Have "you" actually been paying attention? The US court has ABSOLUTELY NO JURISDICTION over the geneva conventions!

Who said they "had jurisdiction over the Geneva Conventions"? And what exactly do you mean by that?

Who said they "had jurisdiction over the Geneva Conventions"? And what exactly do you mean by that?

It means that the "courts opinion" that you quoted carries no real weight because they can NOT rule on "international" law. Their "opinion" means nothing when they voice it on the geneva conventions (which are international).

It means that the "courts opinion" that you quoted carries no real weight because they can NOT rule on "international" law. Their "opinion" means nothing when they voice it on the geneva conventions (which are international).

First of all, this case was not entirely about the Geneva Conventions. It also dealt with the UCMJ and the Detainee Treatment Act.

If this opinion truly held no weight, as you claim, then why is the administration and several GOP Senators preparing to introduce legislation in Congress to obtain authorization to conduct the tribunals?

If this opinion truly held no weight, as you claim, then why is the administration and several GOP Senators preparing to introduce legislation in Congress to obtain authorization to conduct the tribunals?

They are not doing it on the GC issues. My surmise of your debating (actually lack there of) skills is being fortified. The legislation is on the Military tribunals and the ability of the POTUS to arbitrarily decide to hold them.

Take some lessons from the other liberals here and stop typing out of your poop chute.

The legislation is on the Military tribunals and the ability of the POTUS to arbitrarily decide to hold them.

Apparently you need to look more thoroughly into what the ramifications of the Hamdan decision are.

Mere authorization from Congress to conduct the tribunals is not enough to comply with the ruling. The court's opinion is that these tribunals need to comply with Geneva Conventions article 3;Link

From the ruling;

Common Article 3, then, is applicable here and, as indicated above, requires that Hamdan be tried by a “regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”
…
The commentary accompanying a provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for example, defines “‘regularly constituted’” tribunals to include “ordinary military courts” and “definitely exclud[e] all special tribunals.
…
Common Article 3 obviously tolerates a great degree of flexibility in trying individuals captured during armed conflict; its requirements are general ones, crafted to accommodate a wide variety of legal systems. But requirements they are nonetheless. The commission that the President has convened to try Hamdan does not meet those requirements.

Link

Is that on-topic enough for you?

Do you see how this works? Your opinion in and of itself does not win you an argument, you must show some sort of information that shows that you are correct.

I started posting in this thread in response to your statement that "The Geneva Convention does not apply as they are not uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation." You are wrong. The GC does not only apply to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation, as you stated. I showed you why you are wrong, you are just too embarassed to admit it, or too dense to realize it.

Which is it?

I started posting in this thread in response to your statement that "The Geneva Convention does not apply as they are not uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation." You are wrong. The GC does not only apply to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation, as you stated. I showed you why you are wrong, you are just too embarassed to admit it, or too dense to realize it. Which is it?

Just one problem here davad.....no where have you quoted the actual geneva conventions that cover what dr guy was talking about. All you quoted was the SC's opinion. If you want to quote information to back-up your position that's fine. But at least try to quote the correct info.

Just one problem here davad.....no where have you quoted the actual geneva conventions that cover what dr guy was talking about. All you quoted was the SC's opinion. If you want to quote information to back-up your position that's fine. But at least try to quote the correct info.

Actually, if you bothered to read before posting you would see that the relevant portions of the GC were posted twice, within the opinion, in posts 4 and 10. To make the reading easier for you, I will underline the part that is taken from the GC.

(d) The procedures adopted to try Hamdan also violate the Geneva Conventions. The D. C. Circuit dismissed Hamdan’s challenge in this regard on the grounds, inter alia, that the Conventions are not judicially enforceable and that, in any event, Hamdan is not entitled to their protections. Neither of these grounds is persuasive. Pp. 62-68.
(i) The appeals court relied on a statement in Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763, 789, n. 14, suggesting that this Court lacked power even to consider the merits of a Convention argument because the political and military authorities had sole responsibility for observing and enforcing prisoners’ rights under the Convention. However, Eisentrager does not control here because, regardless of the nature of the rights conferred on Hamdan, cf. United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, they are indisputably part of the law of war, see Hamdi, 542 U. S., at 520-521, compliance with which is the condition upon which UCMJ Art. 21 authority is granted. Pp. 63-65.
(ii) Alternatively, the appeals court agreed with the Government that the Conventions do not apply because Hamdan was captured during the war with al Qaeda, which is not a Convention signatory, and that conflict is distinct from the war with signatory Afghanistan. The Court need not decide the merits of this argument because there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [ i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character. ” That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65-68.

conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [ i.e., signatories], each Party (which means "BOTH" and it's NOT happening on one side.)to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,” certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons … placed hors de combat by … detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences … without previous judgment … by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized

Or have you forgotten about the people they beheaded? See the people they killed actually "were" civilians!

An American military pamphlet on the law of war provides this definition: An unlawful combatant is an individual who is not authorized to take a direct part in hostilities but does. ... Unlawful combatants are a proper object of attack while engaging as combatants. ... If captured, they may be tried and punished. As examples, the pamphlet mentions civilians who engage in war without authorization; non-combat members of the military, such as medics or chaplains, who engage in combat; and soldiers who fight out of uniform. In the Second World War, the United States captured eight German saboteurs who were out of uniform and executed six of them.

And Hamdan definetly "IS" an unlawful combatant!

Violation of prohibitions are covered by Article 5, which states: Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

I was going to respond to your "points", but then realized how silly that would be. You either won't read or won't comprehend it anyways, just as I showed you above. The court has ruled in opposition to your arguments. The GC does apply to Hamdan, as found by SCOTUS. They have the authoritative word in this matter, not you.

was going to respond to your "points", but then realized how silly that would be. You either won't read or won't comprehend it anyways, just as I showed you above. The court has ruled in opposition to your arguments. The GC does apply to Hamdan, as found by SCOTUS. They have the authoritative word in this matter, not you.

Did you "ever" stop to think, they just "might" be wrong? It seems either you don't/won't read or comprehend what I write, so what's the difference?

If Bush was really pulling the strings of "his new Court", they would have signed off on all the Gitmo business, no matter what. If the SCOTUS was really in Bush's hip pocket they would've said anything goes at Gitmo.

So to believe that Bush stacked the deck with cronies and sycophants...? Disproven by this ruling. BTW, Happy 4th!

If Bush was really pulling the strings of "his new Court", they would have signed off on all the Gitmo business, no matter what. If the SCOTUS was really in Bush's hip pocket they would've said anything goes at Gitmo. So to believe that Bush stacked the deck with cronies and sycophants...? Disproven by this ruling. BTW, Happy 4th!

How was that theory disproven by this ruling?

He's appointed two justices. One (Roberts) had to abstain, since he had already made a ruling involved in the case. The other Bush appointee, Alito, sided with the administration.

I'm not saying that it proves they are "cronies and sycophants", but there isn't anything in the ruling that disproves it either.

It seems either you don't/won't read or comprehend what I write, so what's the difference?

I understand the points you're attempting to make, they're just not valid.

For example;

conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [ i.e., signatories], each Party (which means "BOTH" and it's NOT happening on one side.)

It says each.

Let's check the definition of each;

each Audio pronunciation of "each" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ch)
adj.

Being one of two or more considered individually; every: Each person cast a vote. My technique improved with each lesson.


pron.

Every one of a group considered individually; each one.

Notice the emphasis on the word individually. There is no provision that excuses one of the parties from honoring the agreement, if the other does not.

Now if you want to debate the morality of the issue, that's a completely seperate debate. We're talking about the legal issues here.

(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; ( 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.

It appears to me that it all traces back to the meaning of the word "Party" - al Qaeda is a party (small 'p') to the 'conflict' but I'm not sure it is a Party (big 'P') as defined by the GC. While the SC is basically saying we must comply (as a matter of domestic law & constitutionality) with international treaties that we sign, I think they are wrong to consider the GC applicable to these combatants. Just because they're SC justices, doesn't make them infallible.

Note to drmiller - the SC didn't assert any jurisdiction over the GC, it only said to the extent it does apply, we are obligated to abide by it.

It appears to me that it all traces back to the meaning of the word "Party" - al Qaeda is a party (small 'p') to the 'conflict' but I'm not sure it is a Party (big 'P') as defined by the GC. While the SC is basically saying we must comply (as a matter of domestic law & constitutionality) with international treaties that we sign, I think they are wrong to consider the GC applicable to these combatants. Just because they're SC justices, doesn't make them infallible. Note to drmiller - the SC didn't assert any jurisdiction over the GC, it only said to the extent it does apply, we are obligated to abide by it.

To true. But in my humble opinion, they're wrong! The GC should "not" apply to them.