Should Captured al Qaida Be Allowed To Live?

According to an article on www.msnbc.com , hundreds of al Qaida troops and almost all of the remaining top Taliban leaders have slipped out of Afghanistan into Pakistan. Also, hundreds of al Qaeda and Taliban troops captured at Mazar-e-sharif have bought safe pasasage into Iran. As Rumsfeld pointed out, they can regroup, and attack us again as they have promised.


When many prisoners in Mazar-e-sharif were found dead with their hands tied behind their backs after the recent prison uprising was quelled, Amnesty International declared there would be an investigation.


All of this brings up an interesting point which Mason alluded to in a recent post: the question of how far to press a victory. As Mason mentioned, historically speaking, we often in hindsight wish we had been more thorough in victory (notably at the end of WWII and in Iraq). Yet the question of the taking of life is always a troubling issue, and rightly so.


So it appears likely that after the huge and deadly prison uprising in Mazar-e-sharif, a great many prisoners were simply executed by the Northern Alliance. Was this a necessary thing? Well I honestly don't know and probably cannot know. However there is a hypothetical example I would like to raise, which in some ways mirrors the current situation with the fanatical al Qaida warriors and leaders who have escaped, or who might be captured or surrendered.


Let's say it is the colonial days of this country or the Wild West. Someone, or a few people, are obsessed with killing you for whatever reason that might be. They've killed others and have let you know that you are next on their list. I don't know, maybe they are New World Colonial Druids and you are going to be their next sacrifice. Anyway, as fortune would have it, one day when they are coming to get you with their axes and ropes, you manage to trick them and lead them over a patch of ground which conceals a huge net which snatches them up into the trees a la Swiss Family Robinson style, and now it is up to you. They are captured. You know they are not going to change their minds about trying to kill you, period, ever. Which of the following options do you take:


1) Lock them in the barn until you can turn them over to the Sheriff so they can be kept in the town jail


2) Build a bear-proof hog pen and keep them in there because you aren't sure the Sheriff's jail will be secure enough


3) Run away and hope they never find you


4) Kill them now before they have a chance to try again to kill you


It is far from a perfect analogy, but in this situation, which involves fanatical warriors bent on our destruction, I think they simply have to be killed, not surrendered or captured.


If Doc Holliday went permanently loco from too much bad moonshine, and decided I was next on his hit list, I would have to shoot him in the back rather than trust a jail to hold him. Especially if he announced he was going to shoot my family on sight too.

Perhaps some of those who surrender should be allowed to live; otherwise there would be no incentive for surrender, and more American/Allied lives would be lost in the ensuing battles. However allowing all who are captured to live almost guarantees that some of these fanatics will eventually manage to orchestrate another attack on US soil. I'm sorry for how it sounds, and I'm sorry for what it seems to mean for the human race, but I don't think those terrorists who are truly and deeply committed to killing us and are in the process of fighting to this end should be allowed to have any further chances at it.

I think we have to give people some incentive to surrender, but the ones that run away aren't surrendering. But the incentive to surrender should be American level prisons for terrorists or execution by humane methods for the worst. I think the Taliban are a bit different because they were the government in Afghanistan. The run of the mill Taliban soldier broke no laws of his country, although he most assuredly acted like a barbarian and would be punished for doing the same stuff elsewhere.


What happened in the prison was a continuation of the war. It should be looked at in terms of war, not in terms of jail conditions. I don't know all the details of what happened in the "uprising" and I'm sure some ugly things went on, but once that kind of thing starts it is a fight to the death - your guys or their guys. Their guys lost.

supposedly the us has signed the geneva convention.


also there is a difference between leadership and common soldiers.


i suppose we could recant our so called 'war', label them all criminals, and then sentence and execute them.


brad


p.s. include me out of the 'we' used above

I don't know what the fuck the United States administration is after right now, and neither I believe do they. It has all become a matter of TV reality and soundbites.


After the wholesale massacre of Pashtun tribesemen (that's what it comes down to) in Mashar i-Sharif, there is now talk about summary executions of all captured Northern Alliance opponents - that's how "al Qaeda membership" will be established, believe you me.


My take on this 'game' : Since Afghanistan is a country so riddled with warring tribes & factions it makes Bosnia look as homogenous as Amish, the U.S. is gojng to distance itself from the country's affairs soones than you think. Too much unseemly blood and guts in the offing.


"As Mason mentioned, historically speaking, we often in hindsight wish we had been more thorough in victory (notably at the end of WWII and in Iraq)."


I can understand Iraq - although I doubt we all mean the same thing when we say "more thorough". But I cannot understand what you, or Mason Malmuth, mean when you talk about World War 2!


Stalin had suggested at a Allied Powers Conference that the whole of the German military officer corps from lieutenant upwards be summarily shot - and Germany be turned into an agricultural country, with all her heavy industries destroyed or shipped out West and East. That was certainly one way of going about it "thoroughly".


On the other hand, a lot of 'patriotic voices' in the United States, and some in Britain, were pressing for the continutation of the war until the total defeat of bolshevism and the Soviet Union. This, at a time when the Soviet Union was immensely popular (and most rightly so!) for the colossal sacrifices in its effort to defeat the Nazis. And when leftist political parties, including the communists, were finding themselves at an all-time peak of popularity, in both West and East Europe. (Not to mention the highest ever numbers that the CPUSA membership had in 1945.)


What exactly, under these circumstances, do you, or Mason Malmuth, are suggesting that the Western Allies should have done "more thoroughly" ? This is gonna be interesting.


--Cyrus

What I meant, as far as more thoroughly clinching victory in Europe at the end of WWII, was along the lines of not giving the Soviets half of Europe. I was not intending to suggest that Germany should have been further punished, or that Germans should have been lined up and shot. I just think that the Allies may have acted in haste and somewhat unwisely in their eagerness to end the wartime period--brokering a deal which gave up more than necessary, and helped lead, in part, to the Soviets having as much power as they did during the Cold War. If necessary the Allies might have forced the Soviets out of Eastern Europe rather than allowing them to stay, and in fact ceding much control to them. The Soviets didn't own or control these countries before WWII and as far as I know there is no completely compelling reason why they should have gained them after the war. Even Germany was sliced in half...the Soviets always were formidable bargainers and negotiators, even later during nuclear arms talks.

There are some huge differences between this and other wars, and our adversaries are different too. For one thing, al Qaida soldiers are not conscripts. Most of them would be delighted to die if they could only take a few of us with them...you and me, that is. For another, even if they are surrendered and bin Laden is caught, etc....as far as they are concerned the war will still not be over. If bin Laden surrendered they would still burn to fight and die all around the world. When Germany and Japan were defeated in WWII, it was over. Their soldiers did not still plot, with a fanatical desire, to blow themselves up and kill as many American civilians as possible in the process. But this is what will happen with captured or surrendered al Qaida, and it will happen even if their leader gives up (unlikely as that may be). Thus we are up against an enemy who will not give up in its quest to kill or destroy us. The only way to stop it is to kill it and/or render it powerless (and hopefully to also address some of the causes which gave birth to it in the first place).


It is also different in that even the Japanese kamikazes were targeting aircraft carriers, not civilians in cities.

....with an anti-semitic, pro-Arab terrorist supporter. It's a waste of time.


Obviously all al Qaida should be summarily executed, all Palestinian Hamas and Jihad supporters, alopng with Saddam and his crew.

I have found Cyrus to be especially worthy of discussion and debate...while his stance on the Israeli/Palestinian issue surprises me somewhat, it doesn't take away from the fact that over the couple of years that I've been here he has provided many valuable insights and information on a host of topics ranging from mathematics to physics to just about anything else that has come up for discussion on this board. He's a real contributor with an interersting perspective on many topics. So even if he holds a few warped views he's still worth talking with;-)

....thank you. You're much more tolerant of anti-American flamers than I. "warped views" is apropos.