PDA

View Full Version : Web site says American captive beheaded



Ironduke
11 May 04,, 19:57
Web site says American captive beheaded

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An al Qaeda-linked Web site showed video Tuesday of a man who identified himself as an American and then was beheaded.

His captors said the United States refused to exchange him for prisoners in the Abu Ghraib prison.

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage for some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib and they refused," says a hooded man standing behind the American.

"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins, slaughtered in this way."

The video was discovered as a U.S. Senate committee heard testimony on the U.S. military investigation into abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib. (Full story)

At the beginning of the tape, the victim describes himself as Nicholas Berg from Pennsylvania.

"My name is Nic Berg. My father's name is Michael. My mother's name is Suzanne. I have a brother and a sister -- David and Sarah," says the man.

"I live in West Chester, Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia."

He is then shown sitting in front of five hooded men. After the statement is read by one of the men, the victim is pushed to the floor and, amid his screams, his throat is cut. Finally, one of the captors holds up the man's severed head.

Earlier in the day, the State Department identified the body of an American found Monday in Baghdad as that of Nicholas Berg of Pennsylvania.

Berg was not a soldier or a civilian employee of the Pentagon, the State Department said.

A senior State Department official also said that the beheaded body of an American had been found, but he could not confirm it was Berg.

The Web site said the killing had been carried out by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of an Islamist terrorist group that has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks on coalition forces in Iraq.

The voice on the tape could not be verified as that of al-Zarqawi.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/11/iraq.main/index.html

Leader
11 May 04,, 20:08
American in Iraq Beheaded by Militants

Tuesday, May 11, 2004



A 26-year-old American from Pennsylvania was beheaded to avenge the abuse of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers and the militants who killed him videotaped the crime and posted it on a Web site.

U.S. officials think that terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (search) may have either authorized the execution or actually performed the act himself.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit similar to a prisoner's uniform who identified himself as Nick Berg (search), a U.S. contractor whose body was found on a highway overpass in Baghdad on Saturday.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Susan," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu Akbar!" "God is great." They then held the head out before the camera.

Berg's family said Tuesday they knew their son had been decapitated, but didn't know the details of the killing. When told of the video by an Associated Press reporter, Berg's father, Michael, and his two siblings hugged and cried.

"I knew he was decapitated before. That manner is preferable to a long and torturous death. But I didn't want it to become public," Michael Berg said.

As President Bush boarded Air Force One headed back to Washington D.C., Press Secretary Scott McClellan told reporters that the president's thoughts and prayers are with Nick Berg and with his family.

"This shows the true nature of the people who are opposed to freedom and democracy in the region," McClellan said. "Those who carried out this crime will be pursued and brought to justice."

On the Web site, one of the executioners read a statement:

"For the mothers and wives of American soldiers, we tell you that we offered the U.S. administration to exchange this hostage with some of the detainees in Abu Ghraib (search) and they refused."

"So we tell you that the dignity of the Muslim men and women in Abu Ghraib and others is not redeemed except by blood and souls. You will not receive anything from us but coffins after coffins ... slaughtered in this way."

The video bore the title "Abu Musab al-Zarqawi shown slaughtering an American." It was unclear whether al-Zarqawi a lieutenant of Usama bin Laden was shown in the video, or was claiming responsibility for ordering the execution.

The Web site on which the video was posted is known as a clearing house for Al Qaeda and Islamic extremist groups' statements and tapes. An audiotape purportedly from bin Laden which the CIA said was probably authentic appeared on the same Web site last week.

Western officials say al-Zarqawi, whose real name is Ahmad Fadhil al-Khalayleh, is a lieutenant of bin Laden. The United States has offered $10 million for information leading to the capture or killing of al-Zarqawi, saying he is trying to build a network of foreign militants in Iraq to work for Al Qaeda.

In the video, the speaker threatened both President Bush and Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf (search).

"As for you Bush ... expect severe days. You and your soldiers will regret the day you stepped into the land of Iraq," he said. He described Musharraf as "a traitor agent."

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (search) in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects including those who allegedly slit his throat remain at large.

Suzanne Berg, the mother of the 26-year-old Berg, of West Chester, Pa., said her son was in Iraq as an independent businessman to help rebuild communication antennas. He had been missing since April 9, she said.

"He had this idea that he could help rebuild the infrastructure," she said.

The U.S. military Tuesday said an American civilian was found dead in Baghdad, but did not release his identity. State Department spokeswoman Susan Pittman said she couldn't release the name of the dead American, but said she not aware of more than one civilian found dead in recent days.

The military said there were signs of trauma to the body. Suzanne Berg said she was told her son's death was violent but did not want to discuss details.

Berg, who was in Baghdad from late December to Feb. 1, returned to Iraq in March. He didn't find any work and planned again to return home on March 30, but his daily communications home stopped on March 24. He later told his parents he was jailed by Iraqi officials at a checkpoint in Mosul.

"He was arrested and held without due process," his father, Michael Berg, told the Daily Local News of West Chester recently. "By the time he got out the whole area was inflamed with violence.

The FBI on March 31 interviewed Berg's parents in West Chester. Jerri Williams, a spokeswoman for the Philadelphia FBI office, told The Philadelphia Inquirer the agency had been "asked to interview the parents regarding Mr. Berg's purpose in Iraq."

On April 5, the Bergs filed suit in federal court in Philadelphia, contending that their son was being held illegally by the U.S. military. The next day Berg was released. He told his parents he hadn't been mistreated.

The Bergs last heard from their son April 9, when he said he would come home by way of Jordan, Turkey or Kuwait. But by then, hostilities in Iraq had escalated.

Suzanne Berg on Tuesday said she was told her son's body would be transported to Kuwait and then to Dover, Del. She said the family had been trying for weeks to learn where their son was but that federal officials had not been helpful.

"I went through this with them for weeks," she said. "I basically ended up doing most of the investigating myself."

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,119615,00.html

Lunatock
11 May 04,, 20:37
Show the tape on CNN for all those outraged at the prison hazings and all the left wing terrorist apologists. Maybe they'd straighten up and fly right if they saw how harsh reality can be.

I'd also recomend beheading ten al-qaeda prisoners for every one American that is killed like that. And use the old far east torture "death by 10,000 cuts" on every terrorist leader we capture if they don't stop doing that to our people. Minus the stab to the heart that kills them.

"Iraqi insurgent? Chechen wolf? Too bad, thank bin Laden's Lt. for what's about to happen to you."

Officer of Engineers
11 May 04,, 21:02
Show the tape on CNN for all those outraged at the prison hazings and all the left wing terrorist apologists. Maybe they'd straighten up and fly right if they saw how harsh reality can be.

I'd also recomend beheading ten al-qaeda prisoners for every one American that is killed like that. And use the old far east torture "death by 10,000 cuts" on every terrorist leader we capture if they don't stop doing that to our people. Minus the stab to the heart that kills them.

"Iraqi insurgent? Chechen wolf? Too bad, thank bin Laden's Lt. for what's about to happen to you."


I expect and demand all my people follow the ROE, the QR&O (Queen's Rules and Orders), and the GC. I demand the same of my American allies to follow their ROEs, the UCMJ, and the GC. Those are the standing orders and I expect and demand that they be adhered to without exception although turning a blind eye here and there when the rules are skirted instead of being broken wouldn't hurt any.

As for AQ, Iraqi martyr wannabes, etc, etc, bury them alive for all I care but I do not want the honour and the dignity of our peoples be soiled by dispicable acts. If die, they must, do it by the numbers. Give them their due process and line them up against the wall. I want to give them a clean death not for any mercy reasons but because I want to keep us professional instead of becoming dirty, rotten, and in the end, a whole lot less ineffective.

Jay
11 May 04,, 21:03
Cuttin 10 ALQ men in to pieces is not gonna help/deter them from beheading another American.

They are just brainwashed thugs, The pests shud be elimanated ASAP, alas I dunno how!! :frown:

Trooth
12 May 04,, 00:10
Show the tape on CNN for all those outraged at the prison hazings and all the left wing terrorist apologists. Maybe they'd straighten up and fly right if they saw how harsh reality can be.

Sadly those that committed this atrocity claim it is retaliation for the torturing by the US soldiers (at least that was on the news report i saw - forget were).

I don't have an answer, but it seems we are, even if inadvertently, finding ways to give solace to our enemies.



I'd also recomend beheading ten al-qaeda prisoners for every one American that is killed like that. And use the old far east torture "death by 10,000 cuts" on every terrorist leader we capture if they don't stop doing that to our people. Minus the stab to the heart that kills them.

"Iraqi insurgent? Chechen wolf? Too bad, thank bin Laden's Lt. for what's about to happen to you."

We can't descend though. We can't go ten for one and use such tactics. Theya re the tactics that we are trying to liberate these people from. Even if we want to go one for one we have to follow due process.

Speech given to troops hours before the invasion of Iraq :-

"THE enemy should be in no doubt that we are his Nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of Hell for Saddam. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place.

Show them no pity.

But those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.

As for the others, I expect you to rock their world.

We go to liberate, not to conquer.

We will not fly our flags in their country.

We are entering Iraq to free a people, and the only flag that will be flown in that ancient land is their own.

Don't treat them as refugees, for they are in their own country.

I know men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts. They live with the mark of Cain upon them.

If someone surrenders to you, then remember they have that right in international law, and ensure that one day they go home to their family.

The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please.

If there are casualties of war, then remember, when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.

Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly, and mark their graves.

You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest, for your deeds will follow you down history.

Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood, and the birth of Abraham. Tread lightly there.

You will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis. You will be embarrassed by their hospitality, even though they have nothing ...

There may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign. We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back.

There will be no time for sorrow.

Let us leave Iraq a better place for us having been there.

Our business now, is north. "

LtCol Tim Collins
Commander of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish Regiment

Confed999
12 May 04,, 00:17
Find them and kill them.

Leader
12 May 04,, 00:34
Find them and kill them.

Agreed.

ChrisF202
12 May 04,, 00:48
Have any Muslim nations signed the Geneva Convention?

Leader
12 May 04,, 01:12
Have any Muslim nations signed the Geneva Convention?

Do they care?

ChrisF202
12 May 04,, 01:25
Do they care?
Thats why I asked, even if they did sign, they dont abide by it. It seems that they never abide by the rules of war, have they ever not mistreated POWs?

Ray
12 May 04,, 01:54
Totally disgusting. These people must be caught, tried and sentenced to death.

I still maintain that we should not emulate Al Qeada since that would not make us any better than them. I am confident that we are 100% superior in morals than them and should them that their archaic and brutal laws have no place in modern society.

Because a pig stays in a dirty pigs sty, it doesn't mean we make our homes pig stys and being into our home the disease.

Officer of Engineers
12 May 04,, 05:26
Have any Muslim nations signed the Geneva Convention?

Turkey, Iran, Algeria, Eygpt, Jordan, through the inherited treaties of the former USSR, ALL the Central Asian "S'tans."

Note, just because they signed it does not mean that they'll observe it - ie withess Vietnam and today's US's 800th MP Bde.

Trooth
12 May 04,, 08:26
Thats why I asked, even if they did sign, they dont abide by it. It seems that they never abide by the rules of war, have they ever not mistreated POWs?

As far as i am concerned it matters not. We are supposed to be liberating a people from leaders who did not respect such things. No matter what our enemies do, in this respect, we must stick to our principles. To do anything else just simply proves the murderers right and wastes the lives of those who have died fighting for some beliefs that we are now prepared to discard.

Aryan
12 May 04,, 14:37
Savages...best way forward is not to treat them as human

Officer of Engineers
12 May 04,, 15:02
Savages...best way forward is not to treat them as human

Even if we treat them as animals, we can be humane, if for no other purpose us not to be turned into savages ourselves. One shot. One kill.

Gentlemen,

Groin shots are not prohibitted under the various conventions.

Jay
12 May 04,, 15:51
Thats why I asked, even if they did sign, they dont abide by it. It seems that they never abide by the rules of war, have they ever not mistreated POWs?
Theirs is not a professional army, so I dont think they have to abide by Geneva Convention, heck they kidnap and kill people, they are mercenaries.

Colonel,
How does Geneva Convetion applies to mercenaries? I thot POW concept is only for soldier-soldier combat.

Officer of Engineers
12 May 04,, 16:00
Theirs is not a professional army, so I dont think they have to abide by Geneva Convention, heck they kidnap and kill people, they are mercenaries.

Colonel,
How does Geneva Convetion applies to mercenaries? I thot POW concept is only for soldier-soldier combat.

Unless the mercs are wearing a national uniform ala the FFL or the Gurkhas, it doesn't. Mercs are treated as a police matter.

Trooth
12 May 04,, 20:11
There are always ways around the Geneva convention etc - "Unlawful combatants" springs to mind.

However, gruesome and murderous although this is, it is one, albiet, high profile, killing. We can't let that force us to behave like barbarians.

ChrisF202
13 May 04,, 01:24
Theirs is not a professional army, so I dont think they have to abide by Geneva Convention, heck they kidnap and kill people, they are mercenaries.

Colonel,
How does Geneva Convetion applies to mercenaries? I thot POW concept is only for soldier-soldier combat.
I belive some of the rebels are former Iraqi military, they are not in uniform so I dont think the rules apply in that case.

Leader
13 May 04,, 02:45
Unless the mercs are wearing a national uniform ala the FFL or the Gurkhas, it doesn't. Mercs are treated as a police matter.

If the individual is not wearing the uniform of country aka the Iraqi rebels, are they entitled to any protections?

Ray
13 May 04,, 18:29
To the best of my recollection, a person who does NOT wear an uniform (whatever that be) is not entitled to protection of the GC as a soldier.

Leader
13 May 04,, 18:33
To the best of my recolletion, a person who does wear an uniform (whatever that be) is not entitled to protection of the GC as a soldier.

What if they are captured, are there any protections if they are not declared to be a POW?

Ray
13 May 04,, 18:52
To the best of my recollection, those who do not wear a recognised uniform are not entitled to GC. captured or otherwise.

However, I reckon the Colonel would know better since he is the latest in such 'odd' situations in the UN.

Pesonally, I feel that those who lurk in the grey areas should not be given protection, but then it is my personal opinion.

I am having 'Bandwidth Limit extended' error problems and so I am unable to correct at times my posts which I may have written in a hurry. Therefore, what you have quoted is the wrong post. Thos who have NO uniform to the best of my recollection are not entitled to protections in the GC. But, the Colonel would know better.

Trooth
14 May 04,, 00:14
I do not need weasal words from a lawyer on this one. If we must adjust our policy to react to each individual circumstance our policy is wrong.

We have our principles and we must follow them. If we went into this war for anything then it is that. We are not going to devalue our principles, nor those of the brave who have fought, nor those of the unfortunate who have died, by acting in a barbaric and reactionary manner.

Confed999
14 May 04,, 00:23
If we must adjust our policy to react to each individual circumstance our policy is wrong.
All you need to do is come up with a policy that covers every possible circumstance.

Trooth
14 May 04,, 00:35
All you need to do is come up with a policy that covers every possible circumstance.

That is possibly the forethought that we have been lacking!

Confed999
14 May 04,, 04:15
That is possibly the forethought that we have been lacking!
Sorry, I was being a smart-ass. It is impossible to cover every circumstance, the universe doesn't work that way. As soon as you were done with your billion page document covering everything that could happen, something new would come along and screw it up. Given enough time and space, everything can, and will, happen, there's no way to keep up. Best we can do is create guidelines and take it case by case, day by day.

How extreme the situation, is proportional, to how extreme the interrogation IMHO.

Officer of Engineers
14 May 04,, 04:35
To the best of my recollection, those who do not wear a recognised uniform are not entitled to GC. captured or otherwise.

However, I reckon the Colonel would know better since he is the latest in such 'odd' situations in the UN.

Pesonally, I feel that those who lurk in the grey areas should not be given protection, but then it is my personal opinion.

Sir,

Article 13 of the GC


Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
(3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
(4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany.
(5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law.
(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

What that means to us in the combat arms is that if they shoot at you and they surrender, take their surrender and send them back for the meatheads (Military Police) to sort them out for either police detention or a EPW camp. Regardless of the situation, I would not tolerate anyone taking some fun at the prisoners no matter what their status. This being said, I have had several idiots hog tied when they try to be more than we can handle.

13-6, Sir, states that any non-indegenious persons not wearing any recognizable signs and not following any of the laws and customs of war are not subject to the GC. In other words, if you catch any AQ in Iraq, you are allowed to torture him to death under the GC. This being said, such actions are forbidden under the QR&O and the UCMJ.

Officer of Engineers
14 May 04,, 04:57
I do not need weasal words from a lawyer on this one. If we must adjust our policy to react to each individual circumstance our policy is wrong.

We have our principles and we must follow them. If we went into this war for anything then it is that. We are not going to devalue our principles, nor those of the brave who have fought, nor those of the unfortunate who have died, by acting in a barbaric and reactionary manner.

Exactly what do you find wrong with our policies? I don't see any, just a failure of enforcement of said policies.

Blademaster
14 May 04,, 06:01
Exactly what do you find wrong with our policies? I don't see any, just a failure of enforcement of said policies.


What is torture? Can you define it? Torture can be a grey area, meaning it is like a candy store for lawyers.

Ray
14 May 04,, 19:54
Thanks Colonel.

Trooth
14 May 04,, 20:30
Exactly what do you find wrong with our policies? I don't see any, just a failure of enforcement of said policies.
With regards to treatment of prisoners? Nothing. I am under no doubt that the torturing of Iraqi prisoners is condemned by the US military as a policy, and i also have no doubt that it is a minority that wish to indluge in such things.

My response was that I do not wish lawyers to be the basis for deciding how we should behave in this war of liberation. We have our principles and we should stick to them. I was disappointed with "unlawful combatants" for example.

Officer of Engineers
15 May 04,, 14:59
With regards to treatment of prisoners? Nothing. I am under no doubt that the torturing of Iraqi prisoners is condemned by the US military as a policy, and i also have no doubt that it is a minority that wish to indluge in such things.

My response was that I do not wish lawyers to be the basis for deciding how we should behave in this war of liberation. We have our principles and we should stick to them. I was disappointed with "unlawful combatants" for example.

I don't know what the current usage of "unlawful combatants" is but under the GC, these are terrorists not party to the conflict using terrorist tactics, not the laws and customs of war. If you're not an Iraqi and you're beheading civies, you're a goddamned unlawful combattant.

Trooth
16 May 04,, 18:47
I don't know what the current usage of "unlawful combatants" is but under the GC, these are terrorists not party to the conflict using terrorist tactics, not the laws and customs of war. If you're not an Iraqi and you're beheading civies, you're a goddamned unlawful combattant.

It was used by Mr Rumsfeld a lot when referring to the captives in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 04,, 20:23
It was used by Mr Rumsfeld a lot when referring to the captives in Guantanamo Bay's Camp X-ray.

Remember the original intent of C-X, it was the war against OBL and they are as unlawful combattants as they come.

Trooth
16 May 04,, 20:54
Remember the original intent of C-X, it was the war against OBL and they are as unlawful combattants as they come.

I read the usage as being a blank cheque for the captors to dow ith the prisoners as they will. Given that increasing numbers are being released without charge after years in detention I am concerned that it was a legal loophole.

ChrisF202
16 May 04,, 22:35
Does the GS's Art. 13 apply to uniformed law enforcement officers? Such as the Iraqi police who tried to drive their patrol cars into US tanks as we stormed into Baghdad.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 04,, 22:48
I read the usage as being a blank cheque for the captors to dow ith the prisoners as they will. Given that increasing numbers are being released without charge after years in detention I am concerned that it was a legal loophole.

A non-point. We're in a war and we do not lay charges against people shooting at us. All they have to do is to act against us and that is enough. The people in there were in active combat or at there very least active support (I don't care if they were just hauling water) for the enemy. The best they could have hoped for was a declaration under the GC to which the best they can hope for was eventual release when the War on Terror is over. The War on Terror is far from over. If they were declared lawful combattants, then the US is under obligation to still keep them behind bars.

Also, nothing that has happenned to them is in any violation of the American Uniform Code of Military Justice which supercedes the GC as far as the USArmy is concerned.

Your 22SAS and my JTF II caught quite a few of these people. I am not about to discuss the ROE concerning the treatment of hostile prisoners, surfice to say the legal basis to which they operate does not violate the QR&O of both your country and mine.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 04,, 22:49
Does the GS's Art. 13 apply to uniformed law enforcement officers? Such as the Iraqi police who tried to drive their patrol cars into US tanks as we stormed into Baghdad.

As long as they don't run over babies while doing it, then they are considered lawful combattants under the GC.

Trooth
16 May 04,, 22:59
OofE. I understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is just my mistrust of Rumsfeld and if other people had been dealing with Guantanamo i wouldn't feel uneasy about the words used.

However, at some point those combatants have to be dealt with. They are, if not in name, in parallel, to PoW camps. How long would we expect to keep them in such camps? The war on terror will not end for decades. So are we proposing to hold them for decades without charge, even after (hopefully) Afghanistan and Iraq can gain some sort of stability?

I have no issue with them being detained, it just strikes me that when they are released it isn't clear why they were detained.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 04,, 23:16
OofE. I understand what you are saying. Perhaps it is just my mistrust of Rumsfeld and if other people had been dealing with Guantanamo i wouldn't feel uneasy about the words used.

I am trying to ease some of those feelings for you. Neither your soldiers nor mine answer to the USA in general and Rumsfeld specifically. We will not bring dishonour to the Crown by allowing anyone else, even an American, to tramble our principals. Your very own LCol Collins said the same thing. I have said the same thing. At least feel easier that when we did send people to Guantanamo, we have not violate the Queen's Rules and our honour.


However, at some point those combatants have to be dealt with. They are, if not in name, in parallel, to PoW camps. How long would we expect to keep them in such camps? The war on terror will not end for decades. So are we proposing to hold them for decades without charge, even after (hopefully) Afghanistan and Iraq can gain some sort of stability?

If we follow form, we would've transfer them back to their respective gov'ts to do as they see fit.


I have no issue with them being detained, it just strikes me that when they are released it isn't clear why they were detained.

Having a Want-To-Know does not entitle you to have a Need-To-Know. In general terms, there are things the interrogators want to know. The subjectees did not have that knowlege and thus were released. Revealling what the interrogators suspected the subjectees knew would alert the enemy just how close or how far we are away from them.

Praxus
16 May 04,, 23:38
Worrying about dishonoring the queen is one of the most archaic things I have ever heard from you.

Officer of Engineers
16 May 04,, 23:41
Worrying about dishonoring the queen is one of the most archaic things I have ever heard from you.

For your Service Members, it's your Flag. For us, it's our Queen, more the actual symbol than the person.

Trooth
16 May 04,, 23:45
Worrying about dishonoring the queen is one of the most archaic things I have ever heard from you.

His actual quote was regarding the crown. Which isn't the same thing as the Queen.

Trooth
16 May 04,, 23:47
Having a Want-To-Know does not entitle you to have a Need-To-Know. In general terms, there are things the interrogators want to know. The subjectees did not have that knowlege and thus were released. Revealling what the interrogators suspected the subjectees knew would alert the enemy just how close or how far we are away from them.

Indeed, but of those that have been released they are subsequently not charged with anything. I can understand that the interrogations can extract useful if indirect infromation from those who ere, perhaps, only hauling water. But, i am conscious that similar things are happening in civvie street at the moment.

Confed999
17 May 04,, 17:14
But, i am conscious that similar things are happening in civvie street at the moment.
If the enemy hides and fights amongst civilians, then the civilians around them are going to be taken as well. The same thing happens here in the States when a criminal is captured, the people with him are arrested as well, accessories or harboing a fugitive are common charges. Same as when an Israeli gunship takes out a terrorist, the people around said terrorist know who he is, they are accessories, or just plain stupid.

Trooth
17 May 04,, 21:42
If the enemy hides and fights amongst civilians, then the civilians around them are going to be taken as well. The same thing happens here in the States when a criminal is captured, the people with him are arrested as well, accessories or harboing a fugitive are common charges. Same as when an Israeli gunship takes out a terrorist, the people around said terrorist know who he is, they are accessories, or just plain stupid.

In UK civilian life, there are limits to how long people can be detained without charge. That is except under the Terrorism Act 2000. Between 9/11 and end of March 2004 561 people had been detained under the act. Of which 6 have been convicted.

Last month it was revealed that 8 people have been detained since December 2001 without charge.

Which is similar to how the "unlawful cambatants" are being handled. My point is lets get these people processed and charged.

Confed999
18 May 04,, 00:12
My point is lets get these people processed and charged.
They can make up a charge if you'd like, but they aren't going to let them go until they're sure they're done with them.

Trooth
18 May 04,, 00:25
Thats fine. Making up a charge should get sorted out during whatever system of justice they end up answering too.

There are no trials coming out of it which is the bit that concerns me. Any information those people have is becoming less current by the day. If they hope to track Bin Laden down through such information, it has to be obtained quickly. The AQ cells also have to be tackled quickly.

Confed999
18 May 04,, 00:29
Thats fine.
Ok, lets call it accessory to terrorism, and when all of the rest of the terrorists are captured or killed we'll have a series of trials. Until then, if you're around terrorists turn them in for protection, or join them in prison.

ChrisF202
18 May 04,, 01:27
Ok, lets call it accessory to terrorism, and when all of the rest of the terrorists are captured or killed we'll have a series of trials. Until then, if you're around terrorists turn them in for protection, or join them in prison.
Thats exactally (sp) my position :)

Officer of Engineers
18 May 04,, 01:42
Trooth,

There is due process. Just because you don't see it does not mean it was not followed. The UCMJ has been adhered to without question.