|
Supreme Court restores habeas to Gitmo, giving yet another setback to Bush (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
because these particular people were caught on a battlefield in a time of war. |
yeah, but caught by whom? an overwhelming number of detainees were not picked up by US forces, but were "delivered" by the northern alliance fighters (in return for money i might add).
and it also raises the issue that if someone was "caught on a battlefield in a time of war" - how can they then also fall outside the geneva accords? (from memory you advocated a position that said detainees were not subject to geneva protections.) |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
yeah, but caught by whom? an overwhelming number of detainees were not picked up by US forces, but were "delivered" by the northern alliance fighters (in return for money i might add). |
whether a bounty was paid for them or whether they were caught conventionally is irrelevant. todays decision reflects that and so does the statutes recently passed by Congress and the President, that so happened to be struck down as well by the 5 Justices.
| quote: | | and it also raises the issue that if someone was "caught on a battlefield in a time of war" - how can they then also fall outside the geneva accords? (from memory you advocated a position that said detainees were not subject to geneva protections.) |
they were criminals. they were "UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS". show me where in Geneva they fall inside.
again this was supposedly taken care of through statute in bi-partisaned compromise btween Congress and the President. today they both lost to the majority Justices. |
|
|
| Spacey Orange |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
because these particular people were allegedlycaught on a battlefield in a time of war. |
fixed.
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
they were criminals. |
i thought criminals were people that were convicted of something. amirite? |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Spacey Orange
fixed. |
so what are you saying?
| quote: | | i thought criminals were people that were convicted of something. amirite? |
yes. you are right. could they be called suspects? sure. suspects are still incarcerated, although not indefinately. suspects incarcerated then released on their own recognizance or on bond are usually U.S. citizens or not labeled as Unlawful Enemy Combatants during a time of war.
what if some of these people not wanted by their own governments have, undoubtedly, an established criminal record? any Judge is free to deny bail. they still remain suspect. they still remain incarcerated. thats exactly what will happen to these people. hopefully. again, it depends on a Federal Judge now. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
because these particular people were caught on a battlefield in a time of war.
it's cold and callous hardly illegal and with precedence to boot, but thats as plainly as it can be put and you can draw your judgement from that. |
so how does the fact that these people can now take their case to a court risk national security? If they are really that dangerous and the government has a strong justification to hold them on an island for 5 years, it should be relatively easy to convince the court of the same. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
they were criminals. they were "UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANTS". show me where in Geneva they fall inside.
|
come on now...:rolleyes:
that's just ridiculous. the government tries to justify a distinction between unlawful/lawful by relying on a case decided before the drafting of the 3rd geneva convention. we simply crafted a category that we think is outside the POW provisions of the convention. under that logic, we could call them -head--wads and say that a -head--wad isn't a POW, thus the protections of the geneva convention don't apply to SHFWs. The labels attached by the government are irrelevant, the facts of the situation are paramount.
You don't see the problem with crafting a category of prisoner just to get out of the POW protections?
| quote: | Geneval Convention Article 4
Article 4
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. |
The convention talks about the armed forces of a party to the conflict as well as the armed forces of a country. It makes a pretty clear distinction that a party to a conflict need not be a country. Furthermore, the Bush administration has gone to great lengths to ensure that the american people think we are fighting a war against an organized group of muslim terrorists. Since the Bush administration has given muslim terrorists this grouop label, i don't think he can say that they aren't a party to the conflict, especially when he calls it a war on terrorism. It seems pretty clear that a war on terrorism is a war against a party that the US has decided to group together with the label 'terrorists.'
admittedly, the POW argument is a little difficult to make for insurrgents taken from iraq because they aren't operating in an organized manner or under the control of a clearly defined group. However, if you use the Bush labels, i think you can make a pretty strong argument that they are POWs because, as I said above, the government is claiming to fight a war against a defined group of terrorists.
the unlawful enemy combatant argument is more tenuous for people taken from afganistan. For those people, they actually formed a country, and al qaeda could easily fall within the definition of POW under the militia principles (which i haven't included) since al qaeda was clearly fighting side by side with the ruling taliban. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Not really sure how I feel about this ruling.
It does make sense that unless there is absolutely no question regarding the evidence, then indefinite holding of a 'POW' doesn't wash.
Gitmo is just too nebulous for me (and a lot of other people obviously...)
Bush's 'labelling' to make Gitmo charges stick was like putting the cart before the horse imho...
However, for those 'terrorists' where the evidence is indisputable, I somewhat feel they were just given a huge back door to exploit. |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
because these particular people were caught on a battlefield in a time of war.
|
The right of habeas corpus should be extended to everyone and anyone the United States of America decides to incarcerate or detain.
Especially those who are not charged with anything (i.e. 90% of the people in Guantanamo) |
|
|
| Clovis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Not really sure how I feel about this ruling.
It does make sense that unless there is absolutely no question regarding the evidence, then indefinite holding of a 'POW' doesn't wash.
Gitmo is just too nebulous for me (and a lot of other people obviously...)
Bush's 'labelling' to make Gitmo charges stick was like putting the cart before the horse imho...
However, for those 'terrorists' where the evidence is indisputable, I somewhat feel they were just given a huge back door to exploit. |
Backdoor to what? A trial where this indisputable evidence can lock them up for life? :stongue: |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
come on now...:rolleyes:
that's just ridiculous. the government tries to justify a distinction between unlawful/lawful by relying on a case decided before the drafting of the 3rd geneva convention. we simply crafted a category that we think is outside the POW provisions of the convention. under that logic, we could call them -head--wads and say that a -head--wad isn't a POW, thus the protections of the geneva convention don't apply to SHFWs. The labels attached by the government are irrelevant, the facts of the situation are paramount.
|
i just think its a little disingenuous to argue that the detainees fall outside both military AND civilian protections. i dont see how the US government is able to have their detainees and eat them too. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i just think its a little disingenuous to argue that the detainees fall outside both military AND civilian protections. i dont see how the US government is able to have their detainees and eat them too. |
They actually don't fall outside of military protections. I haven't read the cases in a while, however, I believe that so called "unlawful enemy combatants" have the right to counsel and are subject to military tribunals. That does not mean they can be held for undetermined periods without charges or don't have the right to petition for habeas corpus. What the Bush administration did was a perversion of law. This is why the president of a country should be a lawyer. How are you supposed to be the supreme administrator of law when you don't know anything about laws? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by jerZ07002
They actually don't fall outside of military protections. I haven't read the cases in a while, however, I believe that so called "unlawful enemy combatants" have the right to counsel and are subject to military tribunals. That does not mean they can be held for undetermined periods without charges or don't have the right to petition for habeas corpus. What the Bush administration did was a perversion of law. This is why the president of a country should be a lawyer. How are you supposed to be the supreme administrator of law when you don't know anything about laws? |
yeah, that's what i figured.
so why isn't anyone being called to account? someone at the executive level should be paying through their arsehole. i vote cheney. even if they haven't been breaking laws with some of their activities, this administration has been using the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law.
like the anti torture provisions (forgive my butchery of american law here) which they tabled over the holidays with an extra proviso snuck in there basically saying that "this law is against the constitutional powers of the president thus he is not bound by it" or " you i wont do what you tell me" :rolleyes:
i mean, . i find it incredible that your democracy can allow such power into the hands of one person.
and while im here railing against the US, the ing state of a woman's right to choose in your country, free of un-needed intrusion by the state, is ing atrocious. |
|
|
|
|
