Skip to comments.
Fight Over Dangerous POWs /Not our problem, say Rumsfeld and UN
New Yoirk Daily News ^
| 11/27/01
| CORKY SIEMASZKO
Posted on 11/27/2001 1:27:42 AM PST by kattracks
The sudden collapse of the Taliban has left the victors with a problem they had not expected to deal with so soon: What to do with the thousands of captured and still dangerous warriors.
Yesterday, as alliance fighters tried to stamp out an uprising of Taliban captives at a prison in Mazar-i-Sharif, the United Nations and Pentagon made it clear they don't want the responsibility.
"I can't say we have not detained someone for some period of time" in actions by U.S. Special Forces teams on the ground, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said. "But in terms of our actually going out and seeking prisoners or looking for the opportunity to hold prisoners — we're not."
Rumsfeld said they prefer to have the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban factions "take prisoners themselves and then allow us to do whatever interrogating might be appropriate."
He said the anti-Taliban groups "have much larger numbers of people on the ground. They are perfectly capable of doing those kinds of things."
But the Taliban fighters — especially the Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers — are terrified of what the vengeful victors might do to them.
Afghans on both sides of the conflict have been accused of torturing and executing prisoners.
Too Big for the United Nations
Representatives for the Northern Alliance have asked the UN to take custody of the prisoners, but the UN said no way.
"You can't just turn to the United Nations every time you have a difficult situation and say, 'Do something,'" spokesman Fred Eckhard said. "You need infrastructure, and we don't have it in Afghanistan today."
The International Committee of the Red Cross can supervise prisoners' conditions but can't run the prisons.
"There isn't a role I can see for the United Nations," Eckhard said. "It is too big of a job. You would need, I would think, a substantial infrastructure to accept these people, house them, feed them."
He said only coalition forces with troops on the ground could handle the prisoners — or perhaps the multinational peacekeeping force from mostly Muslim nations that has not yet arrived in Afghanistan.
TOPICS: Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
1
posted on
11/27/2001 1:27:42 AM PST
by
kattracks
To: kattracks
"There isn't a role I can see for the United Nations," Eckhard said. "It is too big of a job. You would need, I would think, a substantial infrastructure to accept these people, house them, feed them."Eckhard is right, I say let's jut kill them all and be done with it. Otherwise, they will live to fight another day and I for one have little hope that they can be changed in their mindset against America.
2
posted on
11/27/2001 3:33:25 AM PST
by
RobFromGa
To: kattracks
"...But the Taliban fighters — especially the Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers — are terrified of what the vengeful victors might do to them."Could you wait until I get my violin out?
3
posted on
11/27/2001 3:37:07 AM PST
by
DCPatriot
To: kattracks
"...But the Taliban fighters — especially the Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers — are terrified of what the vengeful victors might do to them." "Won't someone help that poor man".....Blazing Saddles.
4
posted on
11/27/2001 3:40:42 AM PST
by
AppyPappy
To: kattracks
The only problem is, the US through bombing have aided the Afghan Tribes to defeat the Al-Qaida fighters. If they just allow the foreigners to be massacred, any other potential enemies of the West will be as ruthless towards us. This may not seem like a big deal now, but it may someday to Western troops stationed in the Middle East. Who, by the way, are foreigners as well.
5
posted on
11/27/2001 4:07:36 AM PST
by
mxbluto
To: mxbluto
We are approaching the point of determining who is a terrorist and who is a combatant. Kill them all does not quite cut it. Killing a prisoner of war in a civil war is a little different than killing a murderer who has committed a terrorist attack. We are dealing with both types of individuals here. This is a responsibility that we have to solve because we are involved in the total situation.
6
posted on
11/27/2001 5:14:14 AM PST
by
meenie
To: meenie
Why not accept what Rumsfeld has repeatedly said at face value? We are NOT IN A POSITION to take prisoners in Afghanistan. We don't have enough troops on the ground, we don't have a secure holding tank, we are dealing with treacherous men whose word is worthless, who have already several times "given up" and then murdered their unwary captors. We are in a country where even substantial numbers of troops cannot afford to stand around in one place running a prison camp, because they would put themselves at risk from the friends and relatives of the captives or from others who simply don't want them in the country running things.
It's pretty much a hypothetic question as to what we should do with prisoners. We really aren't in a position to take any, without putting our own personnel at unacceptable risk. We've already seen that illustrated several times over.
7
posted on
11/27/2001 5:33:47 AM PST
by
Cicero
To: kattracks
"...But the Taliban fighters — especially the Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers — are terrified of what the vengeful victors might do to them." I for one, and doubtfully not alone, find this statement laughable! Were these Taliban cowards not enjoined in the conflict to kill, rape, pillage the people that are their captors? Shoot the b@#%ards and move on! We have work to do.
To: kattracks
This sounds like an appropriate job for our European and NATO "allies" to take on. After all, this is in their own backyard and their countries have been (unintentionally) harboring most of the Al-Qaeda terrorists cells for quite some time now. They owe us, bigtime.
To: Cicero
I'll entertain to manage the prisoners, given a one month lead time, a reasonably free hand (which means I'll accept Red Cross but no reporters) and a certain amount of cash.
I'll use various prison guards from the US and the Middle East and put the prisoners to work rebuilding roads and clearing mines. From the point of view of "trusting" them, I won't. But you don't trust prisoners anyway. And they'll do good work. Of course, when you're clearing mine-fields by probing, people die. Oh. Well.
10
posted on
11/27/2001 9:27:18 AM PST
by
Abn1508
To: kattracks
But the Taliban fighters — especially the Arab, Chechen and Pakistani volunteers — are terrified of what the vengeful victors might do to them. My nose bleeds for them.
11
posted on
11/27/2001 9:29:19 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: mxbluto
any other potential enemies of the West will be as ruthless towards us [KNOCK] [KNOCK] Hello, McFly....
12
posted on
11/27/2001 9:33:57 AM PST
by
steve-b
To: mxbluto
"If they just allow the foreigners to be massacred, any other potential enemies of the West will be as ruthless towards us." Good point. After all, unless we play kissy-face with them, they might crash airplanes into our skyscrapers or something, right?
I think it's a bit late to be worried about whether or not they will "get ruthless" with us.
To: mxbluto
any other potential enemies of the West will be as ruthless towards usYeah, they might kill our boys and drag their bodies thru the streets.
To: kattracks
Rumsfeld said they prefer to have the Northern Alliance and other anti-Taliban factions "take prisoners themselves and then allow us to do whatever interrogating might be appropriate." All we want to do is ask them a few questions, after all...
To: mxbluto
What makes you think for a moment that American soldiers captured anywhere in the middle east won't be given the traditional torture death anyway, regardless of how the Afghan forces dispose of fanatical suicidal jihadists they take into custody this week?
Russians captured by Afghans and Chechens were and are skinned and gutted alive for the "entertainment" of their moslem captors. That's the reality of this part of the world.
A swift AK-47 death is considered an act of leniency.
To: mxbluto
this may not be a big deal now, but it may someday to western troops stationed in the middle east good point. we will cross that bridge when we get there. for now, the mission is to stop the bully in the school yard, and the only language he knows is the language of retaliation.
17
posted on
11/27/2001 10:21:24 AM PST
by
mlocher
To: steve-b
my nose bleeds for themhillary said that her heart bleeds for them. but that was private, off the record talk, of course.
18
posted on
11/27/2001 10:23:22 AM PST
by
mlocher
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson