Supreme Court Blocks War Crime Tribunals at Gitmo!

[Kuciwalker]

[chequita guevara]

[SpencerH]

I'm yet to see a single liberal pundit support the bizarre notion put forth by the supremes that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists. Most of them have looked as appalled as their conservative counterparts. Republican strategists are rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of the knee-jerk reactions that will come from some of the less astute Dems.

As for the actual ruling, it's meaningless since congress will act to counter the supremes quibbles. It is, however, another instance where the executive should have worked in conjunction with congress.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If Article 3 applies to unlawful combatants, then Bush, et al, are guilty of war crimes because of how the detainees have been treated.

Where in the opinion did it say that? I'm with Spencer if they actually did say that in as much as it sounds like a bizzare way to read the conventions. Unless we're talking about the way the Military commissions were set up.

[Pekka]

Yes, let's hurt our thinkbones even more and try to find ways to make Gitmo look like a good idea, and establish that we have all the facts, or that we have to trust governments on these issues.

Or we can go and have sex with small animals.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=DinoDoc]Where in the opinion did it say that?[/q]

Where did he say it was in the opinion?

[DinoDoc]

Then I fail to see any real point to his comment.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where in the opinion did it say that? I'm with Spencer if they actually did say that in as much as it sounds like a bizzare way to read the conventions. Unless we're talking about the way the Military commissions were set up.

The opinion said the GCs apply to the detainees. The detainees have been abused in ways that are directly prohibited by the GCs, but since the Administration argued the detainees weren't covered by the GCs, they could do that.

Stress positions, water-boarding, degrading treatment, etc. are all prohibited, but our gov. claimed that since the detainees weren't covered, and since this treatement wasn't prohibited by U.S. law, that it was legal for them to do it. Now SCOTUS says, no, the GCs apply. That means we've been breaking the GCs. Hence, we are guilty of war crimes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well the SCOTUS said the GC's apply in this instance (in the case of trials). While they may think they apply in terms of torture, they haven't specifically ruled on that.

[Vesayen]

Originally posted by GePap
Yeah, why do people have such a distorted view of Miranda. The cops don;t hasve to read your miranda rights when they arrest you, only when they want to interrogate you...

Silly DD.

Oh, and to the Supremes!

If they ask you ANY questions related to the aleged crime when you feel you are coerced by them, or you are unable to leave, you have to be read your Miranda rights.

You'd have to toss someone into a holding cell without almost talking at all if you don't read them their Miranda rights so its usually best to do it immediatly.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's why he said interrogate. If a suspect volunteers information without being asked a question, that evidence is admissable even without Miranda warnings.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm yet to see a single liberal pundit support the bizarre notion put forth by the supremes that the Geneva Convention applies to terrorists. Most of them have looked as appalled as their conservative counterparts. Republican strategists are rubbing their hands with glee in anticipation of the knee-jerk reactions that will come from some of the less astute Dems.

As for the actual ruling, it's meaningless since congress will act to counter the supremes quibbles. It is, however, another instance where the executive should have worked in conjunction with congress.

The Geneva Convention applies presumptively to anyone taken prisoner by a signatory power in an armed conflict. A prisoner may be determined to be an unlawful combatant by "a competent tribunal," based upon evidence that shows that specific prisoner does not meet the criteria for protection under the convention. The US never bothered with that little step, and decided that Rumsfeld could make blanket determinations of unlawful combat status. That's a no-no, hence the current presumption of unlawful combatant status is invalid, unless and until it's done correctly.

I wouldn't call the ruling meaningless, since it's a message to this administration to "do it right" rather than just make up whatever rules you want as you go along.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Where in the opinion did it say that? I'm with Spencer if they actually did say that in as much as it sounds like a bizzare way to read the conventions. Unless we're talking about the way the Military commissions were set up.

The opinion said the GCs apply to the detainees. The detainees have been abused in ways that are directly prohibited by the GCs, but since the Administration argued the detainees weren't covered by the GCs, they could do that.

Stress positions, water-boarding, degrading treatment, etc. are all prohibited, but our gov. claimed that since the detainees weren't covered, and since this treatement wasn't prohibited by U.S. law, that it was legal for them to do it. Now SCOTUS says, no, the GCs apply. That means we've been breaking the GCs. Hence, we are guilty of war crimes.

No, we're guilty of violating the GC. And that point is mooted for each prisoner for whom a competent tribunal determines to be an unlawful combatant.

[snoopy369]

Isn't the argument that we're not really in an armed conflict (in reference to the terrorists) but in a police action (which is not covered)?

[MichaeltheGreat]

That's part of the argument, but Bush plays both sides - constant references to the "War on terror" and the wartime powers of the President, etc.

The bigger argument is that al Qaeda (whatever that is*) and the Taleban as organizations do not follow the laws and customs of land warfare, and thus membership (however defined) in those organizations puts a fighter beyond the reach of the GC. That's a little bit of a stretch, and so is the blanket presumption that any foreign fighter is an unlawful combatant. It's an issue which could be easily solved by tribunal to determine status on a case by case basis.

* a conveniently broad definition, since if someone ever went through a training camp at which a known al Qaeda member was present, then that someone and anyone else he associates with are labeled as something along the lines of "members of blah as blahlam, a group affiliated with al Qaeda" or some such.