NY Times: American soldiers executed

Why do you start a whole new thread for each thing? Can't you have one big "Anti War Controversies" thread?

OK I guess this one is, now that I think about it. It is pretty terrible, but they'll get theirs I guess.

Yeah, I did think. And I hope the people who killed the hostages die. That's my opinion. You don't like it, you can stuff it where the sun don't shine, buddy.

For those who act under Saddam's regime, the Geneva Conventions mean nothing to them.

Right now, unlike in the first Gulf War, the Iraqis are just worried about their survival and not absorbing another country (Kuwait).

Anyway, it is very sad what has transpired with the POWs.

a) Has anyone been executed by these "military tribunals"?

b) Can anyone direct me to a site with exact details on the tribunals? I'll look around myself, but if anyone feels there is a particularly good bit of info I'd love to see it.

It was my belief that the administration had backed away from the "tribunal" thing and was trying folks like Lindh in front of normal juries.

edited to add; c) has there been any suggestion that POWs taken in Iraq would be tried before such a tribunal?

Well, apparently there is no overwhelming superpower that feels that the "enemy combatants" shouldn't be executed. No one, besides Al Qaeda (Which is not a "out there" entity), that would even vouch for the enemy combatants that have been taken prisoner by the US.

However, these Iraqi captors didn't call for secret military tribunals. They just went ahead and executed POWs despite the GC.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26CAPI.html" target="_blank">http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/26/international/worldspecial/26CAPI.html</a>

I don't think I can. Just like you can't prove that these secret military tribunals exist outside of the fact that they could exist a la the PATRIOT Act.

You say that I couldn't prove something, and I, in fact, can't.

However, I don't think you can prove that just because something CAN exist, doesn't mean it does exist.

The tribunals could exist. But do you have tangible proof?

Aren't you asking me to prove that the Iraqis tried to call for secret military tribunals?

Unless I missed it did anyone provide a link saying the U.S. exacuted anyone under military tribunals?
I'm not surprised the Iraqi's did this, they do it to their own people.
I can't wait till they show the dead body of Saddam Hussein and his sons.

Probably, but what would be the point?

OK, I've looked around a bit and I don't think there is any comparison here.

As you suspected, the military tribunal thing was not part of the Patriot Act but rather was issued in November of 2001. It was revised in March of 2002 in response to public criticism. Although it is still not a standard trial in front of a jury, the defendant has the right to review evidence against him and pick his own lawyer. Furthermore, the tribunal is not secret - no cameras are allowed to be present, but reporters are, with the only stipulation being that they not report on top secret material. The tribunal can sentence the defendant to death, but unanimity on the sentence is required. Up to this point, the tribunals have not been used. Even that lovable "20th hijacker" is getting a standard trial. I still think they are a bad idea, but that is another thread.

The soldiers in Iraq did not pick a lawyer to defend themselves, did not review the evidence against them, were not tried by a panel of seven to twelve military men in a tribunal open to the public. They were dragged into public and shot. That is a war crime. I don't see the comparison.

By the by, from reading the November 13th, 2001 order it is my understanding that the tribunals are not for use against all "enemy combatants" but only those who are members of Al Quaida or support them directly. So it seems doubtful that soldiers taken in Iraq would be subject to them.

Another side note (sorry for posting three in a row here); under the March alterations, defendants are considered innocent until proven guilty.

A posting question - if no one has responded to a post and I want to add something to it, is doing so considered poor form? Should I create a new post with the thought?

You're posting ok. But try to use the "edit" feature as much as possible without actually deleting any content. Ad to the post but don't delete. It screws up threads.

Carry on...I have nothing to add in this forum anymore.

I dont think the POWS have been executed by the Iraqis.

DVtS - I have been watching the news, have checked a number of channels plus the guys I work with, nobody has seen any news of any POWs being executed, on either side. Apologises if I am wrong, but tell me where you saw this news.

and as for treatment of POW

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2883915.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2883915.stm</a>

DvTS, no more outbursts like that, ok? Not cool, and almost like trolling.

are you crying again? Go debate infront of the mirror if you feel you have no intellectual equal here.

Might have something to do with his sig, Dev.

That you two can figure out. I was just pointing out where it appeared the hate was originating.

Well you really showed him there.

Play nice, guys. More debating, less personal attacks, pleeeeeeeeeeeze?

I don't understand why people are so outraged by the unconventional means that Iraq is using to fight. Why would they be conventional? I have a feeling that most of Iraq, including it's key leaders, have an idea that they are outgunned, outmanned, and technically less advanced. None of this suprises me. The only reason I can see that America is showing such awe and so many complaints is because it just adds more fuel to the "See, we MUST remove this madman" fire. None of this suprises me. I expect much more to come in the next couple days. I think Iraq is leading us on right now. If there are chemical weapons, this isn't going to be good at all.

Agreed Boomstick, as said before, no War is clean or fair, what did people expect the Iraqi Regime would do??? use harsh language to defend itself??

I heard Saddam call us a bunch of "Yankee Doodle Dorkusses."

The fucker, he has gone too far this time.

Maybe we'll actually aim at the civilians and hit Saddam instead.

Come on, let's back off Devin here. He was being pretty civil in this thread. Not that he needs my help to defend himself, but still...

Boomstick, Watcher - Are you equating the outrage that such a shooting would cause to the outrage we might express at a schoolyard taunt? I think that may be a bit callous. This is not an "unconventional means of fighting". These American soldiers were not fighting when they were murdered. They were dragged into public and shot with no chance to defend themselves.

You don't have to be a forensics expert to be able to tell that those head wounds (dead center of the forehead, by the way) came from CLOSE RANGE and are clear signs of "execution" type wounds.

Al Manheim - apologises if my email was taken to be callous. I was attempting to express my wonder at why America has issues with the way the Iraqis are defending their country from invasion, not specifically addressing the alledged shooting of POWs (Iraq has no upside in shooting POWs - their value as propaganda/human shields/bargaining chips is too great)

I didn't say "between the eyes". But common sense dictates that those wounds were either the result of an extreme close-range shot (ie, execution) or Iraq has some kick-ass sharpshooters in its army (which is much more unbelievable than execution as a long range shot to the head would have resulted in a lot of the head being removed from the exit wound).

I mean, get real. It's simply NOT a stretch to see those images and assume that someone put a gun to those soldiers' heads and pulled the trigger.

The evidence, which is still under investigation, is from one eyewitness report that some of the soldiers of that mechanic's group were executed in public in front of villagers.