The journey from there to here

Link

Looks like the fears of a Supreme Court composed of Bush cheerleaders are greatly exaggerated. In a 5-3 decision (With Chief Justice John Roberts sidelined over a conflict of interest), the court ruled that the detention of combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the proposed military tribunals are unConstitutional. This means the "have it both ways" policy of an administration that wants to treat these detainees as neither citizens of Iraq deserving of a fair trial nor prisoners of war may have to come to an end as questions about the validity of what we are doing with Gitmo seem so far to be going against the administration.

I expect pundits and talking heads to sort out what all this means and what the Bush administration will do to deal with these detainees, who they insist pose a serious threat to our national security, while similarly insisting that no proof of these allegations is necessary, but that we must take them at their word. I believe this may be a first and fatal blow against an administration that insists that the mere questioning of its policies poses a threat to our national security, and that the Bill of Rights was not meant to apply during wartime, and who subsequently invoked an undefined, open ended war to further their agenda. I don't think this means Bush will be the next Nixon, as a lot of questions still remain, but I do feel it means his self proclaimed power has been greatly eroded and that there may be hope yet for the restoration of Democracy in America.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Jul 05, 2006
drmiler -

I agree with you, I think the SC is wrong to consider the GC applicable, but I'm not a justice - I just play one on TV.
on Jul 05, 2006
And, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
on Jul 05, 2006
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.


I also forgot - I don't think the terrorists meet this condition, but I guess I need a reference to the applicable "laws and customs of war" before passing judgment.
on Jul 05, 2006
I'm still amazed at how great lengths the left will go to defend the rights of terrorists.
on Jul 06, 2006
I'm still amazed at how great lengths the left will go to defend the rights of terrorists.


ALLEGED terrorists, Island Dog. ALLEGED terrorists.

I agree with you that we should deal with the terrorists with a heavy hand. But we must make sure they're terrorists first.
on Jul 06, 2006
Apparently you need to look more thoroughly into what the ramifications of the Hamdan decision are.


Again I did. The thing you miss is that nothing was ruled illegal, just procedurally not accurate. On the whole, the only thing the ruling said was "Bush - Talk to Congress". Period. Sift through it.
on Jul 06, 2006
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.


Actually his understanding is correct. Yours is flawed. Yes, that is my opinion, but backed up by the SCOTUS ruling.

Majorities rule. Not pluralities or ties.
on Jul 06, 2006
Actually his understanding is correct. Yours is flawed.


He said I never posted any of the GC, only the ruling. My understanding of that is not flawed. His comprehension is flawed.

The thing you miss is that nothing was ruled illegal, just procedurally not accurate. On the whole, the only thing the ruling said was "Bush - Talk to Congress". Period. Sift through it.


You are wrong again. It says specifically in the ruling that "Because UCMJ Article 36 has not been complied with here, the rules specified for Hamdan’s commission trial are illegal."
Link


Yes, that is my opinion, but backed up by the SCOTUS ruling.


What is your opinion? You said earlier in the thread that the GC only applied to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation. Is that the "opinion" you're talking about?
on Jul 07, 2006
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
From you.

Want to tell me again how my point isn't valid?

t 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.


Never said it did. But in my opinion it's time to "stop" playing by namby-pamby rules with these fools and STOMP their butts! And that includes Hamdan!

What is your opinion? You said earlier in the thread that the GC only applied to uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation. Is that the "opinion" you're talking about?


And I do agree with doc on the uniformed soldiers and civilians under GC protection. The rest can go pound sand!
on Jul 07, 2006
Want to tell me again how my point isn't valid?


Which "point" are you talking about? The one where you said I should quote actual text from the GC, when I did twice and you just didn't see it? Or do you mean your point/opinion that we shouldn't honor the GC?

And I do agree with doc on the uniformed soldiers and civilians under GC protection. The rest can go pound sand!


You have every right to agree with him and state that it is your opinion that the GC shouldn't apply to non uniformed personnel, but that doesn't change the fact that the GC explicitly says that it does.
on Jul 07, 2006
You have every right to agree with him and state that it is your opinion that the GC shouldn't apply to non uniformed personnel, but that doesn't change the fact that the GC explicitly says that it does.


Want to "show me" where? And just an fyi....we're not talking about civilians "or" unlawful combatants. The GC says alot about POW's (which they aren't and do not fit the requirements for) civilians (again they're not) or uniformed soldiers ( once again, not)


Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

( Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2. The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
on Jul 07, 2006
Want to "show me" where? And just an fyi....we're not talking about civilians "or" unlawful combatants. The GC says alot about POW's (which they aren't and do not fit the requirements for) civilians (again they're not) or uniformed soldiers ( once again, not)


You'll have to show me where I said Hamdan or anyone else fit into any category that you listed.

Let me break this down as simple as I can for you;

DrGuy says;

The Geneva Convention does not apply as they are not uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation.

I say;

Actually it is you who is not correct. The Geneva Convention apparently does apply, at least in part.


Now do you see the error of your ways? The GC does not only apply to uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation. The GC covers personnel other than uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation. That was my point, and that is what I said.

And the fact remains that The Supreme Court found that the GC does apply. They have ruled...there is no where else to appeal to. As I said before, you may disagree with their decision all you want, but as Bush might say, "You're not the decider, they are."
on Jul 07, 2006
If the left would put as much effort into fighting terrorists as they do defending them, we would have won already.
on Jul 07, 2006
Now do you see the error of your ways? The GC does not only apply to uniformed soldiers from a sovereign nation. The GC covers personnel other than uniformed soldiers of a sovereign nation. That was my point, and that is what I said.

And the fact remains that The Supreme Court found that the GC does apply. They have ruled...there is no where else to appeal to. As I said before, you may disagree with their decision all you want, but as Bush might say, "You're not the decider, they are."


There was no error in my ways. I never said it only applied to uniformed soldiers. Here I'll repost what I did say:

And just an fyi....we're not talking about civilians "or" unlawful combatants.
The GC says alot about POW's (which they aren't and do not fit the requirements for since to be a POW you have to be a uniformed soldier.)
civilians (again they're not)
or uniformed soldiers ( once again, not)


And the SC can talk all the BS it wants....Hamdan and his crowd do NOT fit any of the above catagories and these are the ONLY ones that the GC does talk about.
on Jul 08, 2006
There was no error in my ways. I never said it only applied to uniformed soldiers. Here I'll repost what I did say:


I really tried to make it as easy as I could fo ryou to read, but alas, I have failed.

I never said you said that, I clearly said that Drguy said that. I give up, it is impossible to keep you up to speed.

If the left would put as much effort into fighting terrorists as they do defending them, we would have won already.


Who exactly are you referring to? The Navy Officer who was assigned to defend Hamdan?Link Yeah, if he were fighting terrorists instead of defending them, we would have definitely won already.

4 Pages1 2 3 4