[Vision2020] Detainee Transfer Annouced

[Andreas Schou]

Roger --

What would constitute the "end" of the "war?" Please remember that
there is (a) no declaration of war, and (b) we have installed friendly
governments in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

-- ACS

On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 11:05 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com> wrote:
> Wayne
> I have seen reports on the number of people who have returned to active participation with terrorist organizations. The number is high, but I do not remember the number. That is what I was asking Tom to research. Some of the people detained were probably held with out just cause and should be released. No country in the past has released  captured prisoners  prior to the end of the war except for a prisoner exchange. This would be a valid reason.
> Roger
> -----Original message-----
> From: Wayne Price bear at moscow.com
> Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 11:42:15 -0800
> To: lfalen lfalen at turbonet.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Detainee Transfer Annouced
>
>> Roger,
>>
>> This particular individual, Saiid Farhi, has been held, in what ever
>> kind of conditions, but held, since 2001!  I can tell you that if you
>> "arrest" me and hold me for some 9 years, I won't be looking  favorably
>> upon those that held me, be they the US or any other country!
>>
>> We have played fast and loose with definitions and he has been
>> declared an "enemy combatant", a definition created in whole by the
>> United States.
>>
>> The Combatant Status Review Board uses this as a definition of "Enemy
>> Combatant":
>>
>> "an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Quaida
>> forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against
>> the United States or its coalition partners.
>> This includes any person who committed a belligerent act  or who has
>> directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces"
>>
>> Now, just use this same definition only  used by the Taliban or al
>> Quaida when it comes to  a captured US civilian contractor!
>>
>> We, the US can't have it both ways. IF we are going to insist on using
>> the definition!
>>
>> The Taliban / al Quaida  version of the SAME definition would read as
>> follows:
>>
>> "an individual who was part of or supporting the United States or
>> coalition  forces, or associated forces that are engaged in
>> hostilities against the Taliban / al Quaida or its partners.
>> This includes any person who committed a belligerent act  or who has
>> directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces"
>>
>>
>> Can we live with that? What is good for one side is good for the
>> other. IF we can't live with that, lets go back to the Geneva
>> Convention rules and at least recover some moral high ground.
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>