ST Alpha - "Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no?" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 155

In response to "I don't see how that's relevant. -- nm" by Reagen

Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no?

Posted by Name Withheld By Request (aka BlueKopo) Dec 31 '09, 10:10

I mean, this is a symptom of the larger ramifications of 21st warfare, but isn't that why it's somewhat important that it is quickly determined if its proper to classify it as "crime" vs. "attack"?

I'm not saying I'm convinced of this argument, but I'm really not sure I can dismiss it either.

Responses:

just because AQ claims responsibility doesn't mean they're telling the truth. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:17 7
- Wanna put odds on it? Yes, there's a chance that they weren't, but there was also a chance on 9/11 that they didn't do it either, but.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:20 6
  - and no, I don't think we can assume it's AQ at this point. -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:25
  - Right, but it can't be used as any kind of evidence, can it? -- nm - loosilu Dec 31, 10:24
  - there's a world of difference between (at least) 19 men acting in concert, and one man's failed attack. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:24 3
    - Does AQ have a history of claiming attacks that aren't theirs? I haven't heard much of one. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:29 2
      - I'm not saying it's not AQ. just that because AQ might be involved doesn't mean that it's a nefarious terrorist masterstroke. -- nm - mafic Dec 31, 10:50 1
        
        I'm not saying Blofled's stroking his cat while saying, "Release the Fruit of the Loom bomber on them," but if AQ's involved then by default, it's... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:55
the relevant thing here to me is what is no Mirandizing him going to do? He's going to answer the question or he's not. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:12 15
- I hate that we have to protect people against their own idiocy, but I accept it as necessary. - mafic Dec 31, 10:19 9
  - No one disputes that he could sit there mum and that's that. But do you really believe that a military interrogater wouldn't have a better chance.... - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:22 8
    - such as...? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:23 7
      - Here's the list on Wiki as pulled from the field manual: -- (link) - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:37 2
        
        other than the last two, I can't see why any of those couldn't be used in normal interrogation. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:40 1 1
        
        At least half the list is rendered ineffective with a lawyer present. At least half. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:43
      - well, there's the hot-coat-hanger-to-the-testes... i think that one's still legal. -- nm - TFox Dec 31, 10:24 3
        
        Interrogating someone in the middle of the night just 'cause. I can't imagine the FBI can do that regularly. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:31 2
        
        Why not? FBI agents only work 8-5? - Will Hunting Dec 31, 10:34 1
        
        I'm thinking the lawyer present aspect probably has rules to prevent "abuse" by the legal agency. Could be wrong. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:35
- You treat him like a criminal, provide a lawyer, and the odds of getting information on the wider organization greatly diminishes. - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:15 4
  - or maybe his lawyer advises him to spill his guts for a better deal. - Reagen Dec 31, 10:17
  - PS: There's no guarantee that he'll ever talk, but the chances are substantially better. -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:16 2
    - I seriously don't understand how. *are* we talking about torture here? -- nm - Reagen Dec 31, 10:18 1
      - There's plenty of legal and accepted techiniques that can/are used outside of torture. The time of day when the interrogation takes place for example -- nm - Name Withheld By Request Dec 31, 10:25

Post a message top

Because of the legal ramifications of "enemy combatants", no?

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.