Replies

If I remember correctly, wasn't this the issue with which the Supreme Court declined to review substantively General Takeshita's war crime conviction?

I hate to agree with the 9th Circuit, but I'm of the view that the court's jurisdiction follows the flag. The military officers who run Gitmo work for the president and are paid by Congress. Government employees and taxpayer dollars would put what happens there within the jurisdiction of the judicial branch.

Where the 9th Circuit went wrong is that the inmates at Gitmo are enemy combatants captured on the battlefied. The supreme law of the land on this issue are the Geneva Conventions that the US has signed and ratified. Unless those Conventions allow for a legal challenge by prisoners (and I strongly doubt they do), then the Court was out of line with their remedy.

I hate to agree with the 9th Circuit, but I'm of the view that the court's jurisdiction follows the flag.

Nope. The law does not support that view, thank God, or else soldiers would have to read the Miranda warning to every bad guy before taking them into custodyLOL! We couldn't interrogate them on the battlefield without a lawyer present if they choose to 'take the fifth'. Does that make sense?

Besides, it is a lease we have with Cuba, not an invasion. They retain sovereignty as specified under the lease.

The military officers who run Gitmo work for the president and are paid by Congress.

Immaterial. Jurisdiction is based on the 'where' of a case, not a 'who'. Notice that the only way the 9th Circus could claim jurisdiction to even hear the case is that one of the sh!tbags brothers lived in California. So, the case is actually not to redress violations of rights of the prisoners, but to redress the CA brother by allowing him the to file a habeas corpus--the only way to do that is to allow writs and lawyers for ALL the detainees.

Where the 9th Circuit went wrong is that the inmates at Gitmo are enemy combatants captured on the battlefied. The supreme law of the land on this issue are the Geneva Conventions that the US has signed and ratified.

Not in this case. The Geneva Convention applies to war conducted between nations. The Gitmo prisoners meet none of the tests for 'combatant' under the Geneva Convention: Not soldiers of a recognized state or government, no uniforms, no form of identification. I have an ID card right here in my wallet that IDs me as Geneva Conv. Cat II. I fall under the Geneva convention. Those guys do not. In fact, by a strict view of the Geneva Contention, we would have been well within that convention to execute the Taliban rabble following a military tribunal--they are not recognized combatants.

Sorry, US law applies to Gitmo as much as it applies in Afghanistan or Iraq. Nor does the Geneva Convention apply. We could execute them after a military tribunal under the appropriate martial laws, not the Constitution.

The 9th Circus Courts opinion is entirely unsupportable it will be overturned when heard 'en banc'.

The Geneva Conventions do not provide a right to legal counsel or a right to visitation with family. Unlawful combatants have a right to "three hots and a cot," freedom of religion, medical care and freedom from torture. POWs have two additional rights: the right not to co-operate with an interrogator (beyond name, rank and serial number) and the right of repatriation after the end of the war.