, Shan United Army, Babbar Khalsa, Fretlin & any number of non-Muslim freedom fighters/terrorists struggling for self determination & independent homelands. All irrelevant to the way the US Govt treats & convicts terrorist suspects.

[Spee]

Why am I not surprised to JT all over this thread showing the same hypocrisy as her megalomaniac wanna-be-hero president? Years of US and military bashing under one leader with an abrupt about face with another. Are you and Michelle (My Belle) sisters? "I was never proud of my country until ...... " ... yeah right and please pass the barf bag.

I think it is great that the US and Thai military continue to remain close. But jeezus let's keep things in perspective. This move has absolutely nothing to do with the new comrade-in-chief. Zero! Nada! Anyone who knows the way the US government and US military work would know these plans would have been in the works for years before any formal announcement would be made. It's government planning 101 and military strategic planning 101. Been there, done that.

Of course it is an afterthought that NoBama absolutely despises the military which he pruports to command. That charade at Annapolis this week made me sick.

For the messiah who would be king, methinks the only part of Mt. Rushmore he will ever see is the dust and rubble as the American poeple get fed up with his dishonesty, deceipt and bankrupting of the American society, and bury him under the rocks two hundred feet below the true American greats.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Spee

[bonobo]

What really amazes me is that the Moderators have let this topic run astray for more than 140 posts and no one is being warned to keep it on topic.

It is true that this has veered, but I rather think some of the recent posts, even those from opposing views, are quite well thought-out and interesting (take Jingthing's and Dave-Boo's, for example.)  Fascinating stuff, here.