Gitmo Ruling: 5-3 Overrules White House

[mnealtx 0]

Agreed, to a point. The point I was trying to make (admittedly not well) is that the Gitmo detainees are NOT POW's under the Geneva Convention, since they are unlawful combatants.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Yes, the Geneva Convention does apply (regardless of whether the US is acknowledging that). The Third Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, which defines prisoners of war (POWs) and enumerates the protections of POW status. Persons not entitled to POW status, including so-called "unlawful combatants," are entitled to the protections provided under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. They're either a soldier or a civilian. Geneva 4 makes it very clear that it is intended to cover all persons not covered by Geneva 3.

According to the administration, it doesn't apply to us and we have been openly ignoring the Conventions for years.

[mnealtx 0]

Bullshit....try again. Take the emotional blinkers OFF this time

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Agreed, to a point. The point I was trying to make (admittedly not well) is that the Gitmo detainees are NOT POW's under the Geneva Convention, since they are unlawful combatants.

Sounds remarkably identical to the argument the "insurgents" make right before they cut someone's head off.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Bullshit....try again. Take the emotional blinkers OFF this time

You're going to have to be a little more specific.
As to emotional blinkers, I took the rose colored ones off. You should try it sometime.

[mnealtx 0]

I'd advise the same, seeing as how you obviously have never even read the accords... only what you get about them from the news.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

I'd advise the same, seeing as how you obviously have never even read the accords... only what you get about them from the news.

Allow me to repost this link because you have obviously not looked at it. It is a letter from the Attorney General to the President detailing how the Conventions do not apply. This was again reiterated by the current Attorney General. My point is what ever is written in the Conventions is irrelevent because we are openly ignoring them.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html

[Tink1717 2]

I'm willing to bet the White House will ignore it.

Skydivers don't knock on Death's door. They ring the bell and runaway... It really pisses him off.
-The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS#8808 Swooo 1717

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

>Checks and balances, people.

Yes indeed. Good to see the system working as designed.

I applaud the result.

However, thus far in my (very quick) scanning of portions of the opinion, I am somewhat concerned with the majority's methodology. The part that concerns me so far is that it appears that the majority has based a great portion of their opinion on statutory interpretation, holding that he statute that strips federal courts of habeus jurisdiction is ambiguous, and therefore, based upon a review of the legislative intent, doesn't really strip the courts of habeus jurisdiction.

It seems to me that the statute was pretty clear. And there may be nothing I hate more than when courts interpret a statute by looking at the legislative history, which is nto part of a law. Such readings mean that John Q public and we attorneys can never know whether a law means what it says it means.

Yes, I HATE looking at legislative history. If a law is plain in its language, even if contrary to legislative intent, the law should control until the legislative body repeals or amends the law. If a law is ambiguous so as to make it impossible to put people on notice as to what is or is not allowed, I think it should be stricken. Let the legislature pass another one that says what it means.

Maybe I'll get to reading more of it later, but those are some long-ass opinions!

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[JohnnyD 0]

This didn't take long:

After a Supreme Court decision overruling war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay detainees, President Bush suggested Thursday he would seek Congress' approval to proceed with trying terrorism suspects before military tribunals.
"To the extent that there is latitude to work with the Congress to determine whether or not the military tribunals will be an avenue in which to give people their day in court, we will do so," he said. "The American people need to know that the ruling, as I understand it, won't cause killers to be put out on the street."

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I'd advise the same, seeing as how you obviously have never even read the accords... only what you get about them from the news.

Allow me to repost this link because you have obviously not looked at it. It is a letter from the Attorney General to the President detailing how the Conventions do not apply. This was again reiterated by the current Attorney General. My point is what ever is written in the Conventions is irrelevent because we are openly ignoring them.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html

The letter is states that the AQ and Taliban fighters are *NOT* prisoners of war... which is absolutely correct. What is your confusion on the point?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

The letter is states that the AQ and Taliban fighters are *NOT* prisoners of war... which is absolutely correct. What is your confusion on the point?

That letter spells out how the Geneva Conventions don't apply - according to the administration. It was also the basis for the torture memos from the current Attorney General.
Do you really not see how bad that is?
This makes "us" exactly like "them".
I realize that will get your panties in wad, but we are rationalizing behavior at the very top of our government that we would meet with force.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

The letter is states that the AQ and Taliban fighters are *NOT* prisoners of war... which is absolutely correct.

Because it is a made up term specifically to try and circumvent the Geneva Convention.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

I applaud the result.

However, thus far in my (very quick) scanning of portions of the opinion, I am somewhat concerned with the majority's methodology....

Maybe I'll get to reading more of it later, but those are some long-ass opinions!

Maybe it''d make more sense if you just had the "Drive-By-Briefing".

Re-read it and highlight the following words: "DO" ... "WHAT" ... "EVER" ... "YOU" ... "WANT".

That way it'll make as much sense to you as it does to Dubbie.

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[lawrocket 3]

Mike:

I think my biggest problem with the Bush Admin in this whole thing is the "criminal defense attorney" mindset that they have. On the one hand, they'll argue that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply because the prisoners are being held on US soil. On another, they'll argue tha the Constitution doesn't apply because they are not being held on US soil.

On the one hand, the Geneva Convention does nto apply because they are not EPW's. On the other hand, the US law doesn't apply because they are enemy combatants."

It's the thought that they are parsing terms and arguing exceptions and parsing terminology and classifications in attempts to utterly eviscerate any protections that may be available.

It basically makes it so that they can do what they want under arguments that any rules of laws don't apply to what they are doing by their characterizations. That is, to me, the essence of danger. They are arguing that zero procedural safeguards apply.

We should afford the worst people due process to guarantee for everyone that we all will receive it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rushmc 23]

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

Your monitor must have a mirror effect....

[Zipp0 1]

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

Must....fight.....overwhelming.....urge.....for.......giant....personal....attack....

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

--------------------------
Chuck Norris doesn't do push-ups, he pushes the Earth down.

[billvon 3,108]

>Another perfect example . . .

You've hit all the thoughtless knee-jerk cliches in one post! Bravo.

"Activist judges"
"usurping power"
"destroying the constitution"
"they love the terrorists"

Now you'll be able to just cut and paste for the next two months.

[JohnnyD 0]

Quote

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

Must....fight.....overwhelming.....urge.....for.......giant....personal....attack....

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

There will always be people who have unconditional support or objection. It allows them to be happy whithout reason. In fact, most of the time they are wealthy talk show hosts.
...rushmc... coincidence? probably not.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Another perfect example of an activsit court userping power and taking another chunk out of the Constitution.

In effect the Supreme court has written, ratified and signed a treaty with Al Queda

Must....fight.....overwhelming.....urge.....for.......giant....personal....attack....

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

The truth hurts huh?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

>Another perfect example . . .

You've hit all the thoughtless knee-jerk cliches in one post! Bravo.

"Activist judges"
"usurping power"
"destroying the constitution"
"they love the terrorists"


I thought you were more thoughtful on this topic. I guess I was wrong.
Now you'll be able to just cut and paste for the next two months.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

The truth hurts huh?

I guess you really meant what you said?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[narcimund 0]

Quote

On the one hand... On the other hand...

Not to mention the biggest of them all:

On the one hand, we're "at war" so all sorts of administratively-handy wartime precedents are triggered.

On the other hand, there's been no congressional declaration of war so all sorts of undesirable different precedents are NOT triggered.

I'm only surprised this sort of childish maneuver works. Surprised and sad...

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Are you fucking kidding me? Activist court? PLEASE tell me this is a joke. If so, it's brilliant.

The truth hurts huh?

I guess you really meant what you said?

I did and if you care to look you would understand my point.

I knew full well what was going to happen to me when I made the post I did but I feel strongly enough to make my point.

I know the ruling makes many of you "feel good" but it is another dangerous step toward the destruction on the Constitution.

If you care to study this ruling you might undersatnd.

But, to those that think as you do (I am making and asumption) this about feeling good and getting the evil Bush.

For me, I would feel same regardless of who is president.

I have already spent more time in this thread than I intended because I knew of the knee jerk aprovals this bad decision would get here. So reval in your victory. For me, a group of elitist judges who do not care about the constitution unless it agrees with their own personal veiws is heading down a very dangerous path.......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln