HOW TO SOLVE OUR PRISONER PROBLEM

THE British military defines experience as the ability to recognize a mistake the second time you make it. By that standard, we should be very experienced in dealing with captured terrorists, since we've made the same mistake again and again. Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there's no way to dispose of them.

Killing terrorists during a conflict isn't barbaric or immoral - or even illegal. We've imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven't been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans - but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies - beyond the pale of law.

Traditionally, those who masquerade as civilians in order to kill legal combatants have been executed promptly, without trial. Severity, not sloppy leftist pandering, kept warfare within some decent bounds at least part of the time. But we have reached a point at which the rules apply only to us, while our enemies are permitted unrestricted freedom.

The present situation encourages our enemies to behave wantonly, while crippling our attempts to deal with terror.

Consider today's norm: A terrorist in civilian clothes can explode an IED, killing and maiming American troops or innocent civilians, then demand humane treatment if captured - and the media will step in as his champion. A disguised insurgent can shoot his rockets, throw his grenades, empty his magazines, kill and wound our troops, then, out of ammo, raise his hands and demand three hots and a cot while he invents tales of abuse.

Conferring unprecedented legal status upon these murderous transnational outlaws is unnecessary, unwise and ultimately suicidal. It exalts monsters. And it provides the anti-American pack with living vermin to anoint as victims, if not heroes.

Isn't it time we gave our critics what they're asking for? Let's solve the "unjust" imprisonment problem, once and for all. No more Guantanamos! Every terrorist mission should be a suicide mission. With our help.

We need to clarify the rules of conflict. But integrity and courage have fled Washington. Nobody will state bluntly that we're in a fight for our lives, that war is hell, and that we must do what it takes to win.

Our enemies will remind us of what's necessary, though. When we've been punished horribly enough, we'll come to our senses and do what must be done.

This isn't an argument for a murderous rampage, but its opposite. We must kill our enemies with discrimination. But we do need to kill them. A corpse is a corpse: The media's rage dissipates with the stench. But an imprisoned terrorist is a strategic liability.

Nor should we ever mistreat captured soldiers or insurgents who adhere to standing conventions. On the contrary, we should enforce policies that encourage our enemies to identify themselves according to the laws of war. Ambiguity works to their advantage, never to ours.

Our policy toward terrorists and insurgents in civilian clothing should be straightforward and public: Surrender before firing a shot or taking hostile action toward our troops, and we'll regard you as a legal prisoner. But once you've pulled a trigger, thrown a grenade or detonated a bomb, you will be killed. On the battlefield and on the spot.

Isn't that common sense? It also happens to conform to the traditional conduct of war between civilized nations. Ignorant of history, we've talked ourselves into folly.

And by the way: How have the terrorists treated the uniformed American soldiers they've captured? According to the Geneva Convention?

Sadly, even our military has been infected by political correctness. Some of my former peers will wring their hands and babble about "winning hearts and minds." But we'll never win the hearts and minds of terrorists. And if we hope to win the minds, if not the hearts, of foreign populations, we must be willing to kill the violent, lawless fraction of a fraction of a percent of the population determined to terrorize the rest.

Ravaged societies crave and need strict order. Soft policies may appear to work in the short term, but they fail overwhelmingly in the longer term. Wherever we've tried sweetness and light in Iraq, it has only worked as long as our troops were present - after which the terrorists returned and slaughtered the beneficiaries of our good intentions. If you wish to defend the many, you must be willing to kill the few.

For now, we're stuck with a situation in which the hardcore terrorists in Guantanamo are "innocent victims" even to our fair-weather allies. In Iraq, our troops capture bomb-makers only to learn they've been dumped back on the block.

It is not humane to spare fanatical murderers. It is not humane to play into our enemy's hands. And it is not humane to endanger our troops out of political correctness.

Instead of worrying over trumped-up atrocities in Iraq (the media give credence to any claim made by terrorists), we should stop apologizing and take a stand. That means firm rules for the battlefield, not Gumby-speak intended to please critics who'll never be satisfied by anything America does.

The ultimate act of humanity in the War on Terror is to win. To do so, we must kill our enemies wherever we encounter them. He who commits an act of terror forfeits every right he once possessed.

Amen

Once again...I concur.

I'll see that last concur & raise it. No matter what we do, we're wrong,so let's quit trying & play by their rules.
I don't believe they'll like the game then.

Completely disagree! Would prefer to see clean-up details for road building, rubble clearance, mine field clearing, and work to benefit the country whose citizens they raped, murdered, butchered, brutalized, and terrorized in any number of ways. If they attempt to escape, cause harm, etc. ... butt of rifle when appropriate, or shoot to kill.

Where to keep them? A sound barbed wire encampment on sand, tents, water, food, and medical treatment. If they cause trouble, keep separated with the butt of a rife in an appropriate manner. If they try to escape over or under the wire, after being warned ... shot and kill. How long to keep? Until you dump back to the country they came from for them to take charge. What about them being recycled, and coming back to the field, i.e., in uniform, out of uniform, or in the buff? Tattoo them, or if technology is good enough, i.e., ID instantly with computer banks holding DNA profiles or chip them.

Hmmm ... all well and good, but what if they if come back again? After warned to stay at home, and found out in any future engagement ... just shoot on the spot ... no more hard labor out. BTW, this is all by law, The Geneva Convention, The United States Military Articles of War, and the American Red Cross. Where is this stuff found in these articles? Just read this stuff, and check out the options and directives! How do we get information from these turkeys? After all, as captured American's we are only obligated to respond when asked for information with: Name, rank, and serial number. Let these turkeys enjoy the sand and sunny desert climate for a bit ...perhaps a few will say a word or two.

Gee, since terrorists do not follow our rules, i.e., cut off fingers, heads, or worse, and since they do not have and compulsion to kill women and children, along with non-combatants what can be done? The rules for American military confined are quite straight forward: keep alive as long as you can to escape, and to kill the enemy! When the war is over, there is a War Time Commission, e.g., similar to the Nuremberg trials of WWII set-up to jail and hang war criminals. So, as long as we have a few ropes and tents about this should work out very well indeed for finger, head cutters, and worse. Until then, we must be vigilant, train better, and interdict, and kill these scum-bags!

Finally, would like to see more cooperation among intelligence groups-CIA, FBI, NSA, etc., a larger military force, with more support given to our allies and friends. Most definitely, an energy transformation in this country, with less reliance on any foreign oil production-e.g., a Manhattan Project in Atomic and Hydrogen energy sources.

Well, now that's where you're skirting the issue of gray areas there, DF. According to the Geneva Convention (which still does not address captured terrorists, btw), POWs are not to be treated inhumanely or put in harm's way while incarcerated... i.e., no clearing minefields, and in the case of Iraq, no road-building and stuff like that because of known use of IEDs.

Until there's a method of being able to identify repeat offenders through a weapon's scope or sites, who's to know if that guy shooting at you has been picked up by us before or not? Personally, I'd not be waiting around to I.D. anyone who's shooting at me in the first place - I'd make every effort to stop his efforts from the get-go.

So basically. as the thread starts out: shoot 'em all... forget trying to pick 'em up. Why risk ourselves in the process. Dead terrorists can't execute their plans and kill more innocent people. It's pretty easy to tell who's shooting at you, so I say either shoot back or shoot the guys with the guns first.

Well in terms of cleaning out mine fields, and the issues of IEDs. It seems more than appropriate, and safe for all, (since they put them there) they clean them out! That is, they are not in harms way because they are so good at the innovation of IEDs and planting mines. Therefore, it is more than logical and humane they would be safe doing that job.

BTW, the term terrorist may stand to be revised a bit, i.e., considering that currently Iran (a terrorist state) has a surrogate extension, or the group-( Hezbollah ) that they pay about $150m a year supporting, and this same group receiving this loot is again an extension of Iran, which now is the elected head of the Palestinian government that is sworn to do in Israel. The term terrorist is currently given to states too, that have armies and that ware uniforms most of the time-except when they don't. That is, they (Iran) support groups that do their bidding that do not ware the same uniforms, except they do use the same arms, and most importantly, have the same ideology.

Point, defining uniforms and tasks do fall under the Geneva Convention, however, my first loyalty is to the United States Military Articles of War. The former is set by interpretations, and guidelines for the "general good"(convention lingo). This translates into and means you need military personal to guard, and care for these individuals. So, hard choices can be made, clearing mine fields and building roads and other difficult work that is needed to deal with a state's recovery is more than in order-if the state is to eventually protect, and take over the responsibility of these scum bags. The damage and carnage this group is responsible in doing clearly means hard labor in the field is more than fair-obviously, an interpretation that the Geneva people can scrutinize. IMHO.

With reference to someone out in the field shooting at me, it is clear that if they are spotted they may only have that one chance for success. In terms of ID, this is an old method some used in WWI to release, and tattoo the individual out of the war, on recapture they were executed. A major focus is not to just shoot a collectivity of these people 'if not needed', i.e., if other means can be found to neutralize them-nothing more or less.

Below are two new weapons use to identify terrorists of the worst kind at a distance, and eat them with not much prompting!

Then, there is team Bravo.

Even though Im a shoot first ask their politics later type of guy...DF brings up an excellent point. T o make a man face the horrors of his actions tends to have a far more reaching effect than blowing off his head.

One would hope. But we're dealing with the type of people who would kill dozens of their own friends, neighbors, and family members just for the chance to kill or injure a few of the 'enemy.' Somehow, I think the theory of 'facing their own horrors' would fall about as far short with them as the concept of honor.

Ya gotta keep in mind what we're really dealing with here: brainwashed, single-minded, dishonorable cowards who also happen to be zealots with misplaced conceptions about their own religious motivations.

If that doesn't say 'uncaring ignorant idiots,' I don't know what does.