It is January of 2002 and you are the President of the United States. Your country is engaged in a conflict in Afganistan as a result of the 9/11 attacks on the United States. Your armed forces have captured many combatants, what would you do with such combatants, The combatants fall into several catgories. I am only dealing with the Afgani conflict in this thread not with Iraqi conflict. I am interested to see what members would do with individuals in each catagory and why they would take such action.


Non-Uniformed Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.


Non-Uniformed Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.


Uniformed Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.


Uniformed Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.


Non-Uniformed Non Afgani fighters who are captured on the battlefied by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.


Non-Uniformed Non Afgani fighters who are captured on the battlefied by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.


Uniformed Non Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.


Uniformed Non Afgani fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.


Non- Uniformed Non Afgani fighters who are citizens of US or Allied countries captured by US or allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.


Non Uniformed Non Afgani person captured in US or Allied countries and turned over to the United States government via FBI for extradition.


Non US citizens captured on United States soil engaged in the planning or commission of attacks against United States citizens.

seriously,yet not the answer derived by your well thought question...

I would kill them..

All in all they would want me dead.. Not to mention they would hate what I represent.. Perhaps I am wrong yet it would be safe.. Pass no judgment on my action for I would be protecting the civilized world with such deeds, neither easy nor contemplative options are given in your scenario... remember you are protecting.. For those that snitched the others out I would give them life, yet I am sure their own would find and kill them, but knowing furthermore I would kill the most of them... Lets face it they are trying to kill me.. collateral damage yes but that is war..

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Adrifter]

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Adrifter]

Well first thing I would have done was not lie about WMD. I wouldn't have tapped the phones of every citizen in America. I would have weighed every decision I made against the constitution. I also would have had congress declare war, and not elevated myself into a dictatorial power.

As far as the war.
I would do what the Geneva convention allows for and nothing else. We signed that document, we agreed to it, we declared a "war on terror."

I would have called a draft, if congress thought we needed to fight a war and I would have sent in a crap ton more of equipment and troops to get in and get out as fast as possible.

I wouldn't have spent money building the largest embassy in the world.

I wouldn't have lost 10 Billion dollars in cash in the middle of the desert.

I wouldn't have given out no bid contracts.

Just to name a few.

WMD were not an issue in the Afgani conflict.

Congress voted for this power, the current Vice President was the author of the original Patriot Act.

Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize force, Congress will probably not ever issue a declaration of war because with a declaration of war certain treaties come into play and some of our Allies would then be forces to commit rescources or to withdraw from the treaties, and the Congress will not put them into that situation.

Congress has the ability to call a draft if they feel it is necessary apparently they did not.

Your last 3 issues deal with things that have happened in the Iraqi Conflict which are not part of the discussion and happened 15 months after january 2002.

[edit on 5/23/2009 by DarkStormCrow]

I would have to say that I would organize a trial of sorts. It could be as simple as a tribunal, but I think that only 3 people would be too little to pass judgement effectively.

What would be different about what I want to do rather than the tribunals that did occur would be that only 1 of those judging the fighter would be from the US. Another would be from an Islamic Nation, representing Islamic Law (I'm thinking either respected leaders in the Islamic world, or Academically recognized Imams). The last would be the neutral third party judge. I'm thinking that they would be from countries like Switzerland, Iceland, Japan, etc. Countries who are pretty much neutral in fighting and have as few ties as possible to either side.

The way this would work would be that the evidence would be presented before them. Whatever it may be, circumstantial or not. If they were found on the battlefield, they would need to be documented where they were found, and any weapons found on them presented as evidence. Pictures of the fighter would be considered viable as long as it could be traced back to an area where they could have been captured.

Based on the Tribunal's (or any other size as long as the division of power is kept) views of the evidence, they would then interview the fighter under oath, while hooked to a polygraph. This would be hopefully the worst part of the trial, but I feel fair, as the interview would be conducted like you see done on C-Span: each judges gets a period of time, but have the right to hold time if they want to think of further questions.

The jury would be given the power to order any just punishment, including the death penalty if the decision is unanimous. It is doubtful that the death penalty would be issued, but there is no point limiting them.

This is a rough outline that I feel would have done a very good job. By having 3 different parties at the trial, it is not only fair, but is fair to all parties involved, including the fighter. The burden of proof is on those who captured the fighter. Of course due to the nature of the war, evidence has to be allowed to be slacked, but only if there is enough of it to at least give suspecion of being involved with the Taliban/Al-Qaeda.

There is room for skewing the judge panel I know, but with the spirit of bipartisanship that exists in America at this point (hard to remember, but it was there), it would be possible to get a fair judge in place. This can also be sold to the American people as being just, and not just smashing and grabbing like they believe us to. If it gets really bad, and the press is really badgering on the subject of "Why be fair to them when they attacked us?" The point to bring up is that only a fascist government denies justice to its enemy. It would catch on fast, and hopefully spread throughout the world since third party nations are being involved.

[edit on 5/23/2009 by Sir Solomon]

January 2002 if I were President of the United States...

I would have had a busy first year in Office and I no doubt would have been pleased with what I had managed to accomplish in the first year.

I would have just gotten off of the phone with the head of Black Water and the Joint Cheif of Staff confirming that the last of our U.S. Military Personnel was back safe state side after withdrawing from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and conveyed to them both that both the Saudi and Kuwaiti Monarchs were delighted with the job Black Water was doing for them and how thrilled the last of the environmental clean up to our former bases was now done. Black Water had opened a new training facility in Saudi Arabia and 87% of the men hired and trained to stand private gaurd duty were local Muslims.

The Israeli Embasador stopped by to represent his Credentials after withdrawing in protest some months before from Washington after all Military and Economic Aid had been cut to Israel by my administration and several prominent members of the Washington, New York, and Hollywood communities had been arrested by the FBI for espionage.

Two key U.N. Resolutions and Sanctions had finally forced the Israeli government to surrender an aditional 25% of their illegaly occupied lands to cede to a new Palistinian Nation including a corridor to connect the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, another 10% of the illegaly occupied lands was ceded as a buffer/economic zone where joint Arab/Israel business were able to qualify for low interest deferred loans from the World Bank and to lift the last of the crippling sanctions the Holy See was back in charge in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv had returned to being the countries lively capitol.

It was looking quite a bit grander too after Lebanon, Syria, Egyp and Iran all sent amazing statues celebrating Israeli Independence to coincide with a new Trade Expo in Tel Aviv.

I had spoken the new American Embassidor in Iran earlier in the morning and he had just shared wonderful news about the Taliban in neigboring Afghanistan holding new elections for a new multi-tribal government with a rotating presidency to be held in February.

The Chinese Embassador had called early desperate for a loan from the IMF after stiff tarrifs on imports had forced many American manufacturers in China to shut down and open new factories here in the United States.

Things had gone pretty well in my first year in office and I am looking forward to heading off to New York to meet with the new head of the SEC in building 7 at the World Trade Center.

Fortunately as usual even though the new Head of the SEC is flying there commercial airline from his home in Texas check in times for domestic flights are 15 minutes before departure as usual. The new Head of the Federal Reserve Ron Paul will be sitting in on the meeting.

It's been a good year. The American people are happy with the changes, employment is up, wages are up, interest rates are down, and everyone is bullish on America's future. So am I. It's a great country.

Well, at least it was.

well...you could have set up a court in kabul, brought in witnesses to the atrocities and had them prosecuted if they were actually guilty of a crime or released if it was proven that they were set-up by others and are innocent. you know...like we have done here for a couple of hundred years. this would have shown the afghans that we are a fair people and different from the taliban or al quieda, and would have helped our troops there with intel about the bad guys.

i guess what the CIA had been doing there before the war, working with the afghan people to gain their trust, is not a point that needs to be discussed.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by jimmyx]

If at any time I found myself to be George double-u bush I would immediately kill myself.......Much bad kharma on you for placing such an evil thought in my mind.

I would've waited at least a year before doing anything.

First, I would've went on tv saying that our democracy and our Consitution would not be affected on the account of a few. Launch a website so that the populous can express thier concerns and to issue thier ideas on how to best handle the situation at hand with as little negative impact on the environment as possible.

First and foremost I would've ordered all intel groups to shake thier sources for info on combatnat hideouts, military capabilities, al Qaida hierarchy positions, Using the intel gathered, it would've helped me make a better desicion.

Create, formulate, strategize the military accordingly, seal and lockup and "soft targets", reinforced the "hard targets". Strategically place Harrier Jump Jets and Apache helicopters in major cities primarially on rooftops and sieze top floors of parking garages with armed guards watching them. Have any office tower provide storage for gas, ammo, parts.

Assemble a team of about 1,000 of the best Navy Seals, Green Berret, snipers, improvidesized explosives experts, recon teams and sent them into each target. Stretch this out over a month and you could in effect end the conflict and take no prisoner's, kill anyone who got in the way there.

Once they've been called back, I would've sent the largest message ever in the form of 500 ICBM's and 4 nukes into the nation. The ground offensive would've been started and over in about a month and would've cost less then $500 Billion keeping a watchful eye over spending and punishing those who waste resources severely and harshly.

[edit on 28-5-2009 by TheImmaculateD1]

It's January 2002. The crater is still smouldering in Manhatten. America is pissed, I'm pissed. My actions must reflect that, yet they have to be tempered by the rules, both written and unwritten, that govern civilized behaviour. Even in a time of war.

So...here I go. President seagull.

Non-Uniformed Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.

Lock 'em up, pending a trial. Interrogate to retrieve any pertinent intelligence.

Non-Uniformed Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.

These are not children. They are soldiers/warriors who just happen to be young. Make no mistake, they can be every bit as dangerous as their older counterparts.

Uniformed Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.

Prisoners of War. They are wearing the uniform of their country. End of story. Once vetted, they will be released at earliest possible moment. If caught on the field again bearing arms, all bets are off.

Uniformed Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.

The same treatment as their older counterparts.

Non-Uniformed Non Afghan fighters who are captured on the battlefield by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.

Foreign nationals? Holding until such time as they can be extradited to their homelands, with the expectations that it will be handled in the proper fashion by that govt. The ramifications to that govt. should they fail to properly handle this will be dire. No, not bombs or anything so silly as that. One war at a time. The United States has other ways to achieve our goals.

Non-Uniformed Non Afghan fighters who are captured on the battlefield by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.

A bit murkier, but not much... Same rules apply. Holding 'til extradition, and the proper trial and punishment, if deemed neccessary, meted out.

Uniformed Non Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.

Prisoners of War. Held, until conflict ends, then released. Got to play it square.

Uniformed Non Afghan fighters who are Taliban sympathizers captured by US or Allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield and under 18 years of age.

As above. No difference.

Non- Uniformed Non Afghan fighters who are citizens of US or Allied countries captured by US or allied forces bearing arms on the battlefield.

Treason. There is but one punishment. Death.

Non Uniformed Non Afghan person captured in US or Allied countries and turned over to the United States government via FBI for extradition.

If they are engaging in criminal/terrorist conduct here? Criminal trial in Federal Court. sentencing depends upon what they did, or were doing. Leave it up to the jury.

Non US citizens captured on United States soil engaged in the planning or commission of attacks against United States citizens.

Successful? Assuming they survive the capture, a fair trial, then death if guilty. Unsuccessful? Trial, and imprisonment for remainder of their natural lives.

Of course, there is nothing cut and dried about this. Exceptions would be made in certain cases...but there would be a marked difference in our behaviour versus the behaviour of our enemies. We must, and would, show that we are the good guys. We will not endanger, as much as is humanly possible, innocents. Accidents will happen. As President I must allow my commanders to do their jobs, which is to destroy the enemy wherever he is, and when ever we find them. I will expect the nations of the world to cooperate to the best of their ability. Should they choose not to cooperate, there will be discussions at another time. I won't forget our allies, but neither will I forget those who don't ally against the barbarians. That most emphatically includes Mr. Moustache in Iraq, the mullahs in Iran, Qaddafi of Libya and others who proclaim their friendship, yet act in a decidedly unfriendly fashion. Are you listening Saudi Arabia? Egypt? France? Germany? You know who you are, and so do we in America.

seagull
President of the United States of America

January 2002.