Forums | MacLife

gas huffer wrote:

no,

as I understand, the geneva convention only applies to nations at war who have signed the conventions.

there is no "terrorist nation" and i think it's safe to say that declaring a Jihad pretty much nullifies any conception of a "civil" war that follows international doctrines.

From Wikipedia:

The majority also found that the procedures in question violate the Geneva Conventions. It found that the D.C. Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Conventions did not apply:

1. It erroneously relied on Johnson v. Eisentrager, which does not legally control in Hamdan's case because there was then no deviation between the procedures used in the tribunal and those used in courts-martial;

2. It erroneously ruled that the Geneva Conventions do not apply because Art. 3 affords minimal protection to combatants "in the territory of" a signatory; and

3. Those minimal protections include being tried by a "regularly constituted court," which the military commission is not.

Because the military commission does not meet the requirements of the Uniform Code of Military Justice or of the Geneva Convention, it violates the laws of war and therefore cannot be used to try Hamdan.

I would guess the 911 attacks failed to follow the Geneva convention? eh?

I don't see how that's relevant to anything.

Not everyone being held in Cuba is a member of Al-Qaeda, I hope you're aware.  Many were picked up during the war in Afghanistan.

gas huffer wrote:

all this will do is increase the covert nature of these operations.  according to Steven's, and you it would seem, the "real" problem and legal basis for the decision rests solely on what soil they are detained on.

please.

and again, i dont think Iran, Iraq, nor Afghaniland are Geneva signers - though I'd like to know.

From the LEXIS headnotes:

Regardless of the nature of the rights conferred by the Geneva Convention, they are part of the law of war. And compliance with the law of war is the condition upon which the authority set forth in Unif. Code Mil. Justice art. 21, 10 U.S.C.S. § 821, is granted.

Article 3, often referred to as Common Article 3 because, like Article 2, it appears in all four Geneva Conventions, provides that in a conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the high contracting parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, certain provisions protecting persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by detention. One such provision prohibits the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

The term "conflict not of an international character" is used in common article 3 of the Geneva Convention in contradistinction to a conflict between nations. So much is demonstrated by the fundamental logic of the Convention's provisions on its application. Common article 2 provides that 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. High contracting parties (signatories) also must abide by all terms of the Conventions vis-a-vis one another even if one party to the conflict is a nonsignatory "power," and must so abide vis-a-vis the nonsignatory if the latter accepts and applies those terms. Common article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory "power" who are involved in a conflict in the territory of a signatory. The latter kind of conflict is distinguishable from the conflict described in common article 2 chiefly because it does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). In context, then, the phrase "not of an international character" bears its literal meaning.

The area being referring to is where the fighting occurs.  I checked the list, and both Iraq and Afghanistan are on it, as far as I could tell.

I am not a fan of denying these detainees a fair hearing... but this wil give more credence to the military simply keeping them off of "our soil" and likely trying them on the battlefield.  This is why we had those so-called "Black Bases" I believe.

I think you're referring to extraordinary renditions, which I believe had the alleged intention of interrogation in countries that allow the use of torture...

and if you dont think the nature of the 911 attacks are "relevant," than I think I have nothing further to say to you.

We're talking about combatants being held in Cuba.  What in god's name does that have to do with 9/11, or with Congress' intent to have the President adhere to the Geneva Conventions, or to the limits to the President's war powers?

gas huffer wrote:

then it would seem all they have to do is hold the captive as being from some party other than the Taliban...

you act as if a member of al-Qaeda is afforded the protection of the Geneva convention merely do to what soil he was captured or detained on?  that's inspipid and politically charged specious reasoning which is typical for a liberal with an anti-war agenda.

Excuse me?  First of all, it has never been contended that everyone being held at Gitmo is a member of Al-Qaeda. In fact most of them are probably NOT members of Al-Qaeda. 

We can discuss this in an adult manner, or not.  Feel free to take your cries of "inspipid [sic] and politically charged specious reasoning" elsewhere.  It appears as if you're just looking to rant about "liberals" and actually have no intention of EDUCATING yourself on the reasons behind this decision (or even what the details of the ruling are).

It's humorous to see someone with zero understanding of this case accuse another of acting like a "typical liberal" because they dare attempt to EDUCATE the other on the reasoning at play here.  I didn't write the decision....and amazingly, not everyone (even in this thread!) who agrees with the decision is a "liberal!"

and again, I just fail to see how anyone can argue that these organizations are offered the protection we intended to offer to NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS who signed the treaties.

I've already laid the reasoning out for you TWICE now.  If you actually care about the answers to the questions you're asking, read the opinion.

and finally, just because we sign a treaty I still fail to see how our court can then claim to interpret an International law as a part of our legal code upon which it can make decisions.  That seems to be the domain of an International court only.

Their ruling was on the extent of the President's war powers in relation to opposing acts of Congress.  That fact seems to be completely lost upon you.  Congress has the complete ability to act here. 

I am sorry, it simply stinks of an agenda and a power grab by the court.

I don't see how you could possibly have come to such an interpretation, being as though you don't have slightest clue of what the ruling entails.  The Court does not reserve power here--it returns power to Congress that has been usurped by this Executive.

7 of these 9 Justices were appointed by Republicans.  This is not to mention that not every ruling on the issue of these combatants has split as did this vote.  In Hamdi's case, Justice Scalia dissented with Justice Stevens, claiming that Hamdi must be tried or released, unless Habeas Corpus is suspended.

jerwin wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

and again, i dont think Iran, Iraq, nor Afghaniland are Geneva signers - though I'd like to know.

Iraq
Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Afghaniland?  Tsk, tsk. Such errors are telling. Perhaps you mean Afghanistan

On the Internet, nothing is merely rhetorical. 

great, so that means the armies of those Goverments then are the "combatants"

it's not a clear cut as many of you are pretending it is.

gas huffer wrote:

well, it's a good thing the thread title doens't use the terms "evil liberals" in it then, eh?  feel free to get a sense of humor and dose of humility.

The thread title was obviously a joke.  Are you contending that your above comment was also meant as a "joke?"

and some actualy thinking...

It was a good day for international law, and a good day for American jurisprudence. When the majority found that “the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction,” they did so with the Rule of International Law foremost in their deliberations.

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumy/2006/ … -court.php

you are the one who seems to not understand the case, friend.

What is it that I'm not understanding?  What point does this essay on the decision purport to make?

The Supreme Court found that the rights conferred on Hamdan by the Geneva Conventions are indisputedly “part of the law of war” and that Article 21 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice requires that a military commission’s authority lies in compliance with the law of war.

Do you consider the UCMJ part of the law of the United States?

the fact that you did not read that article and seem to like the use of International Law to suit your political ends is also quite telling.

bratboy wrote:

We can discuss this in an adult manner, or not.

bratboy wrote:

It's humorous to see someone with zero understanding of this case

bratboy wrote:

You don't understand the ruling, you don't understand the laws involved.

It is humorous to see an "adult" who does not understand that this is all just politics.

Last edited by gas huffer (2006-07-06 1:13 am)

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

bratboy wrote:

We can discuss this in an adult manner, or not.

bratboy wrote:

It's humorous to see someone with zero understanding of this case

bratboy wrote:

You don't understand the ruling, you don't understand the laws involved.

It is humorous to see an "adult" who does not understand that this is all just politics.

"Politics?"  "Politics" of whom?  Supreme Court Justices?  Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices?

Are we finished discussing the merits of the ruling?  I've offered the reasoning as it relates to the power of Congress, to no avail.

I'm sorry, you seem to know everything including that I have no understanding of this case.

I am tired of your petty insults and your apparent lack of knowledge of the larger comparative issues at play here.

sturner wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

let me explain this to you, so you can understand... that all specter is doing is raising a political objection to a legal issue that may or MAY NOT be consitutional in a particular circumstance.

quit with the bait and switch of line item, you are off topic.  the Executive has some leeway in how they EXECUTE the law, as hard as this seems to be for you to understand.

i'll post a link in another post to a more well reasoned poster that contains a link I think you would benefit from reading.

Unless, of course, you wish to approach the bench and discus another objection...

Except that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Hamedas case specifically cut the WH loose from any legal underpinning. It rejected the basis that also ties in with the NSA wiretaps. So they are free floating until someone brings it up in Congress.

Just because they can is never a justification for doing something. I do love the cynical way this adminstration plays its constituents.

tell that to Justice Stevens....


I only agre with you in the narrowest sense, it only removed the jurisdiction from the DoD legal system to the Fed courts.

I just find it funny how people opposed to the party in power only bellyache when the "other guy" is the one abusing his power.

The point that alarms me is the basis for this ruling is an INTERNATIONAL TREATY.  And we are not fighting a sovereighn recognized singnatory in terms of the detainees or the "combantants," with the possible exception of Ba'athists and Taliban members...  The basis for the ruling out the military courts is due to the nature of its institutional structure extending from the wording of a freaking Treaty?

Frankly, this is an issue our legal system should not be handling at all, if that's the case.

gas huffer wrote:

I just find it funny how people opposed to the party in power only bellyache when the "other guy" is the one abusing his power.

You have no idea who has opposed what here, and when.  You make an awful lot of assumptions regarding the opinions of others for someone who has posted so little on this board.

The point that alarms me is the basis for this ruling is an INTERNATIONAL TREATY.  And we are not fighting a sovereighn recognized singnatory in terms of the detainees or the "combantants," with the possible exception of Ba'athists and Taliban members...  The basis for the ruling out the military courts is due to the nature of its institutional structure extending from the wording of a freaking Treaty?

Frankly, this is an issue our legal system should not be handling at all, if that's the case.

Once again, the Court found the terms of the treaty to be properly at issue because they were incorporated by the UCMJ.  We already have a thread on that issue.

gas huffer wrote:

no, it still bull and if you had any common sense you could see it clearly.

Anyone with a good sense of history understands the the Geneva Conventions were primarily using language to prevent a blatantly unfair trial... ie, the old "kangaroo courts."

I find it hard to swallow that our military courts would be unfair, what this is is a plain attempt and undercutting Exectuive power by playing with the wording of the treaty [a FOREIGN DOCUMENT] and making up its "original intent" to suit political ends.  The courts see's itself as a corrective to an admittedly abusive Exectuive, and in doing so makes itself an even bigger problem imho.

I see it as undercutting our Constitution, plain and simple.

The Court takes nothing upon itself.  It ruled that the President has acted contrary to the will of Congress. 

You may well hold the opinion that the war-time President can damned well do whatever he pleases, but that view does not prevail on the Court (with the possible exception of Justice Thomas).

The problems is NOT that the President has defied a "foreign document."  The problem is that the President has acted contrary to the will of Congress in regards to the those bare minimum requirements of the Geneva Conventions that have been incorporated into our military law via the UCMJ.

Here is where you get to use your common sense, were the Nuremburg Trials done by a "standing court" a'la Stevens differentiation?

Instead, its an attempt to apply nearly the same rights American Citizens have to these combatants.

that's bullsmurf.

My personal opinion is that the either need to be properly tried or they need to be treated as POWs.  We know little about these men.  Some have ended up there accidently.  Others had little to zero involvement with fighting.

A "trial" without counsel utilizing secret evidence is no "trial" at all.  The administration's position is not shocking––they fought to deny an American citizen the same rights.  Even on the case involving detainment I believe the Court allowed too much leeway....as I would have sided with Scalia and Stevens in that instance.

gas huffer wrote:

bratboy wrote:

gas huffer wrote:

I just find it funny how people opposed to the party in power only bellyache when the "other guy" is the one abusing his power.

You have no idea who has opposed what here, and when.  You make an awful lot of assumptions regarding the opinions of others for someone who has posted so little on this board.

The point that alarms me is the basis for this ruling is an INTERNATIONAL TREATY.  And we are not fighting a sovereighn recognized singnatory in terms of the detainees or the "combantants," with the possible exception of Ba'athists and Taliban members...  The basis for the ruling out the military courts is due to the nature of its institutional structure extending from the wording of a freaking Treaty?

Frankly, this is an issue our legal system should not be handling at all, if that's the case.

Once again, the Court found the terms of the treaty to be properly at issue because they were incorporated by the UCMJ.  We already have a thread on that issue.

no, it still bull and if you had any common sense you could see it clearly.

Anyone with a good sense of history understands the the Geneva Conventions were primarily using language to prevent a blatantly unfair trial... ie, the old "kangaroo courts."

I find it hard to swallow that our military courts would be unfair, what this is is a plain attempt and undercutting Exectuive power by playing with the wording of the treaty [a FOREIGN DOCUMENT] and making up its "original intent" to suit political ends.  The courts see's itself as a corrective to an admittedly abusive Exectuive, and in doing so makes itself an even bigger problem imho.

I see it as undercutting our Constitution, plain and simple.

Here is where you get to use your common sense, were the Nuremburg Trials done by a "standing court" a'la Stevens differentiation?

Instead, its an attempt to apply nearly the same rights American Citizens have to these combatants.

that's bullsmurf.

ALLEGED combatants. Some of these folks were admittedly just in the wrong place at the wrong time. They ain't all combatants (let alone "terrists") thusly deserving of a fair NONMILITARY trial IF they ever get charged. ALSO - since we were talking about roles of the branches let's be quite smurfing clear the Executive Branch does NOT get to "interpret" neither the Constitution, nor Law. THAT is the role of the Judicial.

It is my sincere hope Bush continues to circumvent the law and Constitution... impeachment (at the very least) is sure to follow.

Checks and smurf balances, huffs. Checks and smurf balances.