Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 63

Thread: Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism

    Public Opinion in the Islamic World on Terrorism,
    Al Qaeda, American Policies, and Islamist Politics

    Wednesday, February 25, 2009
    9:00 – 10:30 am
    Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
    1779 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C.
    Root Room, 2nd Floor

    The START Center of the University of Maryland and WorldPublicOpinion.org will release the findings from extensive new public opinion research in Egypt, Pakistan and Indonesia, supplemented with additional data from Turkey, Jordan, the Palestinian Territories, and Azerbaijan. The research examines in detail public attitudes on such topics as:

    • Views of terrorist attacks on civilians in general and Americans in particular
    • Views of attacks on US troops based in Muslim countries
    • Perceptions and views of the goals of al Qaeda
    • Perceptions and views of US foreign policy objectives in the region US military presence in the Persian Gulf
    • The participation of Islamist groups in the political process
    This survey repeats some questions asked in START’s groundbreaking 2007 study and permits assessment of positive and negative trends over time in Muslim public attitudes. Insights from focus groups in several countries will complement the polling data.

    A panel will discuss the implications of the findings.

    Moderator: Gary LaFree, Professor, University of Maryland and Director of START
    Presenter: Steven Kull, Director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes and WorldPublicOpinion.org
    Discussant: Daniel Brumberg, Acting Director Muslim World Initiative, United States Institute of Peace

    Coffee and continental breakfast will be available at 8:30am. Please RSVP at info@pipa.org or 202-232-7500.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  2. #2
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Great pending data source

    Rex in Montreal:

    Thanks for this posting and please update it when the final report is issued to the public.

    Also, as just one American I appreciate that he Government of Canada last year did a 4 year extension/continuaiton of your military helping us in Afghanistan.

    Much oblidged!

  3. #3
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    I'm not normally a betting man, but I would almost be willing to bet money that the outcomes of this would surprise your typical American. Gallup's polls on the same subjects found that the Islamic World's public opinion opposes terrorism more than the same opinions in the US.

    There is a definitional problem here, though. Is an irregular attack on US military forces in a foreign country "terrorism?" Sometimes, I think we throw events in the "terrorism" basket unjustly.

  4. #4
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Roger this ....

    from 120mm
    There is a definitional problem here, though. Is an irregular attack on US military forces in a foreign country "terrorism?" Sometimes, I think we throw events in the "terrorism" basket unjustly.
    Been looking at this problem in the last few "War Crimes" posts dealing with the Eminent Jurists report, which I've slogged through. Also slogged through the 1977 Protocols to the 1949 GCs (1977s not ratified by US; 1949s are in force for us).

    As I read the Protocols, the guy who attacks you is required to carry arms openly when he attacks (maybe when he is setting up for the attack) - and is considered a protected combatant. Then, he goes back home (hiding his weapon on the way) and become Joe Villager, a protected non-combatant. Totally nuts.

    Since most of the NATO countries have ratified the 1977 Protocols, this issue is not academic - it affects their rules of engagement. Their ROEs are also affected by a very limited definition of "armed conflict" in their jurisprudence, which would treat many of these "incidents" as criminal acts only.

    Keep that little doggie avatar safe from those non-combatant combatants.
    Last edited by jmm99; 02-22-2009 at 01:23 AM.

  5. #5
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default JMM old buddy

    you've just made the point that while domestic law is more than sufficiently complex, international law (of war, at least) is totally problematic.

    By current "laws" all insurgents who don't fight openly - 99% - are illegal combatants and most (90%+?) are terrorists at one time or another - making them simply criminals. So, the obvious conclusion is that rather than lionize a Nelson Mandela, we should haul him before the ICC and try him for his acts of terrorism 40 years ago - even though he (1) served time and (2) was critical to the emergence of a new South Africa that is the only really stabilizing force in the region.

    Cheers

    JohnT
    Last edited by davidbfpo; 02-22-2009 at 01:16 PM. Reason: Spelling change: hale to haul

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default I'd use the term "confused" ...



    Here is a starting point (for what ended up a longer screed than I intended):

    from John
    By current "laws" all insurgents who don't fight openly - 99% - are illegal combatants and most (90%+?) are terrorists at one time or another - making them simply criminals.
    As I view this statement (with which I have much agreement in end result), it mixes two different things:

    (1) How to treat combatants under the Laws of War (kill, wound or detain); and

    (2) How to treat the same people under the Rule of Law (criminal prosecutions).

    ----------------------------
    As to the first thing, there are two different streams of law:

    (1) 1949 GCs, where in US law these insurgent combatants are not protected combatants (GC III does not apply, but Common Article 3 does), and are certainly not protected civilians (GC IV does not apply). One of them can claim either GC III or GC IV status; and if so is entitled to an fair hearing on that claim. Otherwise, that combatant is entitled only to the rights under Common Article 3 - which are not the best-defined in the world.

    (2) 1949 GCs + the 1977 Protocals I and II. While those Protocals may be subject to interpretation, one reading is that an insurgent combatant can turn on and off his or her combatant or civilian status - but, regardless of which status, is still protected either as a combatant or civilian. In that view, the ANC folks, being part of a "national liberation struggle", were lawful combatants or lawful civilians - depending on which costume they decided to wear at the time. Most NATO nations accept the Protocals. Interestingly enough, the nations where we now have armed conflicts (Iraq through India) do not accept the Protocals.

    --------------------------
    As to the second thing, I see use of "terrorism" to define a crime as problematic - simply because attempts at drafting definitions of "terrorism" have been notably unsuccessful. In terms of US constitutional law, those definitions tend to flunk either the void for vagueness test, the overbreadth test or both.

    Still, like pornography, we do have a grasp of what terrorism is - we know it when we see it, even if we can't define it. Moreover, the acts of combatants (if they are unprotected under the 1949 GCs) can certainly be criminal acts, as well as acts of armed conflict.

    My suggested path out of this morass is basically KISS - relying on US constitutional law as the fundamental guide (I'm sworn to support that, not the views of the Eminent Jurists).

    As to the first point (the Laws of War), the power to declare and conduct armed conflicts[*] is vested in our Executive and Legislative branches (leaving aside the relative powers of each in that area, the overall power cannot be questioned). There is no limitation that that power can only be exercised against State actors who commit acts of armed conflict against us. It is up to the Executive and Legislative branches to decide what in any particular case constitutes acts of armed conflict within that power, and what State or non-State actor or actors are responsible for those acts of armed conflict. Those acts may or may not constitute "terrorism" - the definition of which is not material to the existence of an armed conflict (which is determined in the discretion of our constitutionally designated bodies - hopefully in their sound discretion, but determined none the less).

    The criminal law issues then fall into place, once we determine under our (US) law whether the combatants on the other side are lawful or not under the 1949 GCs (see, e.g., FM 27-10) that we have ratified. If they have lawful status, their combatant acts in the armed conflict are protected from criminal prosecution (lawful combatant immunity); and, if detained, have PW/POW status. If they do not have lawful status, their combatant acts in the armed conflict are not protected and they may be prosecuted criminally; and, if detained, would be subject to Common Article 3 status [**].

    The criminal law charges are vanilla - murder, assault, attempts to do the same and conspiracy are all well-defined crimes in our domestic law. One could (as in the case of KSM) add some of the Nuremberg charges. E.g., I view 9/11 as a crime against humanity - as well as a planned attack by combatants (unlawful) against strategic targets in an armed conflict. Whether those crimes should be tried in Federal court, or in special courts under different procedural and evidentiary rules, is a separate question as to which reasonable people can differ as to the pros and cons.

    As a final note, a criminal statute could be enacted making it a criminal act for individual combatants to engage in an armed conflict with the US, where they are not protected by combatant immunity under the GCs as we have ratified and interpreted them. So far, we have not done that; but have provided that they may be detained for the duration of the armed conflict in which they were involved.

    In conclusion, my view is that "terrorism" is not a good term - either to define legal standards, or for that matter to define the nature of an armed conflict.


    -----------------
    [*] Yes, the literal phrase is "declare war", but from the gitgo that was read by US jurists (e.g., Kent's Commentaries from the early 1800s) not to require a formal declaration of war:

    LECTURE III. OF THE DECLARATION, AND OTHER ABLY MEASURES OF A STATE OF WAR.
    ....
    2. Declaration of War.
    ....
    But though a solemn declaration, or previous notice to the enemy, be now laid aside, it is essential that some formal public act, proceeding directly from the competent source, should announce to the people at home their new relations and duties growing out of a state of war, and which should equally apprise neutral nations of the fact, to enable them to conform their conduct to the rights belonging to the new state of things. War, says Vattel, [(b)] is at present published and declared by manifestoes. Such an official act operates from its date to legalize all hostile acts, in like manner as a treaty of peace operates from its date to annul them. As war cannot lawfully be commenced on the part of the United States without an act of Congress, such an act is, of course, a formal official notice to all the world, and equivalent to the most solemn declaration.
    Thus, there must be an AUMF act by Congress, which may be short of a formal declaration of war - as Kent points out by examples from the times before and after the Constitution was adopted (footnotes omitted below - see full text at link above for context):

    Since the time of Bynkershoek, it has become settled by the practice of Europe that war may lawfully exist by a declaration which is unilateral only, or without a declaration on either side. It may begin with mutual hostilities. [(a)] After the peace of Versailles, in 1763, formal declarations of war of any kind seem to have been discontinued, and all the necessary and legitimate consequences of war flow at once from a state of public hostilities, duly recognized and explicitly announced by a domestic manifesto or state paper.

    In the war between England and France, in 1T78, the first public act on the part of the English government was recalling its minister; and that single act was considered by France as a breach of the peace between the two countries. There was no other declaration of war, though each government afterwards published a manifesto in vindication of its claims and conduct. The same thing may be said of the war which broke out in 1793, and again in 1803; and, indeed, in the war of 1756, though a solemn and formal declaration of war, in the ancient style, was made in June, 1756, vigorous hostilities had been carried on between England and France for a year preceding.

    In the war declared by the United States against England, in 1812, hostilities were immediately commenced on our part [{55}] as soon as the act of Congress was passed, without waiting to communicate to the English government any notice of our intentions. [(x)]
    ------------------------

    [**] The Executive and Legislative branches have overall constitutional power (again leaving aside the issues of the powers held by each branch) to abrogate, amend or clarify the GCs. That may be unwise, and a breach of I Law, in a particular case; but, they (acting jointly) clearly have that power. It is difficult for many people around the World (e.g., the Eminent Jurists) to grasp that the Constitution, not I Law, is the Supreme Law of our land.

  7. #7
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rancho La Espada, Blanchard, OK
    Posts
    1,065

    Default Great post, JMM!

    As is often the case, we really do agree. I found the interpretation of "declaration of war" particularly interesting. By this discussion, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force against Iraq (2002) constitute declarations of war.

    I also believe that I understand your argument to say that there is no reason that a protected combatant who commits a crime - not inherent in making war such as premeditated murder of noncombatant civilians - could not be prosecuted for that act. (That is the Nurnberg precedent, isn't it?)

    cheers

    JohnT

  8. #8
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Yes and yes ....

    from JTF
    By this discussion, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the authorization to use force against Iraq (2002) constitute declarations of war.
    Briefly, the 1949 GCs moved away from defining hostilities in terms of "war" to defining them in terms of "armed conflict". The GTR was more phrased in terms of Southeast Asia as a whole, where Vietnam was only one of the dominoes. If we take it in that broader context, we won the "armed conflict" as defined in that "declaration of war".

    from JTF
    I also believe that I understand your argument to say that there is no reason that a protected combatant who commits a crime - not inherent in making war such as premeditated murder of noncombatant civilians - could not be prosecuted for that act. (That is the Nurnberg precedent, isn't it?)
    Combatant immunity applies only to a protected (lawful) combatant in reference to acts which are within the bounds of the laws of war. I did not make that clear enough in my screed. E.g., shooting a prisoner or a known non-combatant is an obvious crime in hindsight - what it seemed at the time to folks in the field was another thing entirely.

  9. #9
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Personally I try to avoid the term "terrorism" as much as possible. It just isn't very helpful as it describes an organization's actions with no linkage to their purpose. It is widely held that when one's purpose is adequate, or cause just, that terrorism is lawful and proper. The fire bombings of cities filled with civilians and little else in WWII in an effort to force an early surrender and thereby preserve allied lives, for example. This, however, creates a slipperly slope, as one is going always have a lower standard for justifying ones own actions, while at the same time emposing an impossibly high standard to hold ones opponents to. This is why only the losing side faces trial for war crimes, regardless of actions on the ground.

    Similarly, "Counterterrorism" as a mission set is not particularly helpful either, and encourages the use of the previously discussed unhelpful term "terrorist" to describe the opponent. There are already plenty of terms in the lexicon to describe offensive actions, one adds nothing by labeling the target of those actions as a "terrorist."

    If something does not provide value, it is superfluous, and should be dropped. When that same thing in fact causes one to lose value it should be dropped quickly. Yet we cling to this, as it helps us feel good about our actions as they are being levied against those who are so bad. If you need such a moral crutch to justify your actions, you may need to reassess your approach to the problems you face.

    As to the legality of insurgency, we declare "just" insurgency as not only legal, but as the nobelest of callings in our Declaration of Independence. We declare it to be both an inalianable right and a sacred duty of a populace faced with despotism that cannot be cured by available legitimate means. This is our first law as a nation, and as such it has precedence over all others, or at least I would comfortably argue that to be true in court.

    We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  10. #10
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.
    Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizens?

    This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

    Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

    It is historic fact, not rumor, that the US Congress bipartisanly pursued, and subsequently the UN, too, the old Taliban regime in Kabul to surrender up bin Laden and his fellow terrorist thugs, and yes, I still think the term Islamo-Fascists fits them quite well, but due to the guise and excuse of "Muslim hospitality" owed to fellow Muslims, the old Taliban governemnt of Afghanistan refused our demands. Of course all this was predicated against the fresh event of 9/11.

    What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is. Closing girls, and even some boys schools "in the name of religion." Killing other Muslims who are not of the stripe of what many of us know now as the form of Wahabbi Islam. Arab Islamic terrorists, infecting via their funding of later day radical Islamic madrassahs, not to be confused with just plain madrassahs in days of yore.

    Pakistan has it's hand full, but I will offer a compliment to former President Musharraf who had the backbone to police up the red madrassah in Islamabad, which we all recall was a weeks long hot fight in the capital city.

    As for President Kharzi, he is a Pukhtun who is also a former Taliban, and as such was a member of the Taliban Cabinet that allowed bin Laden to come in, have sanctuary, and foster his evil plots and deeds from insiide Afghanistan.

    You may want to think about President Kharzai in view of circulating stories that he has paid cash for and now owns 6 Pizza Hut franchised restaurants in the Atlanta area, where word has it he would or will "retreat to" when he has to "leave office."

    For my part, I wouldn't mind seeing a return to the king dynasty in Afghanistan, which was no worse than we have today in Jordan. I like the system which works in Jordan and wouldn't mind that system, a kingdom with a parliament, be installed, again, in Afghanistan.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-22-2009 at 10:24 PM.

  11. #11
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default Careful George, lose your temper, lose your argument...

    Quote Originally Posted by George L. Singleton View Post
    Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizesn?

    This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

    Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

    What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is.

    America's founding fathers, or in this case primarily Thomas Jefferson with major final edits by John Adams and Ben Franklin, wrote a powerful and timeless document, and they did not believe that the principles contained within it only applied to the populace of the American colonies, in fact, I believe they held "that all men were created equal." If you are making the argument that these principles upon which America was founded only apply to Americans, then I believe you will find yourself taking a position that not many will share.

    As to your focus on religion, you are confusing causation and motivation. The cause that gives rise to insurgeny is poor governance that cannot be resolved through legal means. The role of ideology in insurgency is to rally the populace to join together to fight for that cause. In the Middle East the causation is poor governance, often in countries whose governance the U.S either installed or has supported in staying in power. This is why we find ourselves joining these governments on various insurgent target lists far too often. The ideology that is effective in the Middle East is based in the dominant religion of the region. This does not somehow convert the conflict to being about religion.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  12. #12
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Bob:

    Your points are mistaken, in my view. It is that simple.

    The ideology we share as Americans was not based on nor derived from the tenants of terrorist Islam. That was and remains what I am talking to and about.

    Governance as mentioned by you as applies to Afghanistan refers to religion in my book, not governance as you and I routinely in a Western sense understand it.

    Your well intentioned Quaker views just don't fit the Islamic terrorists who are not coming from the same foundation as you.

    Religion {Islam} is the culture of Afghanistan, and vice versa. IN the attempt to impose the terorists form of governance the poor are kept downtrodden by the mullahs who make a living off their backs, the same way slave owners in the US of old made their fortunes off the backs of held down by slavery blacks.

    Thanks for your views, but we simply are not on the same page.

    My focus has to be specific in today's world, which is finding ways and means to outwit and out maneuver the violent religious terrorists, who have the "high ground" among their fellow Muslims almost all the time in that Muslims are being "gagged and dragged around" by the religious notion that all Muslims must tolerate other, even terrorist, Muslims vs. the UN and NATO. Never forget that the late, former UN Administrator to and in Afghanistan was murdered a few years ago by the Taliban in Afghanistan, their reaction to attempted UN assistance to the average Afghan in need.

    I still think "the wedge" belongs between Pukhtuns and Arab al Qaida. Arabs are simply a different lot vs. the Pukhtuns.

    I am recovering from a bad virus and in and out of hospital, so excuse what you or anyone else reading us on SWJ might interpret as shortness on my part. I am weary, not fully well, and perpetually frustrated to put down the Islamo-Fascists whose headway is being made by default in Swat...the Punjabi ruling elite in Pakistan never historically having been willing to once and for all impose and man, repeat man, with troops and more police, the enforcement of the writ of law vs. the.....Sharria law, there we ago again, the religious law over the civil law!

    Also, if you read some of the Global Hujra Online postings I added to SWJ just yesterday (2/21 on my side of the pond) you will see very many Pukhtuns saying pretty much what I am observing myself in this posting.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-22-2009 at 10:58 PM.

  13. #13
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default These Statements require "refinement" ...

    as Judge Bates might say:

    from BW
    As to the legality of insurgency, we declare "just" insurgency as not only legal, but as the nobelest of callings in our Declaration of Independence. We declare it to be both an inalianable right and a sacred duty of a populace faced with despotism that cannot be cured by available legitimate means. This is our first law as a nation, and as such it has precedence over all others, or at least I would comfortably argue that to be true in court.

    We only find insurgency to be illegal when the populace exercising this duty and right is doing so against us or an ally. That is a hard position to justify, unless we are willing to nullify the Declaration first. And that, would be cause for insurgency indeed.
    Since these speak of the legality of insurgency, I have to say that the justness or unjustness of the insurgency is not material to whether the acts of the insurgents are lawful within the Laws of War or within the Rule of Law. The question of "justness" or "unjustness" are valid policy questions for a nation to ask in deciding whether to support or oppose an insurgency. They also are valid questions of conscience (between you and God) for you to ask before engaging in an armed conflict.

    Whether the insurgents are lawful combatants or not (within the 1949 GCs as ratified by the US) hinges on whether their insurgency (a "Power" to the armed conflict as defined in Common Article 2) has accepted and applied the 1949 GCs in their insurgent acts.

    The "justness" or the "unjustness" of their cause has nothing to do with it - unless you adopt the 1977 Protocals which are very clearly aimed at "justness" and "unjustness" - as in "national liberation struggles" which are presumptively "just" in those additions to the GCs. If, BW, you are arguing that, so be it - but that ain't the law in the US.

    In 2 of our wars directly dealing with the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the insurgents were first treated as traitors. Eventually, in both wars, the respective parties saw the light of law and treated their opponents as lawful combatants (for the most part).

    ------------------
    None of the following statements has any legal validity, except the third.

    from GLS
    Since when do you we give US citizenship status to foreign terrorists [which term I do use as it is accurate, despite academic asides] in order to then give them the "benefits" of US citizesn?

    This is absurd on it's face, and it looks to me [my view, again] that some here are pandering to what they may think to be "political correctness."

    Summary court martials in the field with executions would stop more, not fewer, repeat murders and attacks by the same terrorists, my view again here.

    What you are defiant of is the fact that this is a religion driven form of terrorism, which the terrorists advertise daily but some here in the West want to "pretend" it just "ain't" so...but it is.
    As to the first ("US citizenship"), none of the cases so far decided has conferred US citizenship on any detainee - and the sole benefit accorded has been habeas corpus. That latter right, BTW, has always existed for aliens within the jurisdiction of US courts. You can validly argue (as Justice Scalia did very well) that the Gitmo detainees are not properly within that jurisdiction (but he lost that argument). The first talking point is best left to talk radio.

    As to the second point, "pandering" and "political correctness", and if that is directed at yours truly, I'll leave it to the readers of 700+ posts to decide whether "pandering" and "political correctness" is part of the program.

    As to the third point, that has legal validity. We could have a statute which says in effect that any unlawful combatant, in an armed conflict declared by the Executive and Legislative branches, shall be tried before a summary court martial in the field and, if found to be an unlawful combatant, shall be executed.

    As to whether that would be wise or effective, I would like to hear from some field officers who would have to be doing the trying and the executing - Cavguy and Schmedlap immediately come to mind, but there are many more here.

    As to the fourth point, whether the combatant is religiously motivated has nothing to do with the lawfulness of his acts - except in one respect. The laws of war accepted by AQ, for example, are not the GCs (which they cannot accept in good faith).

    Guess it's just my day to interpose with O-6s.

  14. #14
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default That's fine...

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    Guess it's just my day to interpose with O-6s.
    Keeps 'em alert...

    I'm here to testify that you do not pander and PC does not pertain.

    I could insert a Yooper comment here but I'll be PC and decline.

  15. #15
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default

    Thanks for your posting.

    I believe the UN Resolution(s) dealing with Afghanistan; the decisions of the NATO Council cover what needs to be done and is being done.

    Add to that the bipartisan Resolutions of our US Congress (you chose not to comment on this) adds to the above two points.

    How many allied troops, captured, have been summarily beheaded or otherwise murdered vs. safely returne to us you might also want to look into.

    This part of the world historically has respected the winner, regardless of means, which has the terrorists again in current circumstances "on top" in too much of Afghanistan.

    Here is today's postings by native Pukhtuns in and around Swat and related areas fyi as well:

    http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2295

    Here is another just put on the wire Global Hujra Online set of postings wherein one Afghan who is an old Communist himself [the Communists were part of the Northern Alliance when we took them in as partners initially against or vs. the Taliban in Afghanistan], which may be of readership academic interest. Sounds a bit like some of our postings today, but for the insertion of the term Communist and Communism.

    Does this foretell yet more civil war options in Afghanistan? I certainly hope not as we don't need to go back to Communism any more than we need to tolerate today's Taliban.

    http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...61092post61092

    One last thought: Today's Pukhtuns in Northern Paksitan are in many cases the children of Pukhtun Refugee Camps set up outside of Peshawar and related areas during and after the long war in old Afghanistan of the 1980s. Many of these exile Pukhtuns have someone been recruited into and now are a part of the back and forth stream of terrorists going to war in Afghanistan, then running back into Paksitan for presumed "safe haven."

    http://www.khyberwatch.com/forums/sh...61092post61092
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-22-2009 at 11:22 PM. Reason: Additions

  16. #16
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    I really only post those thoughts that I believe contribute to expanding the perspectives of those who come to this site looking for insights on the current problems facing the world. Those positions I hold that are already widely held or established I don't feel compelled to restate. Though I will freely admit that I am an unconventional thinker even within an unconventional community.

    America possesses a powerful ideology. It was forged in crisis, and has been tested by time and conflict, and has emerged as sound and enduring. Men and women around the world look to the words, the thoughts, the principles contained in those documents and draw hope and strength from them just as those early American Insurgents did as General George Washington formed his 7000 man army in a hollow square to hear them for the first time in lower Manhatten on 7 July 1776.

    Later day insurgents like Mao and Ho studied the American experience carefully, and applied the lessons to their own long struggles to overcome poor governance in the face of far superior, legitimate forces of government.

    We do a disservice to ourselves and to our heritage when we do not stand firmly on these principles, and grant the same rights and duties to others that we demanded for ourselves. To do otherwise, is frankly, un-American.

    The governance of the Middle East was both shaped and held static by Western powers since the fall of the Ottomans; and just as the end of WWI and WWII, the end of the Cold War was a catalyst for change, and the information tools of Globalization are powerful accelerants.

    This conflict has been widely mischaracterized in my opinion; and the US response has been far more designed to sustain a status quo that is favorable to the US under the old Cold War terms, than to help enable a future equally favorable to the US, but one that is also far more consistent with our ideological roots as a nation.

    The days of "he's a dictator, but he's a friendly dictator" ended with Globalization. No longer can a sovereign control the information available to his populace (with rare exception, such as N. Korea). Foreign policy today must be more sophisticated in design, and must take fully into account the needs, the will, the hopes and the desires of the populaces who occupy the regions where we believe our interests lie; and can no longer be covered by simple treaties between sovereigns with the tacit understanding that each sovereign will control his populace as part of honoring the agreement.

    To ignore this is to risk the same folly that other great nations have faced before us. History tells us that empires come and go. I believe firmly that America is nowhere near the end of her time, but if we ignore the changes to the environment in which we live, we risk hastening the day our power wanes.

    I don't take these positions to argue with anyone. I take them because I believe them to be both important and under represented in the marketplace of ideas. We are a nation at a crossroads, I merely point out that we have options as to which route we take.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 02-22-2009 at 11:43 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  17. #17
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default Differences are vast

    Bob, I like your history lectures as was history major myself.

    My "guerialla" thinking, humerously but factually true, I guess flows down from my ancestral cousin, Colonel John Singleton Mosby, CSA, known as the Grey Ghost and at least formerly taught to have been "a" father of guerilla warefare at West Point, even though Mosby never set foot there.

    Seriously, Islam is it's own culture, it's own governance system, and has nothing democratic about it. We are not going to change a billion Muslims lifelong imbued theology with my or your views.

    But, as regards this site, the SWJ, yes, you do good for those who take the time to read and understand your highminded idealism.

    The fact that we disagree as applied to Afghanistan, Paksitan, etc. is yet another matter in my book. But, I respect your right to express your views and you have done and are doing some good by same.

    Thus, your Quaker origins shine through constructively just as my wife's Christian Science background saves us many medical bills by her reliance, as Norman Vincent Peale said and wrote, on the "power of positive thinking."

    Final Question that might best be addressed as a new thread: Does anyone think that NATO forces might soon be invited to come into to help salvage, as in save, the City of Peshawar and that part of Northern Pakistan, in conjunction with the Pak Army? Just a wild shot question which comes from some Pukhtuns who are in touch with me daily who "wish" such could and would happen. Talk about day dreaming, right?
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-23-2009 at 12:46 AM.

  18. #18
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    1,602

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by George L. Singleton View Post
    Seriously, Islam is it's own culture, it's own governance system, and has nothing democratic about it. We are not going to change a billion Muslims lifelong imbued theology with my or your views.
    There is simply no way that one can reduce the complex and varied societies (note plural) that make up the Muslim world to a formulation this simplistic—and, I might add, misleading.

    There is no single Muslim "culture" any more than there is a "Christian" one, and Islam (like Christianity) contains both democratic and anti-democratic theological elements, all of which are in turn open to varied interpretations.

    Anyone who does thinks that formal religious doctrine trumps all should live in Quebec: by far the most Catholic province in Canada (86%), it also has the highest proportion of support for abortion, support for same-sex marriage, support for euthanasia, and more than one third of all couples never bother to get married.
    They mostly come at night. Mostly.


  19. #19
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Some links - for masochists, perhaps

    Extensive links and quotes about GCs, combatants, war crimes, constitutional and diplomatic history - all in Astan context specifically - can be found here at these two SWC threads:

    Possible Afghan war crime evidence removed - started by Tom Odom

    Defending Hamdan - started by JMM

    I've also "touched" on these issues in the War Crimes thread - started by Davidbfpo

    -------------------
    More important

    I would be very interested in links (evidence, not hearsay) on the following topic:

    from GLS
    How many allied troops, captured, have been summarily beheaded or otherwise murdered vs. safely returne to us you might also want to look into.
    My ulterior motive is that those cases would provide negative answers to the following questions that I asked in Defending Hamdan post # 10:

    Did the Taliban state, at any time, that it was bound by the provisions of the GCs, including common Article III ? If so, provide text of statement, date, source, etc.

    Did the Taliban abide by the provisions of the GCs in their armed conflicts with the Northern Alliance, US and allied forces ? If so, make your case - prove it

    Did AQ-Ansar state, at any time, that it was bound by the provisions of the GCs, including common Article III ? If so, provide text of statement, date, source, etc.

    Did AQ-Ansar abide by the provisions of the GCs in their armed conflicts with the Northern Alliance, US and allied forces ? If so, make your case - prove it
    Positive answers to these questions would mean that Taliban and AQ are lawful combatants within the scope of the Reporter's Notes to Common Article III and preceding Articles I & II of the 1948 GCs. Thus far, no one has answered those questions in the affirmative.

    To put my quest in non-PC terms, evidence of war crimes puts Taliban and AQ into the scumbag status - unlawful enemy combatants in more accurate legal terms.

    If anyone wants to contribute to this by providing evidence of Taliban or AQ war crimes against US or allied forces[*] in Astan (or Iraq for AQ), start a new thread in Law Enforcement and we will go from there.

    [*] I know they committed war crimes against both civilians and opfor units in Astan before our involvement - and to the present. I've read the DoS and UN reports. I'd like to see what war crimes they have committed against us.

  20. #20
    Former Member George L. Singleton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    South of Mason Dixon Line
    Posts
    497

    Default A factual starting point

    http://www.unama-afg.org/docs/_UN-Do.../ares53165.pdf

    Here is a UN Report giving you a factual starting point on Taliban atrocities vs. the various international agreements which Afghanistan [on paper, at least] is supposed to belong to, observe, etc. While the Taliban today are not the government of Afghanistan, they were "the" government of Afghanistan and in power when when the UN published this report. Allow me to use grouping terms as you know what my meaning is.

    Dead as in killed is the condition of our brave soliders who are "caught up with" by the Taliban more than beheadings. If you expand your view to other parts of the primitive Islamic world, Somalia, now parts of Kenya, you find the same terrorism, murder and brutality all in the name of religion, theirs, not ours to be sure.

    SIDE COMMENT: Of course the US and West/our allies world wide are focused on what is best for us in anything we undertake. That is common sense. But we didn't go looking for this religious war that came to our shores. I'm sure some/one of you corresponding writers on this thread didn't mean we should not promote our own best interests, which involve our basic concepts of free enterprise, democracy, etc.?

    The 2008 murder in Kabul of a UK national AID worker, a girl in her early 20s; the beheading of Danny Pearl in Pakistan but by the same "stripe" of terrorist Islamic Pukhtuns are not new news.

    The Taliban of both Pakistan and Afghanistan are essentially one and the same. They and their likeminded religious terrorist allies are one and the same when it comes to their Islamofobic theology driven actions of murder and mayhem. Ask the Chinese, the French whose engineers have been slaughtered. Ask innocents in a fronter northern Pakistan church peacefully observing Christmas in recent years, machine gunned down by Taliban terrorists.

    The UN currently is trying to "talk the Taliban" into not using children under age 15 as suicide bombers. I find this absurd as suicide bombers per se, women,girls [children], boys and men, is a wrong action in terms of those who say Islam is a religion of peace.

    You refer to my statements as "overly simplistic" and I answer that I have written on SWJ more than once that, of course, there are more than 25-26 differing versions of Islam as there are that many differing Arabic dialects used to translate the Quaran for the various Muslim readers.

    Why in the world would you overlook my total statements and presume otherwise baffles me?

    I guess some just don't like the fact that I believe in building a house one brick at a time. Therefore the story of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Ismhael, and Isaac are the first few bricks of truth and fact for me, at least. God then blessing the lines of both Ishmael and Isaac, but favoring as "his own" the line of Isaac. This is where this whole divergance that ends up in radical Islam comes from. Too me, I am baffled folks don't accept this historic religious reality to know what we are dealing with today. It all starts with Abraham, Hagar, Sarah, Ishmael and Isaac.

    Today, I believe the issue of Israel, Jerusalem, etc. is a factor used by radical Islamofascits/terrorists to incite hatred throughout the Islam and total world where other Islamics live. I understand and know from my own past and current, everyday experinieces with Muslims here in our city that attitudes vary toward Israel, but the line of central thought is Israel has no justification to exist, the Holocaust is now being said to not have happened, even among some Paksitanis in their media, etc, etc.

    Today we still have to deal with the hundreds of millions of illiterate Muslims [I am repeating myself again] who are controlled by oral tradititon and thus it depends on which mullah is talking to them, friend or foe of the West my meaning, as to how these illiterate Muslims act out their faith. I have written on this, too, during this weekend on SWJ.

    One example of my first hand experiences: A young Muslim engineer, I'd suggest no more than age 25 if that, born and raised in UK, but now working in Quatar with a jointly owned UK-Arab Oil Company picks up on letters from me in the Karachi DAWN on the war on terrorism. He starts e-mail dialogue with me, the second e-mail is to tell me that I am an infidel, practice a false religion, and that he and his fellow Muslims are correct, etc, etc.

    Of course, I put this idiot down by contacting (e-mail) the top management of his UK-Arab Co. and they shut him down at my request. But, things are not always that simple or that peaceful.

    I've had threats of my life, and have had to take some protective actions through area law enforcement officials. These religious fanatics, who exist inside Muslim communities in US today as well as where we are fighting, in Europe, etc. the hot heads, the terrorists, are a "may way or no way" bunch. *See my posting of this weekend wherein I mention teenage Muslim boys, in our local public schools, circulating al Qaida pamplets encouraging boys to volunteer to kill Americans, etc.

    Over and over my point in your apparent wishing that all Muslims are or would be moderates or peaceful/both doesn't overcome the basic religious Abraham-Ishmael-Isaac dicotomary that was/is step one on their part to judging, condemtning and sentencing us all as regards those who decide to literally sign onto the actoveterrorist agenda

    So allow me my first hand and other documented here info without distorting what I am saying here.

    I have used the building block process, the Abraham and Sarah et all Bible story to discuss, peacefully, religion (comparative) the past three Christmases in a row on Global Hujra Online, with increasing success. But, there have been hostiality and slurs, too. But the numbers of more friendly respondents/correspondents has grown each Christmas. People to people still works, slow as it may be.

    These statements on my part, at least, show this thread as I was warned by one of the commentators here two days ago that this would, and it has, become circular in motion.

    Knowing my own theology is my creedo, but knowing what in my theology is shared and what is disputed with Islam is essential to knowing where we are and where the war on terrorism is or is not going.

    I have several Muslim friends and we jointly emphasize what we believe in common and avoid what we don't agree with. That works for us but is not, as you must realize, not always the case, either here inside the US nor worldwide.

    Surely you have read the news from last week where a so-called moderate Islamic couple with a major TV show here in the US feel into marital disharmony, and the husband, a Vice President of the US Council of Muslims (unsure exact title) cut his wife's head off...as he saw his authority to do so from his Islamic faith!

    I am weary of reports about what "we" may have done to offend others and more focused on what they (the Islamofascist terrorists) are doing and saying that offends me. My view.
    Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-23-2009 at 03:32 AM.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-04-2017, 12:09 PM
  2. Replies: 323
    Last Post: 01-20-2013, 12:54 PM
  3. Dealing with Senior Foreign Officials in the Islamic World
    By Jedburgh in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2008, 08:49 PM
  4. Public Diplomacy and National Security
    By SWJED in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 12:32 PM
  5. A Modest Proposal to Adjust the Principles of War
    By SWJED in forum Futurists & Theorists
    Replies: 126
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 02:38 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •