Supreme Court Blocks Bush, Gitmo War Trials [Hamdan wins]

breitbart ^ | 6/29/2006

[Toddsterpatriot]

How about here

Hmmmm.....

Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

You don't think the detainees are civilian persons, do you? What about this?

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.

[joe fonebone]

You have not read the Geneva convention, have you? I was in the military. It was required reading. Try reading it before you comment. And please, go back to DU and post over there.

[kevao]

captured lawful combatants

Lawful combatants wear uniforms. Combatants without uniforms are saboteurs. The Geneva Convention does not apply to saboteurs. Sorry.

[curiosity]

Not question who they were, or why they were here.

That's what the trial part is for, to filter out anyone obviously innocent.

As best I can judge Gitmo is a lot more like the Cook County Jail: you have a few Sociopaths, you have some high and middle level hardcore gang members, you have a lot of lower echelon operatives,

Who should all be dead at this point. It's an outrage that they're still alive. Some might have had useful information, but at this point it's going to be stale.

some people who are either players on the periphery of the gang or just wanna' bes,

Perhaps I'm harsh, but I have no sympathy for such characters. If you become friends with the devil, be prepared to get treated like the devil.

some mental ill indviduals,

Obviously we don't want to kill those, but a team of army shrinks ought to be able to weed them out.

and even some ordinary if unsavory loking citizens who were caught up in a police sweep.

Hey, that's why I said we need military trials before the executions.

[GrandEagle]

Valid point. There are 4 conventions.
Unless these folks were taken captive in a battle, then we don't know if they are or are not civillians, now do we.

Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it.
Keep Reading

The provisions of Part II are, however, wider in application, as defined in Article 13.

Art. 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

The Third

Read the whole thing, don't just pick your way through it.

I'm not saying that I agree, what I am saying is that we can not simply do away with the law.

Very shortly I'll be accused of actually being a terrorist I suspect. The SCOTUS did not say that we couldn't detain them, or even try them. What it did say is that they couldn't be tried by a military tribunal.
Don't be so blinded by the Republican party being in power right now, that you loose your respect for the law itself.

[kaktuskid]

Then make them shark chow...no prisoners, no problems

[GrandEagle]

Then make them shark chow
No problem here with that.
Gee, I don't know how they fell out of the helicopter...

[Toddsterpatriot]

Art 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.

Don't be so blinded by the Republican party being in power right now, that you loose your respect for the law itself.

I respect the Geneva Convention. I also know it doesn't apply to terrorists. It wouldn't apply to them even if the Democrats were in power.

[W04Man]

Well, I guess we will have to institute a new MO, "Take NO prisoners"

[W04Man]

Well, I guess we will have to institute a new MO, "Take NO prisoners"

[Suzy Quzy]

Thank you.

[GrandEagle]

also know it doesn't apply to terrorists.
Clearly Terrorist are those who planned and flew the aircraft in 9/11. If we arrested them inside the the 50 states, then the Constitution is very clear on how they are to be tried.

By declaring all combatants in Iraq, we are no different that our enemy, and the treaty would never have any meaning to any nation for any reason. You just declare them terrorists and be done with it.

Personally, I think that known terrorists should just "disappear" in battle. However, if we do "arrest" them we have guidelines that we have agreed to.
When we have to apply them to our enemy, no one likes it; however, we certainly want them applied to our service men and women.

Art 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation. Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

As I understand it, most of these folks were rounded up and arrested, not being caught while in actual combat with our forces.
Clearly, those who engage in combat, without a "fixed distinctive sign..." would not be considered POW's, and if caught while in combat, would not be a "covered person".
As I understand it, that is not the case with most of these folks.

We may "know" that they were involved, but "knowing" that they participated at some past time does not release them from their legal status. They could actually be considered civilian, and therefore covered by agreement #4.

Not saying I like it, but that is the law. There was some dispute on the issue between the Executive department and the Judicial department so it sent to the Constitutionally authorized place for a decision. I can see how they came to this decision.

I also would not expect it to apply to those who were captured in battle while fighting in civilian clothes.

Cordially,
GE

[Toddsterpatriot]

By declaring all combatants in Iraq, we are no different that our enemy, and the treaty would never have any meaning to any nation for any reason. You just declare them terrorists and be done with it.

Any members of Saddam's armed forces should have the Geneva Convention protections......if Iraq was a signatory. And if they wore uniforms etc. etc. etc.

Are you claiming that Iraqis who place IEDs are lawful combatants? Interesting viewpoint.

When we have to apply them to our enemy, no one likes it; however, we certainly want them applied to our service men and women.

And how's that working out? Are American soldiers gaining weight while in Iraqi captivity?

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4,

We disagree about their belonging to these categories.

They could actually be considered civilian, and therefore covered by agreement #4.

If you violated the Convention, I don't think you can be considered a civilian.

[GrandEagle]

Are you claiming that Iraqis who place IEDs are lawful combatants? Interesting viewpoint.
Much like those who place land mines (US). Yes.

We disagree about their belonging to these categories.
I agree that we disagree. Hence the Doubt described earlier in the clause.

If you violated the Convention, I don't think you can be considered a civilian.
In our sense of "fair play"(If there is such a thing in a war) I agree with you, however, the law makes no such statement.

Unless we catch them in the act, we have only our speculation that they are the ones. It my be a pretty good speculation, but it is only speculation. Not in uniform, not caught in combat, not caught "in the act", we have no evidence other than our speculation that they are involved. They could be civilians, with no association to anyone for all we know.
You can't possibly believe that we get it right 100% of the time?
It is war. If we suspect them, arrest them and get them out of the way. No problem. Trying and imposing punishment is another issue altogether though.

Save to say that we have an honest difference of opinion here.

Cordially,
GE

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you claiming that Iraqis who place IEDs are lawful combatants? Interesting viewpoint.

Much like those who place land mines (US). Yes.

Wow! How many Iraqi civilians have our land mines killed?

I think you just veered off into moral equivalence idiocy with that comment.

Unless we catch them in the act, we have only our speculation that they are the ones.

If our troops come under fire and catch a man in civilian clothes walking away from the scene with gun shot residue on his hands can we detain him?

You can't possibly believe that we get it right 100% of the time?

You can't possibly believe that we get it wrong 100% of the time?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But...but...the Supremes are supposed to be conservative now.

[GrandEagle]

Wow! How many Iraqi civilians have our land mines killed?
I think you just veered off into moral equivalence idiocy with that comment.
Be careful, that pedestal is awful high there.
That I know of, we haven't placed any land mines in Iraq, however, we placed many, along with booby traps in Vietnam, Korea, etc. Although the population in rural areas was much less, I'm sure you don't want to get into how many civilians, even children got killed by our stuff. The only difference is the setting. This war is taking place in an urban environment.
What do you think an IED is? It is a land mine placed by those who don't have the resources to commercially produce one.
Are they useful? Sure. Are they indiscriminate in who they kill? Absolutely. We (US) simply have a different moral view on what is an acceptable risk to civilians than our enemy does in Iraq.
Are you suggesting that our guys who place booby traps in Vietnam were not lawful combatants?
Now THAT is a truely interesting viewpoint. Especially when that is what Hanoi would love to have claimed.

You can't possibly believe that we get it wrong 100% of the time?
?????? Where on earth did that come from?

[GrandEagle]

If our troops come under fire and catch a man in civilian clothes walking away from the scene with gun shot residue on his hands can we detain him?
Absolutely. The topic is not about detaining folks though. Neither (as I understand it) was the ruling.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Be careful, that pedestal is awful high there.

The pedestal isn't that high. The hole you're in just makes it look that way.

That I know of, we haven't placed any land mines in Iraq

But other then that, we're just as bad as the terrorists. Got it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Absolutely. The topic is not about detaining folks though.

Great. Now that we've detained him, does he get protection under the Geneva Convention?