Didn't RP say detainees not covered by Geneva?

[torridjoe 0]

After the Hamdan decision, RP was adamant that Gitmo prisoners of war are not subject to Geneva, despite the clear SCOTUS ruling.

 

Will he now say that they're not subject to Geneva, despite SCOTUS, DOD and the White House?

[Mungwater 588]

POWs are guarded by the geneva convention. They're allowed to get meals, showers, medical care, clothes, and a chance to worship, like everyone else.

 

He's an idiot.

 

HTH

[Voltaire 4,564]

It's what the Supreme Court wants and demands. Obviously not everybody agrees or it would have never gotten this far.

[paulinstl 295]

Those liberal poosays in the Pentagon, the Defense Dept. and the Supreme Court don't know what's best for us.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

It's what the Supreme Court wants and demands. Obviously not everybody agrees or it would have never gotten this far.

Congress and SCOTUS have both said that they are covered. It is GWB and RP who think otherwise.

[ArnieBragg 1]

SCOTUS is wrong.

 

According to RP.

[DAVID RUFFIN 1]

[Mungwater 588]

Congress and SCOTUS have both said that they are covered. It is GWB and RP who think otherwise.

 

GWB had a statement about this like 2 years ago..

[Voltaire 4,564]

SCOTUS is wrong.

 

According to RP.

 

I don't see how I can criticize RP for thinking SCOTUS is wrong when there are many times I often think SCOTUS is wrong too. Besides even on the court it wsa a very, very close split.

[ArnieBragg 1]

I don't see how I can criticize RP for thinking SCOTUS is wrong when there are many times I often think SCOTUS is wrong too. Besides even on the court it wsa a very, very close split.

 

I was mainly just answering Torrid's question

[Chasers Dawg 9]

POWs are guarded by the geneva convention. They're allowed to get meals, showers, medical care, clothes, and a chance to worship, like everyone else.

 

He's an idiot.

 

HTH

 

 

 

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

[Voltaire 4,564]

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

 

The issue was fuzzy and unclear .... that's why SCOTUS stepped in. And even when they did, they were certainly not of one mind either.

[Michael Sieger 0]

Perhaps splitting hairs, but my reading (skimming) of Hamdan and the commetary was that the majority opinion held that a certain limited section of Geneva applied to the hearing/tribunal process, but did NOT declare that the individual detainees were subject to Geneva protections. Also, my recollection is that Kennedy's concurrence did not adopt this section of the decision, leaving it in four-vote no-man's land. Therefore, I don't think this change in policy was necessarily mandated by the SCOTUS. Of course, I have my doubts about the Bush administration's motivations and intentions here, given their steadfast position on the executive's wartime powers over the past four years. In my opinion, they are making a calculated choice of the lesser of two evils. This is to say that they would rather declare these detainees to be POW's subject to Geneva, as opposed to having to treat them as domestic prisoners subject to the US criminal justice system and US Constitution and all the attendant rights and obligations.

[Mungwater 588]

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

 

Supposed to be, I think under article 4 (there are a few criteria, miltary heirachy, uniforms, carried weapons in the open, and I think conduct themselves to the laws of war..) We don't recognize the taliban as a afghani government entity, but since Afghanistan is a part of the convention, we extended it to them, I think. But actually, the Al Qeada is not a state party either, so they don't get it..

 

I think thats what it is. I can't say for certain though.

[Uh-huh 0]

Supposed to be, I think under article 4 (there are a few criteria, miltary heirachy, uniforms, carried weapons in the open, and I think conduct themselves to the laws of war..) We don't recognize the taliban as a afghani government entity, but since Afghanistan is a part of the convention, we extended it to them, I think. But actually, the Al Qeada is not a state party either, so they don't get it..

 

I think thats what it is. I can't say for certain though.

The White House agrees with you:

"We strongly believe that terrorists picked up off the battlefield -- who don't represent a nation, revel in killing the innocent, and refuse to wear uniforms -- do not qualify for protections under Geneva," White House counselor Dan Bartlett said. "Five members of the Supreme Court disagreed. As the president said, we will comply with the ruling."

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6071100094.html

[parrot 789]

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

The problem is that the government wanted to treat them like POWs when convenient, i.e. holding without charges indefinitely, and also treat them like common criminals when convenient, i.e. Geneva conventions do not apply. They wanted to create a legal limbo where no set rules applied, but it doesn't work that way.

[torridjoe 0]

Perhaps splitting hairs, but my reading (skimming) of Hamdan and the commetary was that the majority opinion held that a certain limited section of Geneva applied to the hearing/tribunal process, but did NOT declare that the individual detainees were subject to Geneva protections. Also, my recollection is that Kennedy's concurrence did not adopt this section of the decision, leaving it in four-vote no-man's land. Therefore, I don't think this change in policy was necessarily mandated by the SCOTUS. Of course, I have my doubts about the Bush administration's motivations and intentions here, given their steadfast position on the executive's wartime powers over the past four years. In my opinion, they are making a calculated choice of the lesser of two evils. This is to say that they would rather declare these detainees to be POW's subject to Geneva, as opposed to having to treat them as domestic prisoners subject to the US criminal justice system and US Constitution and all the attendant rights and obligations.

 

If by "limited" you mean limited to Section 3, I might buy that.

 

I don't know what's mean by mandated, but it remains that SCOTUS declared Gitmo detainees to be subject to the protections of Geneva as any other prisoner of war might be.

 

I tend to agree with your assessment about choosing the lesser of two evils, however.

 

What's most interesting to me is that many people are analyzing the decision and deciding that it logically also blows up the White House's claims about NSA wiretapping not being subject to FISA.

[Chasers Dawg 9]

 

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

 

Supposed to be, I think under article 4 (there are a few criteria, miltary heirachy, uniforms, carried weapons in the open, and I think conduct themselves to the laws of war..) We don't recognize the taliban as a afghani government entity, but since Afghanistan is a part of the convention, we extended it to them, I think. But actually, the Al Qeada is not a state party either, so they don't get it..

 

I think thats what it is. I can't say for certain though.

 

 

 

K, If they are not "POW's" what are the Geneva Convention rules on these types of combatants ?? Spies, Sabateurs, etc ... Can't you just execute them at will ??

 

 

 

 

ETA ; not talking US Law here. Just asking in regards to Geneva Convention

[Stumpnov 0]

Supposed to be, I think under article 4 (there are a few criteria, miltary heirachy, uniforms, carried weapons in the open, and I think conduct themselves to the laws of war..) We don't recognize the taliban as a afghani government entity, but since Afghanistan is a part of the convention, we extended it to them, I think. But actually, the Al Qeada is not a state party either, so they don't get it..

 

I think thats what it is. I can't say for certain though.

 

 

 

K, If they are not "POW's" what are the Geneva Convention rules on these types of combatants ?? Spies, Sabateurs, etc ... Can't you just execute them at will ??

I am pretty sure it calls out treatment that is similar to the treatment afforded to POWs but that they can be tried and imprisoned or executed for their actions.

[Michael Sieger 0]

If by "limited" you mean limited to Section 3, I might buy that.

 

Even more limited than that as I understand it. I belive the ruling was limited to apply only the specific subsection of common article 3 relating to the tribunals (the "regularly constituted court ..." clause of article 3).

 

This is how it was stated on scotusblog:

 

In Hamdan, the Supreme Court found that America's military law incorporates one part of Common Article 3 -- the part that guarantees that captives being held in detention may be prosecuted only by a "regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples." The Court majority invoked that declaration in finding that President Bush's war crimes tribunals ("military commissions") were illegal under military law and that principle borrowed from Geneva. (The Court decision, it should be noted, had nothing to do with better-known provisions of Article 3 -- the bans on torture or humiliating treatment of prisoners.)

[RLLD 3,455]

Why dont we try to trade them back to their countries of origin for stuff like pottery?

 

Then again, geeez....maybe its wrong to trade people for stuff, even other people, I am so confused....

[torridjoe 0]

Even more limited than that as I understand it. I belive the ruling was limited to apply only the specific subsection of common article 3 relating to the tribunals (the "regularly constituted court ..." clause of article 3).

 

This is how it was stated on scotusblog:

 

 

Well, they opted out of making a direct statement on the full Article 3, true. They said because certain parts of AIII apply regardless of whether the government's argument on the character of the conflict are true, the White House plan for trying Hamdan was illegal.

 

The 4-person ruling hints at the presumption of applicability here:

 

Although the official commentaries accompanying Common Article 3 indicate that an important purpose of the provision was to furnish minimal protection to rebels involved in one kind of "conflict not of an international character," i.e., a civil war, see GCIII Commentary 36-37, the commentaries also make clear "that the scope of the Article must be as wide as possible," id., at 36.63 In fact, limiting language that would have rendered Common Article 3 applicable "especially [to] cases of civil war, colonial conflicts, or wars of religion," was omitted from the final version of the Article, which coupled broader scope of application with a narrower range of rights than did earlier proposed iterations. See GCIII Commentary 42-43.

 

Given the swift reaction by the Executive Branch to full endow Gitmo POW's with Geneva protections, I can only conclude that they saw the writing on the wall as well.

[hoytdwow 202]

SCROTUM is tasty.

 

According to RP.

 

[torridjoe 0]

The more interesting argument, as I said, is that Hamdan also effectively kills both arguments the White House has made supporting the NSA wiretapping. I understand know why it's being said that's true: the Court rejected both the Afghanistan AUMF and USC Article II arguments as persuasive. As far as the AUMF goes, the White House tried to say that it offered expanded Executive powers. If SCOTUS says that it doesn't offer automatic, unstated powers as related to commissions--and that's what they said--then it ALSO can't offer automatic, unstated power to ignore FISA.

 

As far as Article II goes, this footnote in the ruling:

"Whether or not the President has independent power, absent congressional authorization, to convene military commissions, he may not disregard limitations that Congress has, in proper exercise of its own war powers, placed on his powers. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). The Government does not argue otherwise."

 

In other words, while the President may have unchecked INHERENT powers, he does not have UNFETTERED power. That is, he can claim a power exists, and act based on that claim--but that doesn't make it not subject to Congressional review and modification afterwards. In this case, FISA represents that review and modification: yes, the President has the inherent right to gather foreign intel during wartime; but subsequent to the stating of that right Congress has determined where that right is limited.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The more interesting argument, as I said, is that Hamdan also effectively kills both arguments the White House has made supporting the NSA wiretapping. I understand know why it's being said that's true: the Court rejected both the Afghanistan AUMF and USC Article II arguments as persuasive. As far as the AUMF goes, the White House tried to say that it offered expanded Executive powers. If SCOTUS says that it doesn't offer automatic, unstated powers as related to commissions--and that's what they said--then it ALSO can't offer automatic, unstated power to ignore FISA.

 

As far as Article II goes, this footnote in the ruling:

In other words, while the President may have unchecked INHERENT powers, he does not have UNFETTERED power. That is, he can claim a power exists, and act based on that claim--but that doesn't make it not subject to Congressional review and modification afterwards. In this case, FISA represents that review and modification: yes, the President has the inherent right to gather foreign intel during wartime; but subsequent to the stating of that right Congress has determined where that right is limited.

 

You're right. That is an interesting and unexpected component of the ruling and subsequent action by the Administration. Should be interesting to see the fallout.

[torridjoe 0]

You're right. That is an interesting and unexpected component of the ruling and subsequent action by the Administration. Should be interesting to see the fallout.

 

The immediate fallout is that the DoJ responded swiftly to Sen Schumer's inquiry on the matter with a "Hamdan, Schmamdan" reply. Even as they disagree, they seem well aware that Schumer's argument isn't out of left field and ignorable.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,432]

The immediate fallout is that the DoJ responded swiftly to Sen Schumer's inquiry on the matter with a "Hamdan, Schmamdan" reply. Even as they disagree, they seem well aware that Schumer's argument isn't out of left field and ignorable.

 

Yeah, but DoJ is going to say that all the way until SCOTUS rules against them. They won't come clean unless they absolutely have to. They are hoping another SC Justice retires or croaks so that GWB can put another one of his "Yes" men in there and then things might be different. Always delay and hope for something better when you don't have a leg to stand on.

[torridjoe 0]

Yeah, but DoJ is going to say that all the way until SCOTUS rules against them. They won't come clean unless they absolutely have to. They are hoping another SC Justice retires or croaks so that GWB can put another one of his "Yes" men in there and then things might be different. Always delay and hope for something better when you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Well, sure. I was just commenting on the speed with which DoJ determined that Schumer's perspective was one that needed immediate rebuttal.

[Rude Rick 0]

POWs are guarded by the geneva convention. They're allowed to get meals, showers, medical care, clothes, and a chance to worship, like everyone else.

 

He's an idiot.

 

HTH

[squidfinger 0]

The problem is that the government wanted to treat them like POWs when convenient, i.e. holding without charges indefinitely, and also treat them like common criminals when convenient, i.e. Geneva conventions do not apply. They wanted to create a legal limbo where no set rules applied, but it doesn't work that way.

 

This is exactly the problem -- if they're not POWs, does that mean you can do whatever you want to them? The frigging morons in the White House thought so. People have basic human rights, you can't just trample roughshod over everything by calling them terrorists. And don't tell me we haven't made some mistakes along the way...because, you know the US Government NEVER makes mistakes when it decides to incarcerate people.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

After the Hamdan decision, RP was adamant that Gitmo prisoners of war are not subject to Geneva, despite the clear SCOTUS ruling.

 

Will he now say that they're not subject to Geneva, despite SCOTUS, DOD and the White House?

 

If you will look at that thread again, my point was that terrorists do not meet the criteria required by the Geneva conventions. I even gave examples of some of the requirements they do not meet.

 

Therefore the SC is wrong in their decision, but the WH can put forth any guidelines it wants regarding how terrorists should be treated while detained. That prerogative resides with the Executive Branch. If the WH wants to give them GC coverage they can, but for the SC to overstep it's authority and require it is where they went wrong.

 

HTH

[paulinstl 295]

If you will look at that thread again, my point was that terrorists do not meet the criteria required by the Geneva conventions. I even gave examples of some of the requirements they do not meet.

 

Therefore the SC is wrong in their decision,

 

but for the SC to overstep it's authority and require it is where they went wrong.

 

Constitution Law 101

 

LMAO that you think you know more than The Supreme Court.

 

from paulinstl

 

Those liberal poosays in the Supreme Court don't know what's best for us.

 

Right on cue.

 

[Michael Sieger 0]

the WH can put forth any guidelines it wants regarding how terrorists should be treated while detained. That prerogative resides with the Executive Branch.

 

This has certainly been the admin's position since the beginning of the war on terror - that the executive can designate anyone an "enemy combatant" and thereby strip that person of any constitutional rights or Geneva protections and hold them without charges and without counsel for the duration of the "war". That has been in my opinion the most important constitutional issue for the Bush presidency. They have been proven almost entirely wrong on this assumption through the efforts of mostly volunteer lawyers for people named Hamdan, Hamdi and Padilla, as well as constitutional watchdogs and libertarians like CATO and ACLU. If they would simply keep these guys in Afghanistan or Iraq, or ship them to Israel or Saudi where they can be tortured and killed efficiently and effectively, there would be no problem. The problem arises when they tried to get cute and bring them to GITMO, claiming the constitution doesn't apply there, or, in Padilla's case, to arrest him at O'Hare and throw him in a military brig for four years.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Um, it is a fact terrorists do not meet the requirements to qualify for GC protections, and I have already listed some requirements they do not meet.

 

Believe it or not, the SC can be wrong, or are you claiming they are always correct?

[torridjoe 0]

If the WH wants to give them GC coverage they can, but for the SC to overstep it's authority and require it is where they went wrong.

 

HTH

 

The WH has claimed they've been giving them GC coverage the ENTIRE TIME. What they have been claiming is that they are not subject to the Conventions. Now, in a reversal, the DoD and White House are agreeing that they are in fact subject to Section 3.

 

You are spectacularly wrong.

 

Um, it is a fact terrorists do not meet the requirements to qualify for GC protections, and I have already listed some requirements they do not meet.

 

Believe it or not, the SC can be wrong, or are you claiming they are always correct?

 

LOL. You're not a terrorist until you commit a terrorist act. These people were detained before any act.

[Thornton Melon 544]

What is the definition of POW ?? Doesn't that just pertain to uniformed combatants of a recognized govenment army ??

 

That was my understanding.

 

Here's a little pre-Geneva convention action I wouldn't mind us applying to these "militants":

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring forth a legend in Military history. A man that made a decision that in these times would most likely get him shot or dragged into the brig or both. This is due to the fact that we have weak minded, too soft and ‘ohh my god, that is so horrible’ types in office.

 

Let me remind you, the military is arresting its own members who go outside the wire and do the most unthinkable every single day. My only question is what is the difference between the Army when General Pershing was around and now? Have we really gotten a conscience about the brutalities of war?

 

General Pershing did something that if done in today’s war could possibly put an end to some things.

 

Born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, Mississippi

Died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.

1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska

1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War

1901 Awarded rank of Captain

1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General

1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines

1916 Made Major General

1919 Promoted to General of the Armies

1921 Appointed Chief of Staff

1924 Retires from active duty

Education: 4 Years-West Point

 

One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.

 

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it’s interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.

 

So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.

 

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.

 

The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

 

They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.

 

Just imagine all the soldiers that could be saved if we just manned up and sent a clear message like he did!

 

http://www.soldierlife.com/2006/06/26/gene...-jack-pershing/

[torridjoe 0]

That was my understanding.

 

Here's a little pre-Geneva convention action I wouldn't mind us applying to these "militants":

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring forth a legend in Military history. A man that made a decision that in these times would most likely get him shot or dragged into the brig or both. This is due to the fact that we have weak minded, too soft and ‘ohh my god, that is so horrible’ types in office.

 

Let me remind you, the military is arresting its own members who go outside the wire and do the most unthinkable every single day. My only question is what is the difference between the Army when General Pershing was around and now? Have we really gotten a conscience about the brutalities of war?

 

General Pershing did something that if done in today’s war could possibly put an end to some things.

 

Born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, Mississippi

Died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.

1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska

1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War

1901 Awarded rank of Captain

1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General

1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines

1916 Made Major General

1919 Promoted to General of the Armies

1921 Appointed Chief of Staff

1924 Retires from active duty

Education: 4 Years-West Point

 

One important thing to remember is that Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals. Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won’t even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise and doomed to hell.

 

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks against the United States and it’s interests by, you guessed it, Muslim extremists.

 

So General Pershing captured 50 of the terrorists and had them tied to posts execution style. He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.

 

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad.

 

The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist’s bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

 

They let the 50th man go. And for about the next 42 years, there was not a single attack by a muslim fanatic anywhere in the world.

 

Just imagine all the soldiers that could be saved if we just manned up and sent a clear message like he did!

 

http://www.soldierlife.com/2006/06/26/gene...-jack-pershing/

 

 

Sigh, this again?

no substantiation for the claim...

[TyCobb 0]

Here, try this

[torridjoe 0]

Here, try this

 

I answered that in the thread in which it was asked.

[TyCobb 0]

I answered that in the thread in which it was asked.

 

Please post your answer in the 2nd thread so I can have the privelidge of replying. I can't find it in the original thread. Sorry.