Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Sun 11/09/2003 View Sat 11/08/2003 View Fri 11/07/2003 View Thu 11/06/2003 View Wed 11/05/2003 View Tue 11/04/2003 View Mon 11/03/2003
1
2003-11-09 Iraq
18 Held in Oct. Hotel Attack in Baghdad
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred Pruitt 2003-11-09 09:51|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 "U.S. troops have arrested 18 people in connection with last month's fatal missile barrage against Baghdad's Al-Rasheed hotel..."

Unfortunate to see the word “arrested” used here. These are military operations, not police actions. “Arrested” brings all sorts of images of court trials and rules of evidence and Judge Judy…

...don’t need no mo’ confusion, a la Guantanamo, as to how the enemy should be treated in the battlefield, whether in this, the second operational theater of the war on terrorists, or Damascus Riyadh any future battlefield.


Posted by Hyper 2003-11-9 10:18:26 AM||   2003-11-9 10:18:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 I'm with Hyper. If the U.S. military is using the word "arrested" instead of "captured," they need to stop. We are still at war; you don't "arrest" opposing troops, you capture (or, in the case of these particular opposing troops, preferably kill) them.

I'd like to think it's the media using the word and not the military, but the way the upper levels of the Pentagon (a) have been infused with PC and (b) are resisting efforts to reform/update our military, I suspect I'm wrong. Sigh.
Posted by Barbara Skolaut  2003-11-9 10:30:20 AM||   2003-11-9 10:30:20 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Actually, we shouldn't consider these sandfleas 'combattants', but terrorists. You can either 'capture' terrorists or 'arrest' suspected terrorists. The difference is significant: if they're foreign combattants, the Geneva Convention rules apply. If they're terrorists, I'm not sure if any rules should apply. If you go outside the bounds of just actions by committing terrorist acts, you shouldn't expect to be treated by the conventions established for actions within those bounds.

Drain 'em dry, whack & stack 'em, and let the world know. Also let them know we don't give a happy rat's a$$ what the rest of the world thinks about our behavior. This is a war against the United States (actually western civilization, but there are just too many idiots who refuse to accept that). Unless you are our ally, you have no say in this war.
Posted by Old Patriot  2003-11-9 11:27:01 AM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm]  2003-11-9 11:27:01 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 Regardless of the final disposition, I am happy to see 18 apprehended. Apprehension of locals would be impossible in a civilian population that was sympathetic to their cause.
Posted by Super Hose  2003-11-9 1:27:58 PM||   2003-11-9 1:27:58 PM|| Front Page Top

23:58 RMcLeod
23:56 Bomb-a-rama
23:54 Larry
23:52 Bomb-a-rama
23:44 Bomb-a-rama
23:43 Larry
23:42 John
23:42 rg117
23:39 John
23:36 John
23:34 CrazyFool
23:23 charlie32
23:17 Raj
23:10 Raj
22:38 Alaska Paul
22:34 Alaska Paul
22:15 Angie Schultz
22:13 JP
22:10 ----------<<<<--
21:49 John Anderson
21:39 ----------<<<<--
21:38 Uncle Joe
21:23 eLarson
21:01 Bomb-a-rama









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com