Possible battlefield fallout from today's Supreme Court decision?

[razorman]

I think that one possible outcome from today's ruling that Gitmo prisoners have constitutional rights might be that our troops will be much less willing to take prisoners. I have spoken to some Iraq and Afghanistan vets who have told me that they already makes less of an effort to take prisoners since troops have been put on trial for their actions. I think we may find that in future combat operations, the insurgents "martyred" themselves by fighting to the death. Does anyone else here have any thoughts about this, or other possible reactions to the ruling?

[enough]

1. This ruling has nothing to do with US troops being put on trial for their actions in the field.

[razorman]

5. I know. I think that they will see this as part of some plot to undermine

their efforts against the terrorists.

[enough]

12. Man we need some major educational overhaul, for the troops and all the rest of us.

So many times I wish for my great old (1961) Civics teacher, Mrs. Lammey. Most important course I took in many years of education.

[ladjf]

2. I don't believe that the Supreme Court ruling will have any bearing

on whether or not our troops will take prisoners.

The ruling was a major vote to uphold the Constitution. It needed to be done. Any idea that somehow prisons like Guantanamo have any bearing on our national security are total fabrications by the Bush
administration to further their own goals, whatever they might be.

We are perilously close to becoming a dictatorial police state. The SC ruling just put up a big
stop sign that said, "Hold it, we still have a few human rights laws that we intend to uphold".

[Doug.Goodall]

3. There will still be prisoners

They will be no public acknowledgment of their existence.

They will be kept on board ships at sea, or in rouge third world countries.

They will be interrogated until death, and their bodies will never be found.

At least at Gitmo there was some measure of accountability, however small it was.

[razorman]

8. That's the sort of thing I am afraid might happen.

And I'm not at all sure that SCOTUS will have any jurisdiction overseas. Gitmo is considered part of the U.S. for many purposes.

[ashling]

4. GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF THERE!

[stevedeshazer]

6. Yes, I have some thoughts.

First, Gitmo detainees were never considered as "prisoners", but as "enemy combatants".

Were they prisoners of war, they'd have been subject to protection as such under the Geneva Convention rules.

Second, exactly ZERO of these detainees came from Iraq. The overwhelming majority of them came from Afghanistan and were rounded up and literally sold to the US by Taliban warlords.

Third, a question. Who are these Iraq and Afghanistan vets you've been talking to? Can you be a little more specific?

[razorman]

7. I own a barbershop, and many of my customers are young GIs and Marines

who have served over there. Not all of them that I have spoken to have felt this way, of course. But, there have been enough to make me wonder what the reaction of active-duty troops might be.

[stevedeshazer]

10. Thanks.

That must be a really interesting experience.

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. Ah, some of what you are hearing is bluster, to their buddies and you

some of it is real

Some if it is resentment that they have been send to the wolves while OiC (Officers in Charge) never face the music

This resentment only shows low morale and to a point righteous anger as they are listening to orders from senior personnel

Oh and an E-2, E-3 is not supposed to question orders either! But we have seen enough of those kids thrown to the wolves whole O-4, and above give orders and never evah face the music as they should

[rurallib]

14. sounds like they have been listening to Rush and

regurgitating his talking points.
IIRC one of the reasons that enemies in WWII would surrender to US forces was because they would be treated humanely. Bushco has killed that.
We really need to just get the fuck out of there, tonite!

[atreides1]

9. So It's True

Some US troops are nothing more then lying murderers, who condone the actions of other murderers who kill women and children and then cry when they get caught!!!

What a wonderful group of heroes, just like cops who look the other way when one of their own commits a crime but are more then willing to arrest a civilian who commits the very same crime.

As a former soldier I cannot tell you how so fucking ashamed I am that these men of no honor wear a uniform that I once took pride in wearing. Let them do their imitation of the Waffen SS, what's next will they wipe out a village when one of their own gets killed, oops too late.

Maybe they would be more comfortable wearing the SS lightning runes instead of the US insignia, they could then feel more at home!

[Vincardog]

13. Most of the inmates at GITMO were sold to the US by their neighbors and enemies, Why would

the ruling have anything to do with troops?

[BlooInBloo]

15. Your concern is noted.

[mmonk]

16. The biggest threat is and always has been us taking

prisoners on no charges and torture. 55% of 517 detainees at Guantanamo Bay engaged in no hostile acts against the US or coalition forces. Denying justice or the Geneva Convention doesn't make us safer or our troops safer. http://law.shu.edu/news/guantanamo_report_final_2_08_06.pdf

[bluerum]

17. How would this impact a decision to take a prisoner? These detainees

have simply been given the right to challenge their incarceration in a civilian court - not a military court. The people who captured them are not being put on trial, nor is their decision to take a prisoner. That's RW talking point talk.

Indefinite incarceration without a trial and without proper representation is being remedied.