Liberal Activist Supreme Court at it again

[TrailBate]

Looks like the SC still has a pre 9/11 mindset....


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13592908/

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Bush overstepped his authority in creating military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, a rebuke to the administration and its aggressive anti-terror policies.

[Slider]

It's that goddamn Constitution again. We gotta do something about that. It is interfering with the assumption of absolute power by the President. Maybe John Hancock wrote a secret signing statement that will get Bush a pass.

Sldier

[TrailBate]

At any rate, Bush will just get his republican lapdogs to sign legislation making any type of trial he comes up with legal.

[Ozzy]

I don't really understand this issue. Is it in relation to U.S. citizens, or non-citizens? IMHO, I could really care less what happens to non-citizens, I don't think they should be afforded the rights the constitution guarentees 'citizens'. We _should_ have to abide by the standards of Geneva convention though, seeing as how we're signed onto it.

[TrailBate]

The ruling also stated Bush was in violation of the Geneva conventions as well.

To me, it's not a matter of whether or not they are US citizens. It's a matter of whether or not they are actually terrorists or not. And if not, they deserve to be treated like any other decent human being, and freed.

freedom and liberty are not rights reserved to just Americans.

[BrianK]

I don't really understand this issue. Is it in relation to U.S. citizens, or non-citizens? IMHO, I could really care less what happens to non-citizens, I don't think they should be afforded the rights the constitution guarentees 'citizens'. We _should_ have to abide by the standards of Geneva convention though, seeing as how we're signed onto it.


No they aren't afforded rights by the constitution, but they are afforded rights as humans. I can't agree with the view that as long as MY rights are protected you can lock non-Americans up like the victims of some medival dictatorship, with no rights to any trial. This is against the very ideals this country was founded on, which is its better to let 3 guilty men go free than it is to lock up one innocent man.
While I'm sure most of the Guantanemo prisoners are scum, if they have no possibility for a trial, then it is unethical to lock them up. Basically we're saying we're going to lock your up for as long as we want and not tell you when your getting out with no chance for a trial.

[Slider]

The process of determining whether they are/were terrorists has to be unbiased. Confessions arising from torture don't count.

We need to treat everyone the way we'd hope to be treated if arrested while travelling. It is the only option, if we want any sort of international respect. As it stands, we have lots to do before we shed the mud that Bush has dragged us through. This is step 1.

Slider

[TrailBate]

On a somewhat related note, this is a good read:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13600653/site/newsweek/

The Myth of Al-Qaeda

[Ozzy]

Okay, now I understand a little more. Yeah, I mean, you have to give ANYONE a fair trial within a reasonable time frame, and as I said, you must uphold the Geneva convention. ;)

[BrianK]

Yeah, sorry I singled your quote out. I was writing my view and it wasn't necessarily directed at you Oz. You did say we must follow the Geneva convention, so that is good enough for me as well. ;)

[TrailBate]

what? This is a boring debate. Where is the guy who is going to argue we don't have to follow the geneva conventions OR the constitution, therefore we can do to them whatever we want, especially since the prison is not even on US soil?
Kernel has to be around here somewhere......

[FriedRys]

How do they fall under the protection of the Geneva Convention? Could you point it out to me?

combatant status

Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.

Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)

See wounded combatants for a list of protections.

Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)

Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)

For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)

See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.

However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)

The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.

In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)

For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.

Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)

A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)

[TrailBate]

That's more like it. ;D

[FriedRys]

That's more like it. ;D
Glad to help. ;)

[FriedRys]

WTF? no angry rebuttal? TrailBait is right (god forgive me) this post is WAY too civil. :o

[off piste]

WTF? no angry rebuttal? TrailBait is right (god forgive me) this post is WAY too civil. :o


A definite sign of the End of Days. ;D

[Slider]

The short answer, if you read the majority decision, is that members of al Queda are enemies just like the Germans and the Japanese were after WWII. And, more importantly, Bush tried to claim powers not specifically granted by Congress, in an attempt to sidestep the established legal channels when he created his own version of a miitary court.

You have to wade through a lot of stuff, but the gist is that the US is bound by the Geneva Convention restrictions, which require a standard court martial if there's any question as to Hamdam's POW status.

"The provisions of this chapter conferring jurisdiction upon courts-martial do not deprive military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals of concurrent jurisdiction with respect to offenders or offenses that by statute or by the law of war may be tried by military commissions, provost courts, or other military tribunals."

The full decision is available here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

Slider

[TrailBate]

Guardian finds Afghan witnesses US couldn't
Declan Walsh in Gardez

The US government said it could not find the men that Guantánamo detainee Abdullah Mujahid believes could help set him free. The Guardian found them in three days.

Two years ago the US military invited Mr Mujahid, a former Afghan police commander accused of plotting against the United States, to prove his innocence before a special military tribunal. As was his right, Mr Mujahid called four witnesses from Afghanistan.

But months later the tribunal president returned with bad news: the witnesses could not be found. Mr Mujahid's hopes sank and he was returned to the wire-mesh cell where he remains today.

The Guardian searched for Mr Mujahid's witnesses and found them within three days. One was working for President Hamid Karzai. Another was teaching at a leading American college. The third was living in Kabul. The fourth, it turned out, was dead. Each witness said he had never been approached by the Americans to testify in Mr Mujahid's hearing.

[TrailBate]

The Geneva conventions state that ALL CAPTIVES must be treated humanely.

I watched Hannjob and Colmes last night. Sean actually said the SC is trying to "usurp" the Presidential powers. what a clown.

[FriedRys]

And, more importantly, Bush tried to claim powers not specifically granted by Congress, in an attempt to sidestep the established legal channels when he created his own version of a miitary court.
FDR did the same thing when they caught a handful of Nazi spys on Long Island. Only difference is that he didn't screw around for 4 years, he had 'em convicted and shot in six weeks.


The Geneva conventions state that ALL CAPTIVES must be treated humanely.The Geneva Convention also states;
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
Kinda excludes those filthy bastardos who take such glee in hacking off the heads of civilian hostages.

[Slider]

I am sure Bush would have killed all of the hundreds of detainees if he didn't want the fun of torturing them first.

As far as I know, Hamden was a chauffer. He didn't hack anyone's head off.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Kinda excludes those filthy bastardos who take such glee in hacking off the heads of civilian hostages.


The big mistake you're making here is that you are assuming they are guilty, because they are locked up. Nothing can be more un-American than that.