NationStates Jolt Archive

Therefore...you cannot make your claim that Iraq was an illegal war.And by extension; if an armed thug kills your kids infront of you, and manages to escape to a country that won't hand him over, he's commited no crimes, right? - After all, no court will have convicted him.

It's actually a rather interesting point you raise here. Since none of the alleged terrorists you're holding have been convicted of anything, they must be innocents, right? So why the hell are you holding them, and why are we having this discussion?

Set the poor innocents free already.. And give yourself a prize for being so damn absurd.

Logic:

1) you have stated that you support whatever the Court rules
2) the Court supported overt racism for decades
3) had you been around .....you see this goes to a not nice place

I didn't state that I support whatever the Court rules. Rather, I stated that if you really supported the law, as you claimed, you would respect what the Court rules.

In addition, you're slipping into a fallacy when you confuse current support for Supreme Court rulings, considering that the Supreme Court today is different, to past support for Supreme Court rulings.

It says that the above does not superceed the war powers act. The war powers act says that it does not superceed the constitution. The constitution says Congress and Congress alone can suspend HB.

It's that simple. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

You missed the boat. HB has nothing to do with GITMO. Those housed there are enemy combatants.

Well, the silly cop example holds no water because that person would be a citizen. If they were not..tough grapes...

Now calling terrorists "bastards" makes me a "troll". Classy. I will say classy from now on every time sombody makes a personal insult to me ( this makes it easy to keep track and play along). This is what happens when people run out of facts. They insult me. I'm used to it. Well, why did the Americans offer a bounty to mercenaries if they had no evidence that the person was a terrorists? hmmm?
Oh for God's sakes!
You're not calling a terrorist a 'bastard'. You're calling someone who has never been tried and so never been found guilty of anything a 'terrorist bastard'.
It just can't sink into your incredibly dense skull that fact, can it?

Call them terrorist bastards as much as you like. It won't change the fact that they have not been charged with anything, and not been brought to trial. Until they are, they suspected terrorists at the worst.

Why did the US forces offer a bounty? You tell me. They've never said. Until they do and present in a court of law, these people aren't terrorists. You trust them (US force, mercenaries, warlords, criminals and/or locals out for a quick buck) not to have made even one mistaken identity?
Good catch, incidently, of just using mercenaries and ignoring I also said criminals. It's always interesting to see someone suffering from cognitive disonance and selective reading.

As for running out of facts, I've yet to see you offer any, nor refute many already posted here. But again it's the cognitive disonance thing going on, innit?

Feel free to keep playing the martyr card, btw. It's always fun to watch someone don their hairshirt and flagellate themselves about how nasty them other people are being to them.

Obviously you couldn't be bothered clicking the earlier link, or just suffered cognitive dissonance when you read it:

Geneva Convention, Article 4



Where does it say war?
Where does it say they have to be members of a regular armed force?
Where does it say they have be wearing emblems/signs recognising themselves as being part of an armed force?
Where does it say they have to be members of a regular armed force operating under a recognised Government?

It says there has to be a war. There has not been one.

Somehow, I think the point sailed right over your head. Many points have sailed over your head. You refuse to accept the SCOTUS ruling as fair and adequate, along with all the other brilliant arguments that have buried the case that you are trying to present.


You said that if they are not on American territory than international law takes over. They are on American territory. Your point did not sail over my head ( classy) it sank. It has no meaningful connection to the discussion. Your opinion about what is brilliant and what is buried...are just that. For this I am thankful.

You missed the boat. HB has nothing to do with GITMO. Those housed there are enemy combatants.
Oh no you don't. There is nothing in that clause that states that HB does not apply to anyone regardless of status. They need only be held by the US.

Once again, you lose.

On that note, in the the United States, in every free country, and in the international community (in general), people have the right to either be innocent until proven guilty or show that they are innocent. We can't say that any suspect in Gitmo who hasn't been tried is a terrorist by this standard.
And so you would have tried every Axis prisoner in WW2?

q: what court has found that America invaded Iraq in an Illegal way?


A:

Therefore...you cannot make your claim that Iraq was an illegal war.
Taking people's statements out of context is not exactly a great debating tool.

Logic:

Just because no court has found the US invasion of Iraq is illegal, does not mean that the US legally invaded Iraq.

BTW, just for your amusement:

German court declares Iraq war violated international law (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050928&articleId=1012)

It says there has to be a war. There has not been one.
What part of "Any armed conflict" are you not understanding here?

And so you would have tried every Axis prisoner in WW2?

Yes. just because they wear the uniform and participate in the axis doesn't mean they haven't done anything wrong. For all we know, he could've been a pacifist who only joined for the golden pin which would get he and his family out of poverty.

And so you would have tried every Axis prisoner in WW2?

What Axis prisoners are we talking about? Do you have a specific sample to compare to Gitmo? Because "every Axis prisoner" is not similiar enough to draw an inference on Gitmo prisoners. That is called the fallacy of questionable analogy.

Really? When did that happen?

And if Congress took away the power of the courts on this issue, and gave all decisive power to the President... why has Bush resigned himself to abiding by this very damaging Supreme Court decision?

The level of inconsistency that you can manage is... well, truly astounding.

2 questions you have asked. Here are my answers.

1)December 30, 2005
2) because they made the decision anyway

And about that last comment.....I really wish you would get a grip on the issues before you start insulting me.

You said that if they are not on American territory than international law takes over. They are on American territory. Your point did not sail over my head ( classy) it sank. It has no meaningful connection to the discussion. Your opinion about what is brilliant and what is buried...are just that. For this I am thankful.
I would spell it out for you but I don't think you would understand.

The only thing that is sunk in this debate is your arguments that run contrary to democracy and human rights.

And by extension; if an armed thug kills your kids infront of you, and manages to escape to a country that won't hand him over, he's commited no crimes, right? - After all, no court will have convicted him.



Set the poor innocents free already.. And give yourself a prize for being so damn absurd.


So....America is the armed thug and Hussein's Iraq was a child. Your analogy astounds and amazes. It is like opening a bio hazard container and being stunned by the gasses that emerge.

That wins the damn absurd prize any day.

I didn't state that I support whatever the Court rules. Rather, I stated that if you really supported the law, as you claimed, you would respect what the Court rules.

In addition, you're slipping into a fallacy when you confuse current support for Supreme Court rulings, considering that the Supreme Court today is different, to past support for Supreme Court rulings.

So you would have respected Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred scott v. Sanford. Thats...beguiling. I could not do that. And how is the activist court of today different than the activist court of 1896? It still ignores the text of the Constitution to score political points.

What part of "Any armed conflict" are you not understanding here?

Ok, so lets call them PoWs and have done with it. Lets lock them up till the conflict is over. The US government would have a much easier time holding them if they were PoWs. Why don't they just call them that. Because they what those who kill for no nation to be held responsible for their actions. They don't want to let them go after this is all over because then it would start up again. They want to lock them up for the rest of their lives. The military would have tried them fairly, there was no need to force the American people to hundreds of trials that take years to complete. I think its wrong. but I can't change it. I only post here because I am bored and want to voice my opinion on things. If you don't like it fine. If you do, fine.

I have the RIGHT to protest this decision. Protesting is patriotic. I am a wonderful patriot.

Therefore...you cannot make your claim that Iraq was an illegal war.
meaning, presumably, Barrygoldwater views it as a legal war.
It says there has to be a war. There has not been one.
meaning, presumably, that Barrygoldwater doesn't view it as a war.

Which is it going to be?


Incidently, where does the Geneva convention say it has to be a war?

4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Where does it say in there it has to be a war?
It only says that combatants should respect the laws and customs of war. Not that war has to have been declared.
If an army invades another country without a declaration of war, are you saying that the inhabitants have no right to rise up against the invading army?

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations.

In simple english for the less astute of you:
You don't need to declare war and even if only one of the combatants is a signatory to the Geneva convention, they are bound by it.

It just can't sink into your incredibly dense skull that fact, can it?

Call them terrorist bastards as much as you like. It won't change the fact that they have not been charged with anything, and not been brought to trial. Until they are, they suspected terrorists at the worst.

.


Demented hamsters lost all credibility. Insults, whining, and charming deceptions. I do not believe you will be acknowledged from now on by myself.

I only post here because I am bored and want to voice my opinion on things. If you don't like it fine. If you do, fine.

I have the RIGHT to protest this decision. Protesting is patriotic. I am a wonderful patriot.
That's nice.

Welcome to NS General.

Oh no you don't. There is nothing in that clause that states that HB does not apply to anyone regardless of status.
.

There is nothing that says that it does.....

So....America is the armed thug and Hussein's Iraq was a child. Your analogy astounds and amazes. It is like opening a bio hazard container and being stunned by the gasses that emerge. Classy.
But as usual, you didn't understand what you read.

You made a claim that ammounts to "If there's no conviction, there's no crime".

I used murder to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim. I also used your own argument to show you that by your own definition, the people you suspect are terrorist bastards, haven't actually done anything wrong, regardless of how many laws may have broken.

You created this utterly ridiculous argument. Now either stand by it & accept the consequences, or quit your absurd prattling.That wins the damn absurd prize any day.Not very creative today, are we?

What part of "Any armed conflict" are you not understanding here?

To what clause are you referring?

meaning, presumably, Barrygoldwater views it as a legal war.

meaning, presumably, that Barrygoldwater doesn't view it as a war.

Which is it going to be?


Incidently, where does the Geneva convention say it has to be a war?



Where does it say in there it has to be a war?
It only says that combatants should respect the laws and customs of war. Not that war has to have been declared.
If an army invades without another country declaration, are you saying that the inhabitants have no right to rise up against the invading army?



In simple english for the less astute of you:
You don't need to declare war and even if only one of the combatants is a signatory to the Geneva convention, they are bound by it.

Good luck with that. I already said that, and they just ignored it as it ruined their argument and their absolute correctness and kept debating about other stuff.

q: so you would have given trials to every AXIS POW?

Yes. just because they wear the uniform and participate in the axis doesn't mean they haven't done anything wrong.


That speaks for itself.

Demented hamsters lost all credibility. Insults, whining, and charming deceptions. I do not believe you will be acknowledged from now on by myself.
Feel free to ignore me, dear child.
I guess it makes you feel better than having to actually come up with any rational or logical arguments against anything I've presented.

If you can find in yourself to do so (and it would be mighty big of you sweetie) explain how the Geneva convention only applies to declared wars between signatories?

What Axis prisoners are we talking about? Do you have a specific sample to compare to Gitmo? Because "every Axis prisoner" is not similiar enough to draw an inference on Gitmo prisoners. That is called the fallacy of questionable analogy.

No it is not. The person posting stated that all people who are held deserve a trail. This would have included the AXIS members of WW2 that America held. I see no fallacy and questionable analogy. I made no analogy.

Geneva convention, Article 4:
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

I would like to point out the first word of this quote. I would also like to point out another pair of words; foreign fighter. This post had been brought to you by the letters S, C, O, T, U, and S.

q: so you would have given trials to every AXIS POW?

That speaks for itself.

What speaks for itself how?

There is nothing that says that it does.....
There is a whole hell of a lot of case law that says that it does.

But I'm sure you're going to throw a hissy fit and around we will go again. Mind if I just copy and paste as I'm sure you don't even bother to read anything?

To what clause are you referring?
Go back a couple pages and read. It has been pointed out to you a number of times and I don't feel the need to go back again and repost.

meaning, presumably, Barrygoldwater views it as a legal war.

It is not a war

meaning, presumably, that Barrygoldwater doesn't view it as a war.

up, speak of the devil.....hey look up there ^^^

Which is it going to be? hmmmm


Incidently, where does the Geneva convention say it has to be a war?

"pow"



Where does it say in there it has to be a war?
It only says that combatants pow section should respect the laws and customs of war. Not that war has to have been declared.
If an army invades another country without a declaration of war, are you saying that the inhabitants have no right to rise up against the invading army?
they have the right to, they just better watch themselves


.
yeah...

Classy.
But as usual, you didn't understand what you read.

You made a claim that ammounts to "If there's no conviction, there's no crime". . I said that you cannot go around calling it illegal if no court has found it to be illegal.

I used murder to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim. I also used your own argument to show you that by your own definition, the people you suspect are terrorist bastards, haven't actually done anything wrong, regardless of how many laws may have broken.

wow.



amazing.

Demented hamsters lost all credibility. Insults, whining, and charming deceptions. I do not believe you will be acknowledged from now on by myself.
Despite DH's methods, the fact remains that you will ignore him because you cannot refute his points.

Speaking of "charming deceptions", you have danced all around some very strong points that have been brought forward. So we should bestow upon you the medical equivalent of MD or Master of Deception. Carry on Dr. Goldwater.

Despite DH's methods, the fact remains that you will ignore him because you cannot refute his points.

Speaking of "charming deceptions", you have danced all around some very strong points that have been brought forward. So we should bestow upon you the medical equivalent of MD or Master of Deception. Carry on Dr. Goldwater.

I will ignore him because he was being an asshole.

I have not danced. I never could.

Well it has been an honor and a privilege to discuss this with all of you. Regardless of your opinion this is what is so great about freedom. It's time for me to get off work and go get some sleep. I hope there are no hard feelings from anything that I have posted. If so I am sorry as that was not my intention. May none of you ever be in a situation that this ruling would affect you.

May none of you ever be in a situation that this ruling would affect you.


ah, same to you. Have a good night.

I said that you cannot go around calling it illegal if no court has found it to be illegal.If I recall, you did a bit more than that. You said it wasn't illegal - which is clearly false.

If you apply the same bullshit standard to the people you've captured, explain to me where that leaves you.

If you don't apply the same standard to both, explain why.

If I recall, you did a bit more than that. You said it wasn't illegal - which is clearly false.

If you apply the same bullshit standard to the people you've captured, explain to me where that leaves you.

If you don't apply the same standard to both, explain why.

my personal belief is that the Iraq invasion was made legal by Saddam Hussein's breaking of the 1991 ceasefire. The gulf war resolution never expired.

Iraq was legal and no serious court has claimed otherwise.

IN Hamdi v. Rumsfeld SCOTUS found that Bush could detain the people at GITMO, so.....that makes it legal. Pretty simple.

my personal belief is that the Iraq invasion was made legal by Saddam Hussein's breaking of the 1991 ceasefire. The gulf war resolution never expired.

Iraq was legal and no serious court has claimed otherwise.

IN Hamdi v. Rumsfeld SCOTUS found that Bush could detain the people at GITMO, so.....that makes it legal. Pretty simple.

Well, the German court is as "serious" as any. But I think everyone here (including you) is missing out on the real reason why that doesn't make Iraq illegal. No other court or legislative body, except for the United States, had legal jurisdiction. A German court can say that its illegal, but that does not make it binding international law. In the same respect, the ICJ could even say it is illegal, but it does not become binding international law unless the US is a signatory to that ruling and has willing given it jurisdiction.

The fact that the United States has not given out jurisdiction, and the fact that the US judiciary has not ruled that it is illegal, means that it isn't illegal. It may be "wrong" or "unjustified" or any other number of things. But illegal isn't actually one of them.

Lets say Iraq is legal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

Lets say Iraq is illegal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

it has nothing to do with the law at all. So stop bringing it up.

my personal belief is that the Iraq invasion was made legal by Saddam Hussein's breaking of the 1991 ceasefire. The gulf war resolution never expired.

Iraq was legal and no serious court has claimed otherwise.

IN Hamdi v. Rumsfeld SCOTUS found that Bush could detain the people at GITMO, so.....that makes it legal. Pretty simple.
Nice try about the ceasefire, but no cigar:

Why 'No-Fly' Zone Clashes Won't Trigger an Iraq War (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,391985,00.html)

There is lots more on that but this shall suffice for now.

Who said anything about no -fly zones?

Lets say Iraq is legal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

Lets say Iraq is illegal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

it has nothing to do with the law at all. So stop bringing it up.
This whole thread is about the law, or does the SCOTUS just go around making decisions for the hell of it all?

Time to repeat:
Lets say Iraq is legal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

Lets say Iraq is illegal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

it has nothing to do with the law at all. So stop bringing it up.

Who said anything about no -fly zones?
More evasion. What ceasefire violation are you referring to then? Please be specific.

Well, before I say, let me tell you, this is the last post about the legality of Iraq you are getting out of me. Read my last post.

second....Saddam did not comply with weapons inspections. duh.

I am off to bed.

Well, before I say, let me tell you, this is the last post about the legality of Iraq you are getting out of me. Read my last post.

second....Saddam did not comply with weapons inspections. duh.
Guess you can't think of the ceasefire violation that caused the US to invade Iraq? BTW, Bush didn't cite ceasefire violations for the invasion in March 2003.

Blix stated that Iraq was complying with weapons inspections and that he wasn't finding any WMD.

The Security Council wasn't in agreement on the invasion of Iraq. 2 were for and 3 were against.

The Security Council wasn't in agreement on the invasion of Iraq. 2 were for and 3 were against.There's more than just five nations on the SC... ;)

Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen, was captured by Pakistani warlords in Pakistan, and delivered to the american authorities, who immediately put him in Gitmo. He was held without trial, was regularly tortured, and was then released after 930 days because he "was no longer a threat to the USA".

So, he was NOT captured in a war zone, he was NOT armed, he had NOT done anything illegal (since no charges were made and he was released), but still he was abused and tortured for OVER TWO YEARS. How can anyone claiming to be pro-democracy defend this? How can anyone call him a "terrorist", when he haven't done anything wrong apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The bushist apologists claim that "terrorists" have no right to a trial. This is completely preposterous of course, but also beside the point. The thing is that we can not ascertain whether or not they ARE terrorists without giving them a trial. Or is anyone accused of "terrorism" automatically guilty?

If you are so sure that they are guilty, why not give them a fair trial?

Can't you understand that it is this behaviour by the US that makes people all over the world really really pissed off? After WWII, even the defeated nations LOVED the US, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of the conquering nations. Today, this is replaced by an ideologically motivated arrogance which makes the entire world hostile. If this is what you are after, then congratulations. If not, my deepest condolences.

Here is some food for thought.
Gitmo is in Cuba, right? Not on US soil. US jurisdiction doesnt hold any water there, right? Its a lawless space, unless you are a member of the armed forces, in which case you are bound to the UCMJ, that the whole point of trying people there, they have no rights.
Does that mean i could assault a marine there and, provided i can get away, not be prosecuted?

Here is some food for thought.
Gitmo is in Cuba, right? Not on US soil. US jurisdiction doesnt hold any water there, right? Its a lawless space, unless you are a member of the armed forces, in which case you are bound to the UCMJ, that the whole point of trying people there, they have no rights.
Does that mean i could assault a marine there and, provided i can get away, not be prosecuted?

Naw. We just impale you without bothering with a trial.

Here is some food for thought.
Gitmo is in Cuba, right? Not on US soil. US jurisdiction doesnt hold any water there, right? Its a lawless space, unless you are a member of the armed forces, in which case you are bound to the UCMJ, that the whole point of trying people there, they have no rights.
Does that mean i could assault a marine there and, provided i can get away, not be prosecuted?


No.

Officially, any U.S military base is considered "American soil".

Thus, its laws should apply to any on that soil.
The Law, isnt something you "qualify for", or become "entitled" to.
Its the rules we set down that govern any and all within our country.

For anyone to say "Terrorists dont deserve trials" I call you an Un-American swine, who has little concept of what it means to enjoy the rights our country gives us.
One of the most crucial of wich, is the right to due process.

To suggest that a person held on our soil, should not be entitled to the same process that that country holds is rediculous.
If you perceive them as enemies, and we capture them, should they not be held to the same laws that govern the rest of us?

Try to remember that long, ago America was founded on the principles that no government should be able to imprison anyone,or hold anyone indefinately without being formally charged, and given a speedy trial.

Now remember that we are in Iraq, attempting them to emulate our ways.
Do you think Gitmo is a good example?

Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen, was captured by Pakistani warlords in Pakistan, and delivered to the american authorities, who immediately put him in Gitmo. He was held without trial, was regularly tortured, and was then released after 930 days because he "was no longer a threat to the USA".

Well, we know he was held without trial. There isn't a shred of evidence so far that anyone has been tortured in Gitmo, though. Only the "his word vs mine" scenario. A few prisoners (not all, mind you) have claimed they were tortured. At the same time, all of the Gitmo staff has denied it.

Interesting how you are so quick to assume that this person isn't lying, cry about his not having a trial, and then are willing to accuse the US of 'torture' without any legal proof (i.e., a trial). :rolleyes:

Well, we know he was held without trial. There isn't a shred of evidence so far that anyone has been tortured in Gitmo, though. Only the "his word vs mine" scenario. A few prisoners (not all, mind you) have claimed they were tortured. At the same time, all of the Gitmo staff has denied it.

Interesting how you are so quick to assume that this person isn't lying, cry about his not having a trial, and then are willing to accuse the US of 'torture' without any legal proof (i.e., a trial). :rolleyes:

Nope, no evidence. Of course nobody has been allowed access so that they can verify independently that prisoners are being treated appropriately, not abused etc etc etc. Organisations like the UN, red cross, amnesty international et al have all been trying since the start.

Of course you could just ask the prisoner's legal representatives what they saw on their visits to their clients.

If they had any.

So all the doors are locked, all the blinds are down, nobody bar the military is let in. Something to hide, perhaps? Particularly since the whole reason that these people were sent there in the first place was to avoid the normal course of law. Plus there is the recent outcry about flights of prisoners from nations where torture is illegal to those where it is not

So someone comes out of there claiming to be tortured and we are not supposed to suspect its true?

OK let independent observers in to verify that prisioners are not being abused then.

No?

What are they hiding?

Mehdi Ghezali, a Swedish citizen, was captured by Pakistani warlords in Pakistan, and delivered to the american authorities, who immediately put him in Gitmo. He was held without trial, was regularly tortured, and was then released after 930 days because he "was no longer a threat to the USA".

So, he was NOT captured in a war zone, he was NOT armed, he had NOT done anything illegal (since no charges were made and he was released), but still he was abused and tortured for OVER TWO YEARS. How can anyone claiming to be pro-democracy defend this? How can anyone call him a "terrorist", when he haven't done anything wrong apart from being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

The bushist apologists claim that "terrorists" have no right to a trial. This is completely preposterous of course, but also beside the point. The thing is that we can not ascertain whether or not they ARE terrorists without giving them a trial. Or is anyone accused of "terrorism" automatically guilty?

If you are so sure that they are guilty, why not give them a fair trial?

Can't you understand that it is this behaviour by the US that makes people all over the world really really pissed off? After WWII, even the defeated nations LOVED the US, thanks to the brilliant statesmanship of the conquering nations. Today, this is replaced by an ideologically motivated arrogance which makes the entire world hostile. If this is what you are after, then congratulations. If not, my deepest condolences.

Arrogance. Excellent word. That's it, isn't it? Arrogance. *nod*

So someone comes out of there claiming to be tortured and we are not supposed to suspect its true?

You can suspect whatever you want. To assert it as true based on the fact that no one has seen otherwise is a fallacy called argument from absence or negative proof.

Other than that, I'll concede it is suspicious. I'm not trying to defend the prison. But if people want their arguments to be treated seriously they should approach them from a reasonable POV. On that note, it is also important to keep in mind that the US is in no way obligated to let anyone inspect its prisons.

Arrogance. Excellent word. That's it, isn't it? Arrogance. *nod*


I got a better one:

Hubris
hu·bris ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).

I got a better one:

Hubris
hu·bris ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hybrs) also hy·bris (h-)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance: “There is no safety in unlimited technological hubris” (McGeorge Bundy).

Hmm...

Hubris...

Arrogance....

I gotta go with arrogance. It sounds more negative. Hubris sounds like an egyptian deity. :p

To suggest that a person held on our soil, should not be entitled to the same process that that country holds is rediculous.
If you perceive them as enemies, and we capture them, should they not be held to the same laws that govern the rest of us?
Keep in mind that all the decision said was Congress had to give the excutive branch the authority to have show (sans show) trials and then they can promptly hang the accused. It's not like it's been done before. Not to mention Scalia's views on the merits of actual innocence.

The Ideals embodied in the Republic we're bound to are the ideals to which we believe everyone should naturally be entitled. But that's not *exactly* the same thing as have America provide them to them. The Constitution exists principally to protect Americans from ourselves and each other. Not the people's of the world who come into conflict with us. Indeed, a certain ruthlessness in the prosecution of wars has served this country well. There is world of difference between being under someone's power and under their obligation fo protection. Sometimes pragmatism is found wanting of compassion.

If you're in the wilds of a murky Afghanistan - Pakistani border and some mountain living chief with a home-made AK decides you're currency with which to barter with Americans, you've made a series of really horrible choices. Any other animal that had such a run of poor judgement would have already been killed by a harsh and unforgiving world. Be greatful for what you've got at that point, because surely you've not the wisdom to merit it, however little it is.

Not to mention that the next great villain almost certainly was in one of the many dark holes found so useful in the war on terror. Indeed had all the prisoners been killed when Hitler did his time behind bars well given the cost of not killing them along with Hitler, a slightly cloudy conscience it seems a small price to pay. Who's lives should be spent cheaply? The future people we don't know at all, or the present people we've serious doubts about? An interesting dilemma.

Well, we know he was held without trial. There isn't a shred of evidence so far that anyone has been tortured in Gitmo, though. Only the "his word vs mine" scenario. A few prisoners (not all, mind you) have claimed they were tortured. At the same time, all of the Gitmo staff has denied it.

Interesting how you are so quick to assume that this person isn't lying, cry about his not having a trial, and then are willing to accuse the US of 'torture' without any legal proof (i.e., a trial). :rolleyes:
Not a shred of evidence? The FBI reported examples of abuse uring interrogation during 2004, for crying out loud. Look it up--it's easy enough to find.

I am not a lawyer but I can read ( very well ). And the 5 justices that issued this ruling have bad jurisprudence. They are not lacking knowledge they are lacking the ability to use that knowledge in a rational way.

Well, it's nice to see you know more about law than the Supreme Court, nearly all of which (at this point) has been appointed by Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan.

Damn those liberals.

Well, it's nice to see you know more about law than the Supreme Court, nearly all of which (at this point) has been appointed by Bush Sr, Bush Jr, and Reagan.

Damn those liberals.

"When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions." -Robert H Jackson (who knew a little something about the Supreme Court.)

Not a shred of evidence? The FBI reported examples of abuse uring interrogation during 2004, for crying out loud. Look it up--it's easy enough to find.

Why is it that people always assert that evidence exists, then in lieu of presenting the evidence, they say "go look it up." Its just like saying "evidence exists - show it to me!"

Here's an opinion on the matter which I share, but since he's put it into more concise words than I care to emulate, here it is:

Richard Samp of the Washington Legal Foundation has these comments on the decision:

I’d be surprised if any of the holdings in today’s Hamdan decision end up having large practical significance. The one exception is the Court’s rather cavalier treatment of the Detainee Treatment Act; the Court’s counter-textual interpretation of the DTA means that all Guantanamo detainees who filed suit before last December challenging their confinement will be permitted to go forward in the D.C. Circuit. But other than that, the importance of today’s decision is much more symbolic – it signals (assuming we needed any additional signals following Rasul) that the Court has abandoned traditional notions of deference when it comes to second-guessing the conduct of foreign and military affairs by the President and (to a lesser extent) by Congress.

In terms of the decision’s practical significance, I disagree with those who suggest that the decision will significantly alter the way Geneva Convention claims are treated in the federal courts. Both the Stevens and Kennedy opinions make clear that they are not holding that the Geneva Conventions are judicially enforceable by aggrieved individuals. Rather, the Court merely held that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) requires war crimes trials held before a military tribunal to be conducted in accordance with the law of war, and that the Geneva Conventions are part of the law of war. So, the Guantanamo detainees will not be able to use the Geneva Conventions offensively unless and until the courts hold that the Conventions were intended to be privately enforceable.

Nor do I see much significance in the Court’s agreement with Judge Williams (in his concurring opinion in the DC Circuit) that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to al Qaeda. Common Article 3 uses such general language (e.g., “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”) that it is hard for me to believe that it will ever be deemed to impose standard stricter than those already imposed under U.S. law. Torture is already a violation of federal law. Applying Common Article 3 to al Qaeda gives that group the same status already enjoyed by the Taliban, but I am unaware of Taliban prisoners having made any effective use of that status. And, as noted above, current detainees have no way of raising the issue in a federal court unless and until Common Article 3 is determined to create privately enforceable rights.

"When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions." -Robert H Jackson (who knew a little something about the Supreme Court.)


I'm finding it difficult to see how your point relates to mine.

Why is it that people always assert that evidence exists, then in lieu of presenting the evidence, they say "go look it up." Its just like saying "evidence exists - show it to me!"


Becuase in this case, it was on the cover of Time.

Becuase in this case, it was on the cover of Time.

You mean like the Haditha story that Time magazine has backtracked on, because their primary source, who they claimed to have heard talk about pictures on a cellphone, now says he saw no pictures of the sort?

Ah, between Time and the New York Times, I don't know which is a more untrustworthy news source.

How do you know that everyone in Gitmo is a terrorist? Because a monkey told you?

Actually the ruling was not a human rights ruling, it was not a condemnation of military tribunals as a concept. What it was was a separation of powers ruling. It stated that the tribunals were not Constitutional because they were not enacted by Congress. And presumably, they would be viewed as Constitutional if they were to be voted into law by Congress.

You mean like the Haditha story that Time magazine has backtracked on, because their primary source, who they claimed to have heard talk about pictures on a cellphone, now says he saw no pictures of the sort?

Ah, between Time and the New York Times, I don't know which is a more untrustworthy news source.


You missed the point.

I wasnt saying Time magazine is like Reuters or anything, but I was alluding to the fact that it is such common knowledge, that its almost strange to hear that someone hasnt heard of it.

If its on the cover of Time....everyone has heard it, and anyone who wishes to know, can go a quick google search, and be fully informed on the subject.
Thats why I said that.

Consider yourself enlightened.

Actually the ruling was not a human rights ruling, it was not a condemnation of military tribunals as a concept. What it was was a separation of powers ruling. It stated that the tribunals were not Constitutional because they were not enacted by Congress. And presumably, they would be viewed as Constitutional if they were to be voted into law by Congress.

SCOTUS seems to have given them an out - if Congress passes legislation, the White House can certainly hold tribunals.

They also gave them other "outs". Such as holding regular court martials, or civilian trials.

You missed the point.

I wasnt saying Time magazine is like Reuters or anything, but I was alluding to the fact that it is such common knowledge, that its almost strange to hear that someone hasnt heard of it.

If its on the cover of Time....everyone has heard it, and anyone who wishes to know, can go a quick google search, and be fully informed on the subject.
Thats why I said that.

Consider yourself enlightened.

While something being in Time may make it more common knowledge, it rarely means being "fully informed".

Fully deluded or distorted is more like it. The magazine's content is also intentionally written down to an 8th grade level.

It's disgusting how the people responsible for gitmo are dodging the rules and pointing at the fine fine print while in the facility itself people are dying from hunger strike, get tortured, and generally live a miserable existance. If there is no official obligation to bring them to justice, do out as a moral obligation! Americans always praise their own freedom, their liberty and justice. Yet their rulers watch for loopholes to deny that last thing to who they think are enemies, even though justice is a universal right. Just because you believe they may have tried to attack you doesn't mean they have to be treated like dirt. I think there are numerous bible verses on forgiving your enemies, yet the religious right never bothers to take them to heart.

And for those that said terrorists don't have any rights under Geneva: that treaty does not distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorists. You can treat them like rebels and murderers under civilian law. They're not part of an armed force: they're civilian. That's all Geneva said and needs to say, point. If you say they have no nationality, ask those people that handed them over to the US, they seemed confident about them being terrorists from there and them, they even got paid for it! And if you can't, then sorry, but the US military has been sloppy and there's no grounds for persecution or detention. You don't like, you learn from it so it doesn't happen again.

While something being in Time may make it more common knowledge, it rarely means being "fully informed".

Fully deluded or distorted is more like it. The magazine's content is also intentionally written down to an 8th grade level.


For the second time:

Forget I mentioned the name of any specific magazine, and just refered to any random News Magazine.

I mean that it was noticed by enough people, that the full details of the issue can be easily, easily obtained via the net.

Now do you understand?

It's disgusting how the people responsible for gitmo are dodging the rules and pointing at the fine fine print while in the facility itself people are dying from hunger strike, get tortured, and generally live a miserable existance. If there is no official obligation to bring them to justice, do out as a moral obligation! Americans always praise their own freedom, their liberty and justice. Yet their rulers watch for loopholes to deny that last thing to who they think are enemies, even though justice is a universal right. Just because you believe they may have tried to attack you doesn't mean they have to be treated like dirt. I think there are numerous bible verses on forgiving your enemies, yet the religious right never bothers to take them to heart.

And for those that said terrorists don't have any rights under Geneva: that treaty does not distinguish between terrorists and non-terrorists. You can treat them like rebels and murderers under civilian law. They're not part of an armed force: they're civilian. That's all Geneva said and needs to say, point. If you say they have no nationality, ask those people that handed them over to the US, they seemed confident about them being terrorists from there and them, they even got paid for it! And if you can't, then sorry, but the US military has been sloppy and there's no grounds for persecution or detention. You don't like, you learn from it so it doesn't happen again.


Actually, the Geneva Conventions don't automatically say they are civilians. Nor do they say that because they are rebels, that they should be tried in a criminal court.

The Conventions state that if their status is up in the air (which it is for the suspected al-Qaeda, but not for the Taliban in custody), then a status hearing must be held to determine their status - are they prisoners of war, or spies, or saboteurs, or mercenaries, or criminals of some other sort. If they are found to be rebels, they can be classified by the tribunal as prisoners of war. The Taliban can be classified as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war don't get any further trials. They are detained until the opposing side surrenders.

So far, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda have surrendered, nor do they show any intention of surrendering.

I believe that a lot of the suicide attempts in Guantanamo are being done by men who know that their side will not win, and their friends will not defeat the US, throw open the gates of the prison, and rescue them.

I think they know they'll be in prison for a long, long time with no hope of rescue.

I actually like the Supreme court decision . It will get congress involved in determining the proper way to treat the detainees that will involve oversite.
I was never comfortable with our government being able to make people disapear. I think its a good thing for everyone to have the process more transparent. We will always have our " high value " detainee's to muck around with...but the taliban and Al Queda fighters captured durring hostilities are a different catagory of prisoner , Than those captured conspiring to commit or commiting terrorist actions .

Keep in mind that everything the Nazis did was legal by their interpretation of their nation's laws. Does that make what they'd done any better?

And whatever happened to "all men are created equal and have inalienable Rights"? To me, ALL means ALL, not just citizens of a particular nation. How can the United States of American continue to be a bastion of humanity and freedom unless we include ALL?

Bottom line is that if these detainees are criminal in any way, they should be tries and convicted. The fact that this is not happening leads me to believe they don't have a case worthy enough to stand up to public scrutiny. And that is why everything must be done in secrecy.

While something being in Time may make it more common knowledge, it rarely means being "fully informed".

Fully deluded or distorted is more like it. The magazine's content is also intentionally written down to an 8th grade level.

Yes. the crux of their decision wasn't that there coud be no military tribunals, only that the PRESIDENT couldn't create one. Either the detainees would have to be funneled through the existing criminal justice systems, or COngress would have to legislate a military tribunal for them. Also that the tribunal would have to meet minimm internatinal law and that appeals would be heard by federal courts.

SO in reality, they didn't do much more than stomp down Executive powers in this particular instance.

Becuase in this case, it was on the cover of Time.

Oh, well Time has all of its cover stories online. Can you show me?

Yes. the crux of their decision wasn't that there coud be no military tribunals, only that the PRESIDENT couldn't create one. Either the detainees would have to be funneled through the existing criminal justice systems, or COngress would have to legislate a military tribunal for them. Also that the tribunal would have to meet minimm internatinal law and that appeals would be heard by federal courts.

SO in reality, they didn't do much more than stomp down Executive powers in this particular instance.


Its not a good thing to have too much power in one branch of government..or in this case one person..so its a GOOD thing to have power stomped on every once in a while .

Yes. the crux of their decision wasn't that there coud be no military tribunals, only that the PRESIDENT couldn't create one. Either the detainees would have to be funneled through the existing criminal justice systems, or COngress would have to legislate a military tribunal for them. Also that the tribunal would have to meet minimm internatinal law and that appeals would be heard by federal courts.

SO in reality, they didn't do much more than stomp down Executive powers in this particular instance.

In fact, the existing criminal justice systems are the traditional court martial or civilian court. Both were deemed acceptable by the court, and by the plaintiff.

Special tribunals that are not regular court martials were deemed to be something that the President cannot create.

One might look at this as a reaffirmation of the power of the judiciary, since the aim of the executive's strategy was to remove the Guantanamo inmates from the purview of the Court.

The Congress could remedy this by giving the President the authority for the tribunals, or, the President could hold regular court martials (or even do civilian trials).

He could even declare them to be prisoners of war (easy with the Taliban detainees, not so easy with the al-Qaeda - the latter would require a status hearing).

Oh, well Time has all of its cover stories online. Can you show me?


That depends.

Did you want me to go back and help you read the last page, wherein I explained that Time magazine may as well have been any magazine at all?

Anything to help.

I'm not an american citizen. So I can't talk about american laws.

But a suspect is not guilty until you porve he is guilty. So we can't treat 'terrorists' as terrorist before we prove they really are... In Guantanamo, for an example, there are many (too many...) people who are not guilty. I've made my speech at school about Guantanamo (the subject was 'debate about something in the world which shouldn't exists'...a good one) and I didn't wanted to look the TV report about it (to many manipulations....) but I really think that, as usual, USA overpass his rights....

That depends.

Did you want me to go back and help you read the last page, wherein I explained that Time magazine may as well have been any magazine at all?

Anything to help.

No, I want someone to back up their original claim that the FBI did an investigation that found Mehdi Ghezali was tortured. I'm still waiting for something to substantiate this.

In all this don't forget the real point behind the Geneva Convention.

Countries did not sign up to the conventions because they were concerned about abuse of enemy prisoners. They did it so that their own people would not be abused by their enemies when captured.

Ignoring the conventions when it suits you gives a free hand to anyone else to do the same, condemning your own military personnel to be locked up and abused on no evidence.

At this point someone will come up with a "they started it" argument. Fine except that "they" are not so easy to identify. Of various stories of those who have been released, the ones which have been highlighted most are not from people who took up arms and fought against the invasions of afghanistan and iraq, but instead claim to have arrived there by circuitous routes and deny having anything to do with it.

Since there is no contact with any of them and no evidence has been presented of any involvement with taliban or al-qaeda, then it is a little difficult to assume that these people have done anything other than be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

There seem to be a lot of people on these forums assuming that because they are there, they must be guilty of something.

Why? Did the bloke down the pub tell you?

In fact, the existing criminal justice systems are the traditional court martial or civilian court. Both were deemed acceptable by the court, and by the plaintiff.

Special tribunals that are not regular court martials were deemed to be something that the President cannot create.

One might look at this as a reaffirmation of the power of the judiciary, since the aim of the executive's strategy was to remove the Guantanamo inmates from the purview of the Court.

The Congress could remedy this by giving the President the authority for the tribunals, or, the President could hold regular court martials (or even do civilian trials).

He could even declare them to be prisoners of war (easy with the Taliban detainees, not so easy with the al-Qaeda - the latter would require a status hearing).


I think the reason they didnt give Taliban POW status was that they wanted them OUT of Afghanistan to remove a tempting target and a destablising element ..at least until the country has a chance to take form and Under the GC ...you are limited as far as what you can ask POWs and they are supposed to be repatriated after hostilties...in a war with and end when ?
So it gives the government and the military more options ..instead of strict guidlines ..for both the Afghans and the US .

Al Queda is another story...the only time they come under the GC is when we take them prisoner and they come under our controll . Terrorist or not if we " controll them " or " hold " them they have status under the GC . At least thats the way I have been made to understand it .

There seem to be a lot of people on these forums assuming that because they are there, they must be guilty of something.

Why? Did the bloke down the pub tell you?

Well yes, the bloke down at the pub did tell me.

But seriously, the assumptions that they are innocent (which I'm seeing more of than assumptions of guilt) are just as bad as the assumptions that they are guilty. Just like the assumptions that every cry of "torture" from prisoners is true, with no real evidence to back it.

There seem to be a lot of people on these forums assuming that because they are there, they must be guilty of something.

Why? Did the bloke down the pub tell you?

Technically, the mere fact that someone is Taliban and under arms can qualify them without trial or status hearing as a "prisoner of war". The Conventions only require status hearings in cases where there is doubt. Foreign fighters belonging to al-Qaeda, for instance.

A status hearing is not a trial.

If you are determined to be a prisoner of war (which the Bush administration has resisted classifying any of the detainees as), you get no trial, and are detained until your side surrenders.

A status hearing determines if you are an irregular fighter (in which case, you are a prisoner of war, see the first step), or if you are an uninvolved civilian, a spy, saboteur, or mercenary.

If you're an uninvolved civilian, you're free to go. Spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries can be tried by court martial and shot.

No, I want someone to back up their original claim that the FBI did an investigation that found Mehdi Ghezali was tortured. I'm still waiting for something to substantiate this.


Then Im afraid you'll have to argue that with the person whom you were arguing with.

I was reffering to claims of torture in Gitmo, as early as 2004.
Time magazine did do a story on it, (although it wasnt actually on the cover), and I used it as a blanket statement regarding the attention the story, and others like it received.

Google it?

Then Im afraid you'll have to argue that with the person whom you were arguing with.

I was reffering to claims of torture in Gitmo, as early as 2004.
Time magazine did do a story on it, (although it wasnt actually on the cover), and I used it as a blanket statement regarding the attention the story, and others like it received.

Google it?

So to you, "claims" are proof?

Bush "claims" that the people in Guantanamo are terrorists. You believe him?

In fact, the existing criminal justice systems are the traditional court martial or civilian court. Both were deemed acceptable by the court, and by the plaintiff.

Special tribunals that are not regular court martials were deemed to be something that the President cannot create.

One might look at this as a reaffirmation of the power of the judiciary, since the aim of the executive's strategy was to remove the Guantanamo inmates from the purview of the Court.

The Congress could remedy this by giving the President the authority for the tribunals, or, the President could hold regular court martials (or even do civilian trials).

He could even declare them to be prisoners of war (easy with the Taliban detainees, not so easy with the al-Qaeda - the latter would require a status hearing).

Yes. He can do all of that. But what he CAN'T do, according to this ruling is remove them from the judicial system or create a new trial system. Congress has to create a new system, and it won't be removed from judicial authority.

In my opinion, it was a good ruling. In fact, it was an obvious ruling. It's pretty clear in the Constitution what the powers and responsibilities of each branch are and the Executive branch does not have the powers they were trying to take.

Then Im afraid you'll have to argue that with the person whom you were arguing with.

I was reffering to claims of torture in Gitmo, as early as 2004.
Time magazine did do a story on it, (although it wasnt actually on the cover), and I used it as a blanket statement regarding the attention the story, and others like it received.

Google it?

Alright, fair enough. I'll concede that torture has been an issue in some exposes on Gitmo. What I question is the honesty of every prisoner who gets released and becomes a media star with their claims of torture, then people accepting it as fact, without calling for the same standards of investigation that they call for to prove that Gitmo is conforming to humanitarian standards.

Sorry for the many americans on this forum but

I think that USA overpass his rights. As usual, US government does what he wants, and, as USA is the most powerful country in the world, the others nations just can't (or don't want to not lose economical interests) force US to respect the laws. USA expect every nation in the world to respect conventions that they don't respect themselves...
Guantanamo is a mistake. If the american government decides to treat supposed terrorist as soldiers, they'll do it. Even though that will make it a little more difficult to control what they do... Everything is calculated...

Why US citizens don't do anything??? Why don't they take the control of THEIR country? Why don't they force american president to respect laws?

Maybe they're doing it... If yes, ignore my post.

Alright, fair enough. I'll concede that torture has been an issue in some exposes on Gitmo. What I question is the honesty of every prisoner who gets released and becomes a media star with their claims of torture, then people accepting it as fact, without calling for the same standards of investigation that they call for to prove that Gitmo is conforming to humanitarian standards.


Well Im sure nearly every prisoner in any prison will tell you of his innocence, if you listen.

However, whenever enough suspicion of torture comes about, it only makes sense that investigations made by impartial individuals are allowed to check it out.

Thus far, none have been allowed.

We all remember Abhu Graib, dont we?

While we cant fairly assume whats happed in one place is happening in others, certainly, we can say that such actions could be atking place.
If so, I think its right and just to investigate fully.

Bush isnt being very cooperative, is he?

Well yes, the bloke down at the pub did tell me.

But seriously, the assumptions that they are innocent (which I'm seeing more of than assumptions of guilt) are just as bad as the assumptions that they are guilty. Just like the assumptions that every cry of "torture" from prisoners is true, with no real evidence to back it.

The standard is that every human being is not guilty until proven otherwise. The USA started this war on the assumption they were protecting the personal and human liberties, to improve this world into a better place, or at least those were the phrases that plagued the Bush's speeches.

I think the decision of the Supreme Court actually try to follow that line, and I support it. If after a trial, a proper trial, they are found guilty, then you should apply all the weight of the law upon them, but you cannot charge of being guilty just by being suspicious of it.

Noone is saying they are all innocent, but most people think they could be innocent, at least some of them, at least one of them.

Same with torture, I think that most of them are not accurate, but if at least one of them is true, then an investigation and a clean up is in order.

Remember that the amount of lives or liberties is not an issue, even the liberty and the rights of one person are important and should be taken care of.

Well yes, the bloke down at the pub did tell me.

But seriously, the assumptions that they are innocent (which I'm seeing more of than assumptions of guilt) are just as bad as the assumptions that they are guilty. Just like the assumptions that every cry of "torture" from prisoners is true, with no real evidence to back it.

Looks like time for trials then.

EDIT: And independent inspection. Especially after all that noise about Saddam refusing independent foreign inspections. Wouldn't want to be in the same league as Saddam...

Sorry for the many americans on this forum but

I think that USA overpass his rights. As usual, US government does what he wants, and, as USA is the most powerful country in the world, the others nations just can't (or don't want to not lose economical interests) force US to respect the laws. USA expect every nation in the world to respect conventions that they don't respect themselves...
Guantanamo is a mistake. If the american government decides to treat supposed terrorist as soldiers, they'll do it. Even though that will make it a little more difficult to control what they do... Everything is calculated...

Why US citizens don't do anything??? Why don't they take the control of THEIR country? Why don't they force american president to respect laws?

Maybe they're doing it... If yes, ignore my post.

Where the hell have you been? What do you think just happened? The President got his pee-pee spanked by the Supeme Court. Our system works, you know. Even when a megalomaniacal President is trying to consolidate power. Unfortunately, these things take time.

However, whenever enough suspicion of torture comes about, it only makes sense that investigations made by impartial individuals are allowed to check it out.

Thus far, none have been allowed.


The ICRC has investigated. Are they not impartial? And they have attended every interrogation at Guantanamo for the past two years.

I listened to an NPR story where they attended an interrogation with the ICRC. NPR saw the whole place, and talked with the ICRC representative.

As "none have been allowed" goes, that's complete bullshit.

Actually it was a 5-3 decision. Your cheif justice sat it out. It was also a good decision, because well, they are the top court and thats what they do, decide. It broke the law, your President doesnt get to do whatever he wants, sorry.
Any idea why Chief Justice Roberts sat this one out??

Any idea why Chief Justice Roberts sat this one out??
Because he had previously ruled on it in a lower court.

Because he had previously ruled on it in a lower court.
Ah! Ok. Thanks! :)

The ICRC has investigated. Are they not impartial? And they have attended every interrogation at Guantanamo for the past two years.

I listened to an NPR story where they attended an interrogation with the ICRC. NPR saw the whole place, and talked with the ICRC representative.

As "none have been allowed" goes, that's complete bullshit.

Quite true. Dunno how I missed that one.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4460603.stm

"ICRC officials regularly visit the US naval base, and a leaked report by the ICRC earlier this year was said to have found evidence of torture tactics."

So now we know.

"The Geneva-based ICRC is the only group outside the US Government allowed to visit the detention camp.

In exchange for access, the committee has agreed to take any initial complaints directly to Washington"
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm

How does that go then?

"You can come in so long as you promise not to tell anyone what its like"

So they have been allowed in.

But gagged.

Ah! Ok. Thanks! :)

It's interesting to note that he ruled on the same side as the majority in that lower court. So I suppose one could say it's functionally 6-3.

I'm not too familiar with the legal precedents here but can someone explain to me why the prisoners cannot be tried in the manner of German spies in WWII?

I'm not too familiar with the legal precedents here but can someone explain to me why the prisoners cannot be tried in the manner of German spies in WWII?

I'm not sure, but one of the glaring differences between german spies and the gitmo detainees is where they were caught. I don't know if that's why, but it's certainly the biggest difference.

In exchange for access, the committee has agreed to take any initial complaints directly to Washington"
From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3179858.stm


That's the arrangement they make with EVERY country.

Oh, and what happened to your claim about no one visiting or investigation, or being allowed in?

It's interesting to note that he ruled on the same side as the majority in that lower court. So I suppose one could say it's functionally 6-3.
I thought Roberts had ruled in favor of Bush's version of trials?

And, from an NPR page,
Chief Justice John Roberts did not participate in the decision because, as a lower court judge, he joined a decision upholding the military commission trials. That decision was reversed by Thursday's ruling.

*cough* sorry to interject with a few FACTs.

Supreme court is in control of a nations laws. They are the true lawmakers and there is a reason for this. Because though congress states that bush could be president for life, it is up to the supreme court to prevent that. One might think congress and the senate actually have the power to override the supreme court.

One would be VERY wrong. The entire reason for a supreme court is incredibly
simple. So that no president can declare himself el presidente for life. The reason they do have the power to overturn any law, is to prevent ignorant politicians who know nothing other then winning popularity contests, from utterly gutting the integrity of a nations laws.

Git mo doesnt even have WALLS. And many of the "terrorists" being held are poor freaking Arab americans who just happened to be around in NYC when the towers fell.

Besides what does it matter, EVERYONE check out youtube.com and search for a documentary called "loose change". You will understand exactly WHY the supreme court has the power it does. To prevent maniancs like the republicans from getting away with sinking the two towers, and slamming an old f-100 in to the pentagon.

I feel bad for the CIA pilot that died doing that, but worse for the people who were murdered by an administration looking to set up a dynasty on 9/11.

Supreme court should never lose its power ever, and if you watch loose change you will understand why.

Dont believe me see for yourself, admittedly it helps knowing about airframes before you watch it. So you can see the real depths of evil this administration is in to. Ie trying to neuter the supreme court. The one thing standing in the way of dictatorships in the west. The one thing that many of these dictatorship nations dont have...The supreme court was more then right.

Git mo hardly has any terrorists at all. They simply arent catching that many. Instead it holds those who spoke out against their government, and those who spoke out against the occupation..and those who were simply there that dreadful day.

Do remember how many arab americans died in "questioning" directly after 9/11. And do remember they were all innocent hard working americans.

Git mo doesnt even have WALLS. And many of the "terrorists" being held are poor freaking Arab americans who just happened to be around in NYC when the towers fell.

None of the detainees in Guantanamo were in NYC nor were they detained when the towers fell.


Guantanamo has had walls for a few years now. It's built to the same standards as a Federal Supermax prison.

Walls and more walls. Airconditioned comfort.

Not all of the soldiers' barracks are airconditioned. But all of the prisoners at Guantanamo are in airconditioned cells.

Lets say Iraq is legal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

Lets say Iraq is illegal. This does not mean that the Gitmo prisoners get trials. It does not mean that they are denied trials.

it has nothing to do with the law at all. So stop bringing it up.
The Supreme Court said nothing about the detainees and the necessity of them getting a trial. It said nothing about how long prisoners can be held there. What they did say was that IF they went to trial, the executive could not make up new rules for those trials but instead has to try them under the existing rules set up by congress and the military for the treatment of prisoners/detainees.

Yes, Bush is free to hold those people for a lonnnng time. But if he ever actually decides to try them, the rules of those trials have already been set.

I'm not sure, but one of the glaring differences between german spies and the gitmo detainees is where they were caught. I don't know if that's why, but it's certainly the biggest difference.

You mean that the Germans were caught on U.S. soil while the gitmo prisoners were caught mostly in Afghanistan and Iraq right? But at least under Geneva conventions, both do not have the rights to protection under those protocols because they did not wear uniforms or insignias to distinguish themselves from civilians. I just don't see what the big hold up is. If these men were caught in the act, it shouldn't be taking this long to convict them. We disposed of the Nazis fairly quickly. If on the other hand there's not enough evidence to convict them...we're just gonna have to bite the bullet and let them go unfortunately.

That's the arrangement they make with EVERY country.

Oh, and what happened to your claim about no one visiting or investigation, or being allowed in?

Quite happy to be corrected, as you can see from the first line of my previous post.

However, being able to investigate without being able to mention it to anyone is not quite the same thing. A leaked report mentioning evidence of torture gives us two things.

1) The fact that it was leaked implies that they are not allowed to talk about it.

2) The allegations of torture at the camp are worthy of investigation.

After reading the words of a released inmate from Gitmo, who was captured because he "looked suspicious" after travelling through Afghanistan to get to an airport in Pakistan, and was completely innocent, this judgement seems fair enough.

Aparentely some of the torture was pretty horrible, with stuff like being kept awake for days on end by tinny, very loud music (you might have found them playing Barney hilarious, after about a week solid of it inside a shipping container, it wouldn't be funny at all) and strobe lighting being used fairly regularly.

They also used to randomly offend people to try and break their nerves, one example he gave is the soldiers bringing in some prostitutes who then stripped and basically raped some Muslim men.

They were also supposedly playing music at normal volumes to him, which he said was a bit random, but it later transpires that he might well have been being loaded with subliminal messages.



And all of this without a trial of any kind.

I can see full-well why people are being set free by the Supreme Court, and it'll definitely improve the US' national relations as well.

After reading the words of a released inmate from Gitmo, who was captured because he "looked suspicious" after travelling through Afghanistan to get to an airport in Pakistan, and was completely innocent, this judgement seems fair enough.

Aparentely some of the torture was pretty horrible, with stuff like being kept awake for days on end by tinny, very loud music (you might have found them playing Barney hilarious, after about a week solid of it inside a shipping container, it wouldn't be funny at all) and strobe lighting being used fairly regularly.

They also used to randomly offend people to try and break their nerves, one example he gave is the soldiers bringing in some prostitutes who then stripped and basically raped some Muslim men.

They were also supposedly playing music at normal volumes to him, which he said was a bit random, but it later transpires that he might well have been being loaded with subliminal messages.



And all of this without a trial of any kind.

I can see full-well why people are being set free by the Supreme Court, and it'll definitely improve the US' national relations as well.

Ummmm.. they aren't being set free... maybe you need to go back and read the details.

I thought Roberts had ruled in favor of Bush's version of trials?

And, from an NPR page,

That's odd...I could have sworn I read on CNN the opposite. But when I looked just now, it didn't say anything other than 'he ruled on it in the appelate court'. It doesn't even say HOW he ruled anymore. I'm officially annoyed.

But willing to defer to you. *nod*

That's odd...I could have sworn I read on CNN the opposite. But when I looked just now, it didn't say anything other than 'he ruled on it in the appelate court'. It doesn't even say HOW he ruled anymore. I'm officially annoyed.

But willing to defer to you. *nod*

If he had voted on it in this most recent decision in the same way that he voted on it when he was in the appellate court, the decision would have been 6-3.

Not exactly a Bush puppet.

You are right, my mistake...it was 5-3...
What law does Gitmo break? Certainly not the U.S. Constitution or the Geneva Conventions. Certainly not any acts of Congress! I never claimed anyone " could do whatever" they wanted. I just cant see how the Court picks new rights out of thin air.

Well 5 out of 8 judges ruled it not only violates military law but it violates the Geneva Conventios. Id take their word over yours.

Maybe terrorists dont have a right to a trial, but suspected terrorists do, as you dont know they are a terrorist until you prove it. Unless of course you like detaining the innocent without a trial. In that case you should move to pre-war Iraq.

the assumptions that they are innocent (which I'm seeing more of than assumptions of guilt) are just as bad as the assumptions that they are guilty.
What, as in "innocent until proven guilty"?
You find making that assumption ridiculous?

What, as in "innocent until proven guilty"?
You find making that assumption ridiculous?

Yep. I find the idea of a swedish national who happens to be circumcised and not Jewish, defending his own home in.... Afghanistan... stretching credulity.

If it is circumsized, and NOT a US-ally, and in Afghanistan, annihilate it.

Well 5 out of 8 judges ruled it not only violates military law but it violates the Geneva Conventios. Id take their word over yours.

Maybe terrorists dont have a right to a trial, but suspected terrorists do, as you dont know they are a terrorist until you prove it. Unless of course you like detaining the innocent without a trial. In that case you should move to pre-war Iraq.

Let's be precise, shall we?

They said that what violates the Conventions is the fact that the tribunals that Bush wanted were not existing judicial structures - a regular military court martial or the civilian courts would be fine. Additonally, they did not say that all of them had a right to a trial - just that in the event an Article 5 hearing was to be held, it had to conform to either the UCMJ or civilian courts.

It is, by the ruling, perfectly legal to hold the Taliban detainees as prisoners of war, give them no trial, and hold them until the Taliban in Afghanistan surrender. The foreign fighters who were al-Qaeda on the other hand, get a status hearing.

Keep in mind that an Article 5 hearing is not a trial, even if it is held in an existing judicial system. It is to determine if someone is a prisoner of war, spy, mercenary, irregular combatant, or saboteur, or uninvolved civilian.

Well 5 out of 8 judges ruled it not only violates military law but it violates the Geneva Conventios. Id take their word over yours.

Maybe terrorists dont have a right to a trial, but suspected terrorists do, as you dont know they are a terrorist until you prove it. Unless of course you like detaining the innocent without a trial. In that case you should move to pre-war Iraq.

5 out of 9. One didn't vote. :p

The geneva convention does not apply because of the very passage that you quoted. These men are not POW's, not civilians, and not medical related civilians. They are extra-Geneva combatants.

What part of "no intermediate status" do you fail to understand? If they are not POWs and not medical personel, they are civilians under the Geneva protocols.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia explicitly reaffirmed this principle in 1998: "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention]" Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).

There is no BS "extra-Geneva" catagory. This is a US manufactured end run against their legal obligations.

What part of "no intermediate status" do you fail to understand? If they are not POWs and not medical personel, they are civilians under the Geneva protocols.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia explicitly reaffirmed this principle in 1998: "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of [the Fourth Convention]" Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998).

There is no BS "extra-Geneva" catagory. This is a US manufactured end run against their legal obligations.


Actually, there are also spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries.

In the Geneva Conventions, people under arms are not civilians.

Provided that you're captured under arms, and not in uniform, and are a native of the country in question, you can be considered a prisoner of war without doubt. If there is any doubt, a status hearing can be held.

If you're captured under arms, and not in uniform, and are NOT a native of the country in question, a status hearing is necessary to determine whether or not you are a prisoner of war, an unarmed civilian (unlikely, if you had a gun on you), or a spy, saboteur, or most likely - a mercenary.

It explicitly states in the Conventions that once determined to be a spy, saboteur, or mercenary, you are no longer subject to the protections of the Conventions.

The ruling means the Bush administration will have to adopt a military commission system for trying accused terrorists that meets international standards.

The court's ruling also establishes that federal courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals involving "enemy combatants" held overseas in U.S. military custody. The Bush administration had argued they lacked it.


The Supreme Court did NOT rule out military tribunals. They said that the Executive(Bush) does not have the authority to set up a military commission outside of the existing military or civilian legal systems to prosecute them unless:

a) Congress legislates it,

b) It meets international standards and

c) Federal appeals courts can hear the cases.

In other words, Bush cannot create his own military commision. COngress has to, or they must be tried through existing military or civilian courts.
I am glad to see that someone has a handle on the correct course of action. :)

Leave it to LG, the clown of NS, to speak the truth. That he has a military background doesn't hurt either.

And LG, I've been noticing yo're being a lot more active on the serious side of late... ;)

Leave it to LG, the clown of NS, to speak the truth. That he has a military background doesn't hurt either.

And LG, I've been noticing yo're being a lot more active on the serious side of late... ;)

I haven't said anything in this thread that contradicts LG. And I have a military background as well.

Nope. To be a prisoner of war there must be a war.


That's all that need be said to show that you haven't got a single clue, haven't looked at the Geneva conventions, haven't read anything on the subject that's been posted, and are talking out of your arse.

That's all that need be said to show that you haven't got a single clue, haven't looked at the Geneva conventions, haven't read anything on the subject that's been posted, and are talking out of your arse.

For the ones who were Taliban, they can be prisoners of war. But that means no trial, and indefinite detention (until the Taliban officially surrender).

For foreign fighters who were captured under arms in Afghanistan, a status hearing can be held to determine whether or not they fall into this category

Art. 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict; (b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities; (c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party; (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict; (e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and (f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

. Terrorists have no right to trial at all.
When was it proven that any of them were terrorists?

When was it proven that any of them were terrorists?

Not to mention when it was proven that they have "no right to trial."

"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Yeah, but who cares about something as silly as human rights anymore... well, at least some people on SCOTUS do, which means the US may still have a chance of remaining in the category of people who haven't deserved what they got, however slim that chance is...

Not to mention when it was proven that they have "no right to trial."

"Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law."

"Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law."

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile."

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

"Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

Yeah, but who cares about something as silly as human rights anymore... well, at least some people on SCOTUS do, which means the US may still have a chance of remaining in the category of people who haven't deserved what they got, however slim that chance is...


You obviously didn't read the ruling. They said nothing about anyone being entitled to a trial. They were noting that if you are having an Article 5 trial, it must be through either the UCMJ court martial or a US civilian court, not through a new tribunal system thought up by the President.

Sorry for the lag in reply DK - had to work through all the rest. Yes indeed, you've been a Lunatician voice of reason. :D

As for status, yes there are the considerations you mentioned. However, it's my understanding that if you aren't a POW you are a "civilian". Civilian prisoners can and should be be tried. But they should also be afforded certain protections. And as I understand it, mercs, spys, and saboteurs qualify under this.

Also, it is of note that Israel and Liberia have both begun holding "unlawful combatants" (the case of Liberia is especially worrysome - they are holding a US journalist - Hassan Bility - as an illegal combatant).

Of additional note is the subject of the War Crimes Act, which the"unlawful combatants" classification was concieved to end run. Since we agree that the Taliban prisoners should be afforded POW status, they are then protected by the 3rd convention. If they are subjected to inhumane treatment, then a whole slew of US personnel could be subject to both domestic and international war crimes charges...

Finally, the following should make interesting (read eye watering legalese) reading on the subject of the status:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm

As for status, yes there are the considerations you mentioned. However, it's my understanding that if you aren't a POW you are a "civilian". Civilian prisoners can and should be be tried. But they should also be afforded certain protections. And as I understand it, mercs, spys, and saboteurs qualify under this.


Spies, mercenaries, and saboteurs get the status hearing by judicial tribunal (a regular court - either court martial or civilian court).

After their status is determined, their protections are radically restricted, especially the protections for spies.

Traditionally, nations try spies in civilian courts. Especially the US.

Spies, mercenaries, and saboteurs get the status hearing by judicial tribunal (a regular court - either court martial or civilian court).

After their status is determined, their protections are radically restricted, especially the protections for spies.

Traditionally, nations try spies in civilian courts. Especially the US.

Fair enough. I'd love to see what even a cheap ass PD could do with the cases involved if tried in a civilian court - all sorts of evidence would be tossed out left and right.... And a really good atty... (>.<)

If I were Sam Alito, I'd be scrambling to reverse course...

You obviously didn't read the ruling. They said nothing about anyone being entitled to a trial. They were noting that if you are having an Article 5 trial, it must be through either the UCMJ court martial or a US civilian court, not through a new tribunal system thought up by the President.

Oh, you're talking about this:

"Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes."

"In habeas and mandamus petitions, Hamdan asserted that the military commission lacks authority to try him because (1) neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, is not a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted to try him violate basic tenets of military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him."

"1. The Government’s motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA §1005(e)(1) providesthat “no court . . . shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay.” Section 1005(h)(2) provides that §§1005(e)(2) and(3)—which give the D. C. Circuit “exclusive” jurisdiction to review the final decisions of, respectively, combatant status review tribunals and military commissions—“shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is . . . pending on” the DTA’s effective date, as was Hamdan’s case. The Government’s argument that §§1005(e)(1) and (h) repeal this Court’s jurisdiction to review the decision below is re-butted by ordinary principles of statutory construction."

"The Government objects to this Court’s consideration of a procedural challenge at this stage on the grounds, inter alia, that Hamdan will be able to raise such a challenge following a final decision under the DTA, and that there is no basis to presume, before the trial has even commenced, that it will not be conducted in good faith andaccording to law. These contentions are unsound."

"The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan’s challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive."

"Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories..."

"The phrase “all the guarantees . . . recognized as indispensableby civilized peoples” in Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not defined, but it must be understood to incorporate at least the barest of the trial protections recognized by customary international law."

So, they did indeed specifically rule on the right of the court to step in here and indirectly on right to trial (because it was something that was so self-evident that even Bush conceded to it in finding the person eligible for a "trial") through their finding of the application of the Geneva conventions and in rebuffing the government's claims, and they also mainly ruled on what sort of trial was to be offered because the bigger question was not "right to trial," as that was not particularly in question, but "what sort of trial." Ruling that what was offered lacked sufficient protections for detainees, implies (and as the last quoted paragraph clearly states!) that the detainees do indeed have a right to protections. If one is to assume your claim that they "said nothing of anyone being entitled to a trial" their entire ruling would be rendered superfluous, which SCOTUS is of course not stupid enough to allow.

So, while you may claim to have read the ruling, I must inform you that there is a lot more to reading comprehension than the mechanical task of using your eyes to convey light reflected off of a text.

Oh, you're talking about this:

"Over a year later, the President deemed Hamdan eligible for trial by military commission for then-unspecified crimes."

"In habeas and mandamus petitions, Hamdan asserted that the military commission lacks authority to try him because (1) neither congressional Act nor the common law of war supports trial by this commission for conspiracy, an offense that, Hamdan says, is not a violation of the law of war; and (2) the procedures adopted to try him violate basic tenets of military and international law, including the principle that a defendant must be permitted to see and hear the evidence against him."

"1. The Government’s motion to dismiss, based on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 (DTA), is denied. DTA §1005(e)(1) providesthat “no court . . . shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for . . . habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay.” Section 1005(h)(2) provides that §§1005(e)(2) and(3)—which give the D. C. Circuit “exclusive” jurisdiction to review the final decisions of, respectively, combatant status review tribunals and military commissions—“shall apply with respect to any claim whose review is . . . pending on” the DTA’s effective date, as was Hamdan’s case. The Government’s argument that §§1005(e)(1) and (h) repeal this Court’s jurisdiction to review the decision below is re-butted by ordinary principles of statutory construction."

"The Government objects to this Court’s consideration of a procedural challenge at this stage on the grounds, inter alia, that Hamdan will be able to raise such a challenge following a final decision under the DTA, and that there is no basis to presume, before the trial has even commenced, that it will not be conducted in good faith andaccording to law. These contentions are unsound."

"The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan’s challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive."

"Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories..."

So, they did indeed specifically rule on the right of the court to step in here and indirectly on right to trial (because it was something that was so self-evident that even Bush conceded to it in finding the person eligible for a "trial") through their finding of the application of the Geneva conventions and in rebuffing the government's claims, and they also mainly ruled on what sort of trial was to be offered because the bigger question was not "right to trial," as that was not particularly in question, but "what sort of trial." Ruling that what was offered lacked sufficient protections for detainees, implies that the detainees do indeed have a right to protections. If one is to assume your claim that they "said nothing of anyone being entitled to a trial" their entire ruling would be rendered superfluous, which SCOTUS is of course not stupid enough to allow.

So, while you may claim to have read the ruling, I must inform you that there is a lot more to reading comprehension than the mechanical task of using your eyes to convey light reflected off of a text.


That is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not reading it.

They are objecting to the idea that Hamdan will be tried by a special military commission thought up by the President.

It's pretty clear that they are granting what Hamdan has asked for - either a UCMJ court martial or a civilian court - not something wished up by the President.

Even so, they don't have to try anyone there - they can declare all of the Taliban there to be prisoners of war - until the Taliban surrender officially.

Prisoners of war don't get trials. Unless you want to prosecute them for war crimes.

As for the foreigners there, they are entitled to a status hearing through the UCMJ court martial or civilian court. Not until a status hearing is finalized can they be tried for any crimes - said trials must also be in either the UCMJ court martial or a civilian court.

What they objected to was the creation ab initio of a new military tribunal - not the current UCMJ.

"When the Supreme Court moved to Washington in 1800, it was provided with no books, which probably accounts for the high quality of early opinions." -Robert H Jackson (who knew a little something about the Supreme Court.)


Sorry, STILL not seeing what this has to do with someone railing about "liberal judges" who were all appointed by conservative presidents...

That is exactly what I'm talking about. You're not reading it.

"On July 3, 2003, the President announced his determi-nation that Hamdan and five other detainees at Guan-tanamo Bay were subject to the November 13 Order and thus triable by military commission. In December 2003, military counsel was appointed to represent Hamdan. Two months later, counsel filed demands for charges and for a speedy trial pursuant to Article 10 of the UCMJ, 10
U. S. C. §810. On February 23, 2004, the legal adviser tothe Appointing Authority denied the applications, ruling that Hamdan was not entitled to any of the protections ofthe UCMJ. Not until July 13, 2004, after Hamdan had commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, did the Govern-ment finally charge him with the offense for which, a year earlier, he had been deemed eligible for trial by military commission."

So, by mentioning filing "demands for charges and for a speedy trial" under the UCMJ and finding that the UCMJ's rules vis-à-vis courts-martial "must apply" and similarly to the Geneva conventions' rules about a "regularly constituted court" and "right to be tried in [one’s] presence," not to mention that the court denied the Goverment's motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari on flawed claims that the person was not entitled to submit it or the Court not entitled to address the case, the Court "said nothing about anyone being entitled to a trial" in finding that this person was indeed entitled to submit the writ (and thus ask for a trial before the Court) and for the Court itself to grant it, and review the case?

Right. Excellent reading there.

So, by mentioning filing "demands for charges and for a speedy trial" under the UCMJ and finding that the UCMJ's rules vis-à-vis courts-martial "must apply" and similarly to the Geneva conventions' rules about a "regularly constituted court" and "right to be tried in [one’s] presence," not to mention that the court denied the Goverment's motion to dismiss the writ of certiorari on flawed claims that the person was not entitled to submit it or the Court not entitled to address the case, the Court "said nothing about anyone being entitled to a trial" in finding that this person was indeed entitled to submit the writ (and thus ask for a trial before the Court) and for the Court itself to grant it, and review the case?

Right. Excellent reading there.

We're saying the same thing, and you have no idea we are.

Submitting a writ is not a "right to trial". It is the right to judicial review.

Please.

We're saying the same thing, and you have no idea we are.

So, in stating that the UCMJ's provisions about courts-martial "must apply," and also those of the Geneva conventions, they are saying they must not apply?

Submitting a writ is not a "right to trial". It is the right to judicial review.

Psst! The procedure through which judicial review takes place is called "a trial." The court in the case did find that the person was entitled to ask for, and entitled to have such review, again through this thing called "a trial," as they did, in fact, grant the trial.

Please.

Indeed. Do read what you claim to have read.

I just cant see how the Court picks new rights out of thin air.
I guess that's why they're legal professionals and you are not.

Presumption of innocence before guilt and right to a fair trial is not new.

So, in stating that the UCMJ's provisions about courts-martial "must apply," and also those of the Geneva conventions, they are saying they must not apply?

I never said they must not apply. I said that you either get a UCMJ court martial (which by design conforms to the Conventions) or a civilian court trial - if the person in question is being tried. Not by some made-up thing Bush thought of.


Psst! The procedure through which judicial review takes place is called "a trial." .

Psst.. it's called an "appeal".

Did you even pass the bar?

I never said they must not apply. I said that you either get a UCMJ court martial (which by design conforms to the Conventions) or a civilian court trial - if the person in question is being tried. Not by some made-up thing Bush thought of.

A courts-martial is a trial. And they just ruled that you either follow civilian rules (which grant a right to trial) or military rules (which also grant a right to trial.) To claim to say that they said "nothing" about the matter is ignorant at best, and spurious at the intermediate.

Psst.. it's called an "appeal".

Psst... appeals are still dealt with through, you guessed it, this procedure we call a "trial."

Did you even pass the bar?

No, but I await your claims of having passed it, adding to the habitually unreliable post-hand constructions of your merits.

A courts-martial is a trial. And they just ruled that you either follow civilian rules (which grant a right to trial) or military rules (which also grant a right to trial.) To claim to say that they said "nothing" about the matter is ignorant at best, and spurious at the intermediate.



Psst... appeals are still dealt with through, you guessed it, this procedure we call a "trial."



No, but I await your claims of having passed it, adding to the habitually unreliable post-hand constructions of your merits.

I think you have no idea what I'm saying.

As detainees, they don't have any innate right to a trial if we aren't going to try them for anything. Say, if we classify them as prisoners of war - no trial, sorry.

But IF we decide to try them (as Bush wanted to, for war crimes), then we need to have a trial through the UCMJ or a civilian court - as the Supreme Court has stated.

But if we're not going to try them, they don't get one.

Simple.

Even if we're going to have a hearing to decide status, that has to be UCMJ and/or civilian court.

Appeals are not "trials". Sorry. They are "judicial review". No new evidence is usually allowed.

One day on... it was not a dream.

The court really did make one of its best decisions in years.

The issue was clear, the government was acting outrageously beyond the bounds of US and international law.

One day on... it was not a dream.

The court really did make one of its best decisions in years.

The issue was clear, the government was acting outrageously beyond the bounds of US and international law.

Which could easily become inside the bounds if the Congress grants the power to hold the new tribunals that Bush wants.

Maybe not inside the bounds of international law, but international law does not trump domestic US law.

Who the hell is the Supreme Court to tell us what is and isn't wrong?
They tell Americans what is and isn't legal.

All reasons that confirm that liberals should never, ever be allowed to get near the levers of power. We are at war, a very different, unconventional kind of war with a non-declared, unaligned enemy.
If only conservatives had never been allowed into power we would never have wars to worry about.

what i cant understand is why liberals always want to help the people who hurt americans so much. :(
Except that the prisoners at Guantanamo are not all terrorists, so it's not proven that they want to hurt Americans. Bush hurts America enough.

What they do to anyone they capture; soldier and civilian, we don’t do to our worst enemy. Yet some people want to give them every right as US citizens when they would kill one in a heartbeat. I have no doubt that if anyone on this forum ever saw firsthand the things these men, and I use the word very loosely, have done you would never want them in our justice system where a small technicality so that they can go right back to killing people. A military tribunal would see if there was any validity to them being terrorists and act in hours, not months or years.
Your entire fucking argument is based on the unproven assumption that the Guantanamo inmates are terrorists, which you can't make. People like you are why the US Army is percieved globally as being full of hysterical morons.

The UN human rights declaration does not mandate the giving of trials to terrorists.
They're not necessarily terrorists at that prison, but we know that they are humans and thus have a right to a trial.

So......what are you saying? The Supreme Court should invent rights out of their imaginations and give them to the terrorists at Gitmo? That strikes me as....dangerous at best. I do not trust John Paul Stevens to pull new liberties for non-citizen combantant terrorists out of the land of Oz.

No one created any "rights" for these detainees. The court in a 5-3 majority decision declared that the status Bush created for these detaineed does not give them any protections under the due process of law. Remember, enemy combatants is something Bush made up out of whole cloth. The insunuation that the members of the Supreme Court somehow know less than Bush or you regarding the law only make you look stupid. The court decided that they were subject to the Geneva conventions and must be dealt with accordingly. Bush created an entirely new system of law on his own to try and do this. The Supreme Court checked him as the system allows it to do. So who made what up now? The term "enemy conmbatants" and the lack of protections it allows is UNCONSITUTIONAL. That's is what they ruled on pal. Have you ever studied law? I do know this, the Geneva conventions apply and "all men are created equal and endowed certain inaliable right by their creator." I believe that ties to the founding of American justic somehow, don't you? :mp5:

No one created any "rights" for these detainees. The court in a 5-3 majority decision declared that the status Bush created for these detaineed does not give them any protections under the due process of law. Remember, enemy combatants is something Bush made up out of whole cloth. The insunuation that the members of the Supreme Court somehow know less than Bush or you regarding the law only make you look stupid. The court decided that they were subject to the Geneva conventions and must be dealt with accordingly. Bush created an entirely new system of law on his own to try and do this. The Supreme Court checked him as the system allows it to do. So who made what up now? The term "enemy conmbatants" and the lack of protections it allows is UNCONSITUTIONAL. That's is what they ruled on pal. Have you ever studied law? I do know this, the Geneva conventions apply and "all men are created equal and endowed certain inaliable right by their creator." I believe that ties to the founding of American justic somehow, don't you? :mp5:


Nothing to stop Bush from declaring, say, the Taliban detained there as "prisoners of war". Prisoners of war don't get trials.

The al-Qaeda foreigners who were fighting in Afghanistan are another matter - they get status hearings under the Geneva Conventions - and could well be ruled to be prisoners of war as well.

And if the US wants to "punish" them, we have to have regular trials for that.

But if we merely wish to detain prisoners of war until the Taliban officially surrender, then we can do so without so much legal fuss (other than the foreign fighters).

Which could easily become inside the bounds if the Congress grants the power to hold the new tribunals that Bush wants.

Maybe not inside the bounds of international law, but international law does not trump domestic US law.


This would be a pretty acceptable outcome in terms of america's more-sacred-than-the-bible separation of powers.

What was struck down was not just the kangaroo courts, it was the idea that the executive had carte blanche to make up laws.

Whether or not this congress or the congress after november approves these courts is secondary to the main question - whether the president has powers to dictate these things.

This would be a pretty acceptable outcome in terms of america's more-sacred-than-the-bible separation of powers.

What was struck down was not just the kangaroo courts, it was the idea that the executive had carte blanche to make up laws.

Whether or not this congress or the congress after november approves these courts is secondary to the main question - whether the president has powers to dictate these things.

Labeling the detainees as prisoners of war would not be making up laws. In fact, it would be simple, easy, and fully legal to do to the detainees who are Taliban.

The others would require a status determination through a UCMJ or civilian court.

What the Supreme Court really did was say that you can't make up laws that by design cut out the judicial review authority of the Supreme Court. UCMJ trials and civilian courts are beholden in the end to the Supreme Court.

i think the prisoners are in fact POW's well what i can read of the convention well my understanding of it



Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War

Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

( a ) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

( b ) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

( c ) That of carrying arms openly;

( d ) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.

5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.

6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

i think the prisoners are in fact POW's well what i can read of the convention well my understanding of it

The foreign fighters may contest that - they can ask for a status hearing.

The ones who were native to Afghanistan may also ask, but the status hearing is extremely likely to rule that they are prisoners of war, unless they were not captured under arms.

If they were captured under arms, and were Afghan citizens, they are prisoners of war, and may be detained until the Taliban surrender.

This is going to make things interesting:

From CNN.com:
The enemy combatant designation, according to the Bush administration, means the suspect can be held without charges in a military prison without the protections of the U.S. criminal justice system, such as the right to counsel -- a status the court rejected.

This means that all the detainees have a right to counsel. That'll be fun. :)

Sorry, STILL not seeing what this has to do with someone railing about "liberal judges" who were all appointed by conservative presidents...
More about this:
They are not lacking knowledge they are lacking the ability to use that knowledge in a rational way.Well, it's nice to see you know more about law than the Supreme Court
Your appeal to authority. It's not really a compelling indictment of the merits of his opinion. (Whatever might be lacking in that opinion.) As Robert H. Jackson notes, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

:) just an observation. Also some of Jackson's quotes amuse me. Sorry for not responding sooner.

This is going to make things interesting:

From CNN.com:
The enemy combatant designation, according to the Bush administration, means the suspect can be held without charges in a military prison without the protections of the U.S. criminal justice system, such as the right to counsel -- a status the court rejected.

This means that all the detainees have a right to counsel. That'll be fun. :)

That usually means a military lawyer. Unless someone is going to volunteer for free, as lawyers cost money.

This may have been mentioned, but I'll say it anyway:

This does not prevent the "terrorists" (I use quotes because the term is in dispute with regards to Gitmo) from being tried at all. The Supreme Court ruled that Bush overstepped his boundaries when he ordered them to be ried by military tribunals. This decision had nothing to do with whether it was legal or not to hold them there.

and in fact, if someone cares to google the NPR report on this, the political analyst talks about the Congressional Act that is currently being worked on to fix this problem.

Summary: SCOTUS says Bush overstepped bounds with tribunals. That's it.

Well yes, the bloke down at the pub did tell me.

But seriously, the assumptions that they are innocent (which I'm seeing more of than assumptions of guilt) are just as bad as the assumptions that they are guilty. Just like the assumptions that every cry of "torture" from prisoners is true, with no real evidence to back it.
Interesting comments.

Do you assume that they are innocent or do you assume that they are guilty?

Do you assume that their cries of "torture" is true or not true?

That's all that need be said to show that you haven't got a single clue, haven't looked at the Geneva conventions, haven't read anything on the subject that's been posted, and are talking out of your arse.
I second that emotion. :D

For the ones who were Taliban, they can be prisoners of war. But that means no trial, and indefinite detention (until the Taliban officially surrender).
However, that gives the prisoners far more rights than they have right now.

For foreign fighters who were captured under arms in Afghanistan, a status hearing can be held to determine whether or not they fall into this category
Again, this means that the Bush administration can no longer allow prisoners to rot without making some determination as to their "official: status. Certainly this would be an improvement over the current status quo?

However, that gives the prisoners far more rights than they have right now.

Essentially, once declared prisoners of war, they can't have a trial (unless we want to try them for war crimes), and won't be released until the Taliban officially surrender.

Again, this means that the Bush administration can no longer allow prisoners to rot without making some determination as to their "official: status. Certainly this would be an improvement over the current status quo?
A fair number would end up being declared either prisoners of war, or mercenaries. And you know what happens to mercenaries.

Wrong. The United States is a Representative Republic. Read your Constitution.

Actually, New Foxxinnia was correct. The statement was not that we live in a direct democracy, it was that we live in a (unqualified) democracy. A representative republic is also known as a representative democracy.

You really should try to understand these things better before taking pot shots at people over semantics.

Quoted from the Geneva Convention:

"Article 25
All persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict, or in a territory occupied by it, shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them. This correspondence shall be forwarded speedily and without undue delay.

If, as a result of circumstances, it becomes difficult or impossible to exchange family correspondence by the ordinary post, the Parties to the conflict concerned shall apply to a neutral intermediary, such as the Central Agency provided for in Article 140, and shall decide in consultation with it how to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations under the best possible conditions, in particular with the cooperation of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies.

If the Parties to the conflict deem it necessary to restrict family correspondence, such restrictions shall be confined to the compulsory use of standard forms containing twenty-five freely chosen words, and to the limitation of the number of these forms despatched to one each month."

The U.S. is, ostensibly, signed on to the convention, and we -are- occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It therefore stands to reason, that unless the family of prisoners held in 'Gitmo' are allowed to receive and reply to correspondance from family living in either of those nations, the U.S. is in violation of a treaty we signed to. Since we are bound to adhere to our treaties, the Supreme Court is correct, in my opinion, in telling Bush to go shove it. The section I posted is just one of -dozens- of violations the U.S. has made.

Why is it that nobody ever reads documents before claiming to know what they say? Why is it that everyone says that noone held in Gitmo falls under Geneva Convention rules without knowing what those rules are? Many people held there were captured while participating in no form of combat at all, right out of their own homes. Those people are protected as -civilians- by the Geneva Convention and are entitled to far more rights than we have been giving them. They can be tried for crimes they committed, but not simply locked away and interrogated for years on end. Further, many sections, like the one I mentioned, do not distinguish between combatants and civilians when giving rights to persons of a given nation.

Quoted from the Geneva Convention:

"Article 25
All persons in the territory of a Party to the conflict, or in a territory occupied by it, shall be enabled to give news of a strictly personal nature to members of their families, wherever they may be, and to receive news from them. This correspondence shall be forwarded speedily and without undue delay.

If, as a result of circumstances, it becomes difficult or impossible to exchange family correspondence by the ordinary post, the Parties to the conflict concerned shall apply to a neutral intermediary, such as the Central Agency provided for in Article 140, and shall decide in consultation with it how to ensure the fulfilment of their obligations under the best possible conditions, in particular with the cooperation of the National Red Cross (Red Crescent, Red Lion and Sun) Societies.

If the Parties to the conflict deem it necessary to restrict family correspondence, such restrictions shall be confined to the compulsory use of standard forms containing twenty-five freely chosen words, and to the limitation of the number of these forms despatched to one each month."

The U.S. is, ostensibly, signed on to the convention, and we -are- occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It therefore stands to reason, that unless the family of prisoners held in 'Gitmo' are allowed to receive and reply to correspondance from family living in either of those nations, the U.S. is in violation of a treaty we signed to. Since we are bound to adhere to our treaties, the Supreme Court is correct, in my opinion, in telling Bush to go shove it. The section I posted is just one of -dozens- of violations the U.S. has made.

Why is it that nobody ever reads documents before claiming to know what they say? Why is it that everyone says that noone held in Gitmo falls under Geneva Convention rules without knowing what those rules are? Many people held there were captured while participating in no form of combat at all, right out of their own homes. Those people are protected as -civilians- by the Geneva Convention and are entitled to far more rights than we have been giving them. They can be tried for crimes they committed, but not simply locked away and interrogated for years on end. Further, many sections, like the one I mentioned, do not distinguish between combatants and civilians when giving rights to persons of a given nation.


Umm... that's not the rights of prisoners you're reading - that is the rights of anyone standing in the middle of Afghanistan, by the section you're quoting.

POWs can get mail, and if you read the whole thread, you'll find that only the Taliban can automatically be considered POWs - anyone else needs a status determination. A status determination will say whether a person is a prisoner of war, mercenary, spy, saboteur, a medic, or a civilian who was not under arms.

Not all of those categories get the right to communicate by mail. Especially the spies, saboteurs, and mercenaries.

If you read the Geneva Conventions, you'll find that not all of its provisions apply to everyone, and you might even find that the recent ruling isn't what you think it is.

I think you stopped reading right after "Bush is wrong".

I could not pretend to be well informed in either the stipulations of the US constutution, or the context of US politics, however I do have observations. The liberally minded democrat in me appluads the ruling as a progression towards a judicial entity beyond a kangaroo court for the inmates, however I have considerable reservations.

Primarily, I assume that many of the inmates are indeed guilty as hell of a terror related offence, or predisposed to support such actions, however their absence from the "conventional" court system implies that the evidence does not confirm what is readily apparent to the prosecution. In the context of an increasingly perfidious, and fanatical foe, I do have consternations regarding their freedom.

The problem is, all prisoners at Gitmo are being held incommunicado, because all are being viewed as automatically not protected as POWs, though many actually should fall under that status. The -only- prisoners held there, near as I've ever been able to tell, who should be unable to correspond with family are those who were captured while actively fighting, but having no means of identifying them as affiliated with a national military. The Taliban was the official national government of Afghanistan, and thus all soldiers who were a member of the Taliban should be at least given hearings to determine whether they were violating the Geneva Convention when captured. The rest should be similarly evaluated, to determine if they were even combatants at the time of capture.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.


That is incorrect for several reasons:
1) The drafters of the Constitution were very precise with their language throughout the vast majority of the document as the document defines the limits to federal power. If you look at the Bill of Rights, drafted by James Madison, you will see that certain rights are rights held by the people, while others (Amendments III, V, VI, VII, and VIII) are absolute prohibitions of where the government has no power to act and therefore apply to all people.
The war against terror is like the war against drugs, it is a war in name only. Legally speaking wars are between two states. Stateless combatants, even if organized under a common goal, are still only criminals under international law.

2) The Geneva Convention divides people up into three categories:
1. Authorized combatants
2. Unauthorized combatants
3. Civilians (which specifically includes Unprivileged Belligerents)
Terrorists, as they do not operate under a state flag, are considered Unprivileged Belligerents under the Geneva Conventions. In simpler terms, they are treated as civilian criminals. As such, they are not given the protections that prisoner of war status would provide, but that does not exempt them from the rules as to how one treats civilian criminals, as defined within the Conventions.

3) The Geneva Conventions bind the United States military, regardless if they are fighting a signatory or a non-signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
While we are operating within the sovereign borders of a nation by their invitation, and they have signed Additional Protocol I, then our troops are also bound by that Additional Protocol I. This was the case when U.S. troops were in Bosnia.

4) In Hamdi v Rumsfeld (USSC 2004) O’Connor’s plurality opinion specifically states that that the government cannot detain Hamdi, without charges, indefinitely. The government needed to provide (at a minimum) his procedural due process.

5) Laws passed by Congress are presumed not to be retroactive unless Congress specifically states that they are, and is always narrowly construed when it is applied due to the due process limitations on lack of notice. This is standard doctrine for interpreting laws.
The current case was already in the system before Congress passed the law, so standing was not removed for a case that was already in the system. Had Congress wanted to, it could have stripped the Court from hearing this case.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything
2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.
5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

All in all I think that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito have it right.
You didn't read the decision, did you?

Terrorists, as they do not operate under a state flag, are considered Unprivileged Belligerents under the Geneva Conventions. In simpler terms, they are treated as civilian criminals. As such, they are not given the protections that prisoner of war status would provide, but that does not exempt them from the rules as to how one treats civilian criminals, as defined within the Conventions.


If a status hearing holds the civilian to be a foreigner, and not a native of the country, and working for pay for the country in question, they can be held to be mercenaries.

IPrimarily, I assume that many of the inmates are indeed guilty as hell of a terror related offence, or predisposed to support such actions...

That is not necessarily true. The Red Cross estimated that 90% of the people in Guantanamo were civilians. This matches up with the speedy tribunals that GWB's father put in place in the first Gulf War, in which 90% of the detainees were released as having no solid evidence of being a combatant. (The remaining 10% then had full trials.)

Combine that with Hamdi's situation. We were paying the Northern Alliance $500 a head (and up to $20K a head) for any terrorists in Afghanistan, so the Northern Alliance rounded up as many foreigners as they could to hand them over as terrorists to our special forces.
Where did you find them? Um… on the battlefield. OK, here's your cash.

That is one reason that Hamdi was released once the USSC said that he did have rights in our system - they knew they didn't have anything solid to prosecute him with.

Are many of them combatants. Sure. Have we turned some who were civilians into future combatants? Quite possibly. Are many of them likely innocent of any crime? According to the Red Cross, most of them probably are.

If a status hearing holds the civilian to be a foreigner, and not a native of the country, and working for pay for the country in question, they can be held to be mercenaries.


DK, has your opinion on the legality of gitmo changed in light of the SC decision?

If a status hearing holds the civilian to be a foreigner, and not a native of the country, and working for pay for the country in question, they can be held to be mercenaries.

That still requires a status hearing, far more than has been given to the majority of the prisoners held.

That is not necessarily true. The Red Cross estimated that 90% of the people in Guantanamo were civilians. This matches up with the speedy tribunals that GWB's father put in place in the first Gulf War, in which 90% of the detainees were released as having no solid evidence of being a combatant. (The remaining 10% then had full trials.)

Combine that with Hamdi's situation. We were paying the Northern Alliance $500 a head (and up to $20K a head) for any terrorists in Afghanistan, so the Northern Alliance rounded up as many foreigners as they could to hand them over as terrorists to our special forces.
Where did you find them? Um… on the battlefield. OK, here's your cash.

That is one reason that Hamdi was released once the USSC said that he did have rights in our system - they knew they didn't have anything solid to prosecute him with.

Are many of them combatants. Sure. Have we turned some who were civilians into future combatants? Quite possibly. Are many of them likely innocent of any crime? According to the Red Cross, most of them probably are.

If one considers Bushand his regime to be unreliable, one must accept that devotedly "humanitarian" organisations such as the Red Cross and my antithesis, Amnesty fucking international, are similarly unreliable.

Moronic though Bush may be, his attendents and intelligence officers are not. I sincerely doubt, given the pre-existent threat to the USA, that Guantanamo would have been established and filled with innocent propoganda tools.

If a status hearing holds the civilian to be a foreigner, and not a native of the country, and working for pay for the country in question, they can be held to be mercenaries.

If I recall correctly, you are correct. That would place them in category 2, unauthorized combatants. The trick is determining whether various people were in the pay of the national authority for the country in question.

The main point that I was making there is that the Geneva Conventions were made to be comprehensive, applying to everyone in armed conflict where you get slotted into one of the three categories, and which category you are slotted into determines the rights that you get. As a result, the geneva conventions do apply to terrorists (but if they are truly terrorists, then they are clearly not authorized combatants.)

If one considers Bushand his regime to be unreliable, one must accept that devotedly "humanitarian" organisations such as the Red Cross and my antithesis, Amnesty fucking international, are similarly unreliable.

The Red Cross is the only stateless organization recognized under international law, and were set up as "Guardian of the Geneva Conventions".

If you see them as political in any way, you clearly have not read the restrictions under which they operate, which was core to the reason that Doctors without Borders split off from them.

DK, has your opinion on the legality of gitmo changed in light of the SC decision?
Guantanamo itself is legal.

If you read the decision, what is not legal is the Bush decision to form tribunals that are outside the UCMJ court martial and outside the civilian courts, thereby being outside the purview of judicial review.

Under the Conventions, you can't try someone until you've determined their status. While that's pretty clear for the Taliban there, it's not clear for the foreign al-Qaeda men.

So you need a status determination, using either a UCMJ court martial or civilian court.

Once they are in the status of prisoner of war, it's hard to prosecute them for anything except war crimes, which requires either UCMJ or civilian courts.

If they are determined to have been found "not under arms" at the time of their capture, they can be set free right now.

Anyone captured under arms will either be a prisoner of war, or an unlawful combatant (the likely category of a foreign fighter found under arms).

For those that are determined to be prisoners of war, they may be detained until the Taliban officially surrender. Without further trial.

Detention for POWs is not a punishment - it is legally accepted in international law as an alternative to shooting them in the head - keeping them off the battlefield.

So, to make sure I read it right, Chris's sole reason for believing people belong in Gitmo, is a refusal to believe that a politician would have political motivations fro locking up a bunch of people and saying, "Hey, aren't I great? Look at all the terrorists I caught!"?

I don't consider Bush stupid, I consider him to be corrupt, unethical, and morally bankrupt. And I -do- consider him the sort to lock up innocent foreigners in the name of politics.

The Red Cross is the only stateless organization recognized under international law, and were set up as "Guardian of the Geneva Conventions".

If you see them as political in any way, you clearly have not read the restrictions under which they operate, which was core to the reason that Doctors without Borders split off from them.

What, I ask, is the raison d'etre of the Red Cross?

To maintain the security and autonomy of the west? Or to ensure, and only to ensure, a correct degree of sanitation and care for all people?

The latter, I assume, is closer to home. Thus, in light of the declaration regarding the culpability of the guantanamo inmates by the red Cross, a declaration that is outside its remit, I am empowered to consider it void.

So, to make sure I read it right, Chris's sole reason for believing people belong in Gitmo, is a refusal to believe that a politician would have political motivations fro locking up a bunch of people and saying, "Hey, aren't I great? Look at all the terrorists I caught!"?

I don't consider Bush stupid, I consider him to be corrupt, unethical, and morally bankrupt. And I -do- consider him the sort to lock up innocent foreigners in the name of politics.

No. My assertion was that the resources required to construct and maintain Guantanamo would nopt justify a propaganda exercise, that the inmates, if they are not implicated in a terrorist plot, are likely to be predisposed towards terrorism, and thus Guantanamo may well constitute a preventative exercise for the most part.

What, I ask, is the raison d'etre of the Red Cross?

The latter, I assume, is closer to home. Thus, in light of the declaration regarding the culpability of the guantanamo inmates by the red Cross, a declaration that is outside its remit, I am empowered to consider it void.

As Guardian of the Geneva Conventions, they have the power to interpret the meaning of those Conventions, and have standing in an international court of law. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deny the red cross unfettered access to prisoners that are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Can you do those things? No. It seems to me that between your opinion and the opinion of a body that is recognized by international law in this precise area and that can visit the camp, I put more faith in the ICRCs informed opinion.

Actually, the Geneva Conventions don't automatically say they are civilians. Nor do they say that because they are rebels, that they should be tried in a criminal court.

The Conventions state that if their status is up in the air (which it is for the suspected al-Qaeda, but not for the Taliban in custody), then a status hearing must be held to determine their status - are they prisoners of war, or spies, or saboteurs, or mercenaries, or criminals of some other sort. If they are found to be rebels, they can be classified by the tribunal as prisoners of war. The Taliban can be classified as prisoners of war.

Prisoners of war don't get any further trials. They are detained until the opposing side surrenders.

So far, neither the Taliban nor al-Qaeda have surrendered, nor do they show any intention of surrendering.

I believe that a lot of the suicide attempts in Guantanamo are being done by men who know that their side will not win, and their friends will not defeat the US, throw open the gates of the prison, and rescue them.

I think they know they'll be in prison for a long, long time with no hope of rescue.

Yes, that may be so, but did the entire U.S. government overlook this article in the Geneva Convention:

Prisoners of war may be interned only in premises located on land and affording every guarantee of hygiene and healthfulness. Except in particular cases which are justified by the interest of the prisoners themselves, they shall not be interned in penitentiaries.
It's illegal for us to have them in a prison in the first place!! And here's another part I particularly like:

Prisoners of war shall be quartered under conditions as favourable as those for the forces of the Detaining Power who are billeted in the same area. The said conditions shall make allowance for the habits and customs of the prisoners and shall in no case be prejudicial to their health.

I really don't think they're being kept in the same conditions as the miltary people in the area. Do You?

And as far as the interrogation and torturing goes, it's illegal to just interrogate them and even more illegal to torture them. This is according to the Geneva Convention also

No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.

That's about it for now. I think I've stated everything I want to at the moment.

As Guardian of the Geneva Conventions, they have the power to interpret the meaning of those Conventions, and have standing in an international court of law. Furthermore, it is a violation of the Geneva Conventions to deny the red cross unfettered access to prisoners that are protected under the Geneva Conventions.

Can you do those things? No. It seems to me that between your opinion and the opinion of a body that is recognized by international law in this precise area and that can visit the camp, I put more faith in the ICRCs informed opinion.

Do you ever engage in purely academic debate?

You be boring.

Whilst I assume that the USA is subject to the Geneva convention, are the inmates at Guantanamo subject to the Geneva conventions?

Do you ever engage in purely academic debate?

You be boring.

Whilst I assume that the USA is subject to the Geneva convention, are the inmates at Guantanamo subject to the Geneva conventions?
Yes because of the fact that we were ther, we must abide by those laws even if the other fighting party was not, they are liable to the same laws, which if you've read through the thread has been said at least 4 times. It's the Geneva Convention Article II. I've put it in one of my posts on either page 17 or 18.

Geez. You elevate being wrong to a fine art Barry. I hardly know where to start.

The 5-4 decision to prevent President Bush from using a military tribunal to try terrorists is absurd. Terrorists have no right to trial at all. A military tribunal should be the most liberal approach. I am for throwing away the key at Guantanamo. Here are my 5 reasons as to why the ruling was a bad one and a mistake.

1) There is nothing in the text of the U.S. Constitution that gives the non-U.S. citizen inmates at gitmo any rights to anything

The Constitution acknowledges the rights of persons, not citizens. By American law the courts determine a person's status. They're not terrorists until a court says so. Otherwise they're "the accused."

It does not "give" people rights, it denies officials the ability to infringe upon those rights except in certain circumstances. i.e. Due process of law. The Constitution doesn't give people anything. It spells out the powers that each branch of the Federal government has. That authority does nothing to affirm Bush's authority to deny accused prisoners whose only crime at this point is being an embarrassment to him.

2) The Geneva Convention does not apply to treatment of terrorists
It makes provisions for Illegal Combatants, and POW's. Dubya has invented a new term and applied it to them. It's like saying you didn't commit murder when you shot that guy in the head, you "performed elective and unsuccessful neurosurgery with unconventional surgical equipment."


3) those at Gitmo fight for no army that signed the Geneva Convention
Those who run Gitmo do. Most of those in Gitmo didn't fight at all. They were swept up in a manner similar to the Communist accusations under McCarthy

4) The Hamdi decision of 2003 specified that Bush has no legal reason to have to give those held at Gitmo any trials.

That wasn't quite what it said, but since you want to drag the Justices opinions into this:

Justice O’Connor, joined by The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer, concluded that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged in this case, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Pp. 14—15.

Previous judgements aren't laws. They're findings. Since it was mostly the same justices who made this finding that you disagree with as the previous one that you agree with, it's not really a valid point of contention.

5) Congress gave Bush the right to house the inmates and stipped the Court of jurisdiction over this topic.

What gave Congress the authority to take away the judicial authority of the judicial branch? The constitution says that that sort of decision is for the judiciary.

hey guess what, you can participate in the discussion or you can leave. Up, no , you chose option number 3...petty insults. What a waste.

Infantile babble that has nothing to do with American law, international law, or serious discussion. Was that shown on the screen in the play pen?

Cough.

But that has nothing to do with why it is illegal to house people at gitmo without trials. It is not about what we would "rather have" " should have" or " is right" , it is about what protections they actualy have under the American Constitution. They have none...unless Teddy Kennedy goes ahead and sponsers an amendment to give them all jury trials.
Assuming you're right for a moment
Put it this way, do you believe that the US has the right to snatch any civilian it likes from anywhere in the world and hold them as long they like, on the grounds that there's nowhere in your law that states you can't.

Therefore would you justify other states turning round and doing the same thing to US citizens using the same reasoning? Would you complain if it did happen?

Assuming you're right for a moment
Put it this way, do you believe that the US has the right to snatch any civilian it likes from anywhere in the world and hold them as long they like, on the grounds that there's nowhere in your law that states you can't.

Therefore would you justify other states turning round and doing the same thing to US citizens using the same reasoning? Would you complain if it did happen?

Busheviks never complain until it's their turn.

Assuming you're right for a moment
Put it this way, do you believe that the US has the right to snatch any civilian it likes from anywhere in the world and hold them as long they like, on the grounds that there's nowhere in your law that states you can't.
Don't look for a straight answer on this. I posed a similar scenario and he totally evaded the question.

Essentially, once declared prisoners of war, they can't have a trial (unless we want to try them for war crimes), and won't be released until the Taliban officially surrender.


A fair number would end up being declared either prisoners of war, or mercenaries. And you know what happens to mercenaries.

They get trials in the civil courts of the detaining power.

As LG said, that'll be fun. And I'm pretty sure there'll be several good lawyers hopping at this. And even if there aren't, how hard will it be for a PD to kick the highly tainted evidence? Civil courts don't allow waterboarding as a reasonable means of interoggation, after all....

Oh, and denials of POW status to the Talibs, and abuses against the requirements for humane treatment of POWs, opens the whole administration to prossecution under the War Crimes Act...

He is angry in the short term because the Court dared put a check on the President and reintroduce the Congress to the problem.

The numbers on the outside of the decision are deceiving. The decision was 5-3 based on the whole case. When you read all of the written decisions, the only Justice who said nothing was wrong with the actions of the Administration was Associate Justice Thomas. The other 7 Justices all agreed the President exceeded his Constitutional authority, the only argument among those 7 Justices was the actual remedy.

I have maintained as a retired military officer all along that President Bush was in material breach of the GPW, Torture Ban Treaty, and could be found accountable under the War Crimes Act. Quite a number of my brother and sister officers also have privately expressed to me their dismay at the conduct of this war.

The President does not have unchecked authority as Commander-in-Chief to prosecute the war in any way he chooses. He must fulfill our international Treaty commitments and follow civilian and military law in his execution of the war.

By not granting a proper trial or tribunal in a timely fashion for those prisoners in Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), President Bush is in material breach of our laws and Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared the actions of the Bush Administration in this matter, unconstitutional.

This case was not about Hamdan being a bad guy. He very well may be every inch the evil terrorist. This was about the President being reminded that he needs to follow the Constitution, honor our Treaty obligations, and follow the laws (military and civilian). No shortcuts.

He is angry in the short term because the Court dared put a check on the President and reintroduce the Congress to the problem.

The numbers on the outside of the decision are deceiving. The decision was 5-3 based on the whole case. When you read all of the written decisions, the only Justice who said nothing was wrong with the actions of the Administration was Associate Justice Thomas. The other 7 Justices all agreed the President exceeded his Constitutional authority, the only argument among those 7 Justices was the actual remedy.

I have maintained as a retired military officer all along that President Bush was in material breach of the GPW, Torture Ban Treaty, and could be found accountable under the War Crimes Act. Quite a number of my brother and sister officers also have privately expressed to me their dismay at the conduct of this war.

The President does not have unchecked authority as Commander-in-Chief to prosecute the war in any way he chooses. He must fulfill our international Treaty commitments and follow civilian and military law in his execution of the war.

By not granting a proper trial or tribunal in a timely fashion for those prisoners in Camp Delta (Guantanamo Bay, Cuba), President Bush is in material breach of our laws and Constitution. The Supreme Court has declared the actions of the Bush Administration in this matter, unconstitutional.

This case was not about Hamdan being a bad guy. He very well may be every inch the evil terrorist. This was about the President being reminded that he needs to follow the Constitution, honor our Treaty obligations, and follow the laws (military and civilian). No shortcuts.

Excellent.

So if they did not "confess" to being terrorists the army cannot define them as such? That's crazy. Using that logic a murderer is not a murderer unless they confess. People like Moazzem Begg are mere incidents of war that are tragic but necessary. His case does not change American law on the books. Nothing in the American Constitution grants these men trials. In fact, it specifies that they do not need to have trials. Using your way of thinking we were being undemocratic when we took prisoners in WWII and did not give them all trials. There is simply no legal or rational reason to. Then or now.

Or...you know, we could hold trials to prove that accused terrorists are actually terrorists. Like we do with accused murderers. Last time I checked, we couldn't hold people without them being accused of a crime. Even terrorists deserve trials-just like the Marines who abuse them at prisons, or kill and rape innocent people.

Boy, I love democracy.