US Forces Undertake Two African Raids, Capture Embassy Bombing Figure

CNN reports that two separate U.S. military operations have taken place this weekend in Africa; the first in Tripoli, the second in Somalia. "In the earlier raid, U.S. forces captured Abu Anas al Libi, an al Qaeda operative wanted for his role in the deadly 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa. In the second raid, a team of U.S. Navy SEALs in southern Somalia targeted the top leader of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist group linked with al Qaeda." According to the report, it's unclear for now whether the second of these attempts was successful. Unsurprisingly, the Libyan raid has raised the ire of the interim government there, which has objected to the U.S. arrest and removal of al Libi (to an undisclosed placed outside of Libya) as a kidnapping.

Re:And we're reading about it here why?

[Eunuchswear]

How about posting the source for your bullshit?

Might it be Moon of Alabama?

Maybe CNN?

But the mission didn't go as planned. A fierce firefight broke out, and the Americans had to withdraw -- not knowing if the person they were trying to get was dead or alive.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/05/world/africa/somalia-us-shabaab-raid/index.html [cnn.com]

The Libyan interim government called the U.S. capture a kidnapping and has requested an explanation from Washington about the raid,

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/06/world/africa/us-forces-africa-terrorist-raids/ [cnn.com]

(Nice URL there CNN: :"US Forces Africa Terrorist Raid".)

Re:And we're reading about it here why?

[ultranova]

Unfortunately you are overlooking a key piece of information: his status is determined under the Law of War, not under criminal statue. He can be held indefinitely as a prisoner of war, just as the Germans were in WW2 - at least until the conflict is over. No trial is necessary since it isn't a question of criminal law. That doesn't mean that he can't be tried, either for war crimes or criminal offenses under ordinary criminal law. Perhaps that will happen at some future date.

It is convenient when you can declare wars on abstract concepts and use those an excuse to kidnap and hold people indefinitely, yes. But it doesn't solve the problem: how do you know you're not next? Mere innocence won't protect you, since you'll never get to plead your case. So how will you keep the beast you've unleashed from turning on you?

But, for the sake of the record: The German war prisoners in WW2 were kept without trial for two reasons: 1) they weren't actually guilty of anything besides having lived in a country with conscription and a Nazi regime when said regime decided to go to war, and 2) there were hundreds of thousands of them, so it was not possible to arrange hearings for them all. Also, WW2 had a clearly defined and foreseeable end, after which they were let go - except those held by the Russians, who stayed in the camps for a long, long time. Stalin agrees with you in this too, comrade.

In summary, he can be held indefinitely, and it is perfectly legal and correct to do so.

In that case, it is also legal and correct to hold you indefinitely, should someone with a high enough position decide so. Perhaps you think you'll get lucky, or perhaps you think you'll be rewarded for licking their jackboots from early on. But I wouldn't count on that. A lot of Stalin's fanclub ended up in the gulags, after all.