Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The stinking blossom of the totalitarian left: a follow-up ^ | Christopher Cook

Posted on 09/09/2006 9:48:41 AM PDT by connell

We can -- and perhaps should -- have a discussion about the value or even the morality of rendition. However, we should be clear about something right off the bat, so we are not using incorrect terminology or assertions. Terrorists, stateless actors, pirates, etc. are not covered by the Geneva Convention. It's important that we all get that right, so we are not starting out with false assertions.

That said, those in our custody are being afforded **most** (albeit not all) of the considerations that would be given someone who is covered thereby.

And as far as I am concerned, I would need to know a lot more about these foreign prisons, where they were, who was running them, etc. before I could even take seriously the...

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; 911; abc; atabc; brutalleftistthugs; bush; clinton; clintonlegacy; communist; democrats; fifthanniversary; gwot; islam; islamofascism; left; leftists; leftwing; pathto911; terror; terrorism; thugs; totalitarian; waronterror; wot

1 posted on 09/09/2006 9:48:44 AM PDT by connell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: connell

Didn't the USSC just rule that terrorists *are* covered by the Geneva Conventions. Anyone have a copy? A link to them? I've found them strangely difficult to get.

2 posted on 09/09/2006 10:57:34 AM PDT by Jack Black
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Black

Hamdan_v._Rumsfeld, from wikipedia

Scanning it briefly, just now, it seemed to outline the case well enough.

Hamdan will now need be tried by Military Courts Martial, instead of appointed Military Tribunal. The rules are a little different for Courts Martial, affording a defendant better chance of defense, all in all, I take it. Otherwise, nothing much has changed. What differs;
Rules of evidence, rules as to court appointment of attorneys(?),discovery rules, witness rules, cross examination, etc...if I'm remembering correctly.

Another, somewhat related case was Hamdi [note the different spelling of the litigant, it IS a different court case]. Google, or wiki -up on that name for outline.

"Findlaw", can provide copies of the documents actually filed. The latest Hamdan Supreme decision runs 47 pages. The U.S. District Court of Appeals was a tough read...

3 posted on 09/10/2006 8:37:00 PM PDT by BlueDragon (california born, as was my father...and thinking about leaving, for good)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson