Court Ruling Update

How absolutely delightful. The liberals on the court didn't just rule that the tribunals were unlawful - they ruled that THE GENEVA CONVENTION APPLIES TO TERRORISTS!

In the future, we should stop taking prisoners ... question them, shoot them dead and leave them where they fall.

Comments

[tester]

Maybe we should not have called it a "war" on terror.

[rwilymz]

could we have called it the "military equivalent of the moral equivalent of war"?

[Northerner]

Looks like at least someone in power has the brains to know that copying the terrorist's methods (we don't like what you are doing, so we set aside the law and kill, torture and/or imprison anyone we THINK is guilty) is not the road a democracy should take.
If the US can prove (legally, in a court of law) these people are terrorists, I will supply the rope to hang them and find a suitable tree too. As long as that has not been done, the Geneva Convention applies.

Setting aside international law as agreed upon by civilized nations is exactly what has earned the US its terrible image in most other countries. A schoolyard bully does not have many real friends.

[rwilymz]

"If the US can prove (legally, in a court of law) these people are terrorists..."

1] they are combatants, captured on a field of battle, and as such can be detained until the end of the hostilities in which they were participating and from which they were captured; by definition, that is "indefinite". Even if you want to grant them full GenCon protections, they do not get attorneys or "charges".

2] i personally was puzzled as to what purpose would be served by specifically trying combatants as "terrorists", but the USSC is flat wrong that the CinC does not have the authority to do so. It's ironic that they quote "article 3" and ignore [i believe] article 84. [i can go look it up again, but don't really feel like it]. Where the USSC might have a point is that captured combatants can only be tried for actions that would be illegal for a nation's own soldiers to commit, and I seriously doubt that "driving and bodyguarding for the commander" is a crime for a US soldier.

Certain people are going to fall all over themselves in glee noting the shot across the bow, but won't have an answer to the frankly farcical cherry-picking of "law" the USSC made.

[kate]

"Setting aside international law as agreed upon by civilized nations is exactly what has earned the US its terrible image in most other countries. A schoolyard bully does not have many real friends."
--------------

i'll have to remember that when another hitler comes along and they need their sorry asses saved again.

[Northerner]

@rwilymz: I agree with your first point, with the provision that there is serious question about the "combatant" status of many of the prisoners at Gitmo, and that GenCon does specify that the International Red Cross should be allowed access.

@kate: The US wasn't all that keen on fighting Hitler anyway. They were perfectly content to sit back and watch the show until they themselves were attacked by one of Hitler's allies. Only then did they declare war.

Not that we Europeans aren't grateful for your help, but a little history lesson about what was happening in the world BEFORE December 7th, 1941 can't hurt. World War 2 started in 1939, not at the end of 1941.

And besides, does the US participation in WW2 mean that we should refrain from criticizing American actions forever? Good friends (and I still count the US as one, even if many others dont) should be able to disagree without becoming nasty towards eachother. And they should listen to eachothers reasoning. So yes, we are grateful for your contribution to WW2, but no, that will not stop us from speaking out when we think you are wrong.

[rwilymz]

"that GenCon does specify that the International Red Cross should be allowed access"

If you'll read the GenCon Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War you'll find that the specific conditions outlined are reserved for those who are "prisoners of war".

Being in a war and thereupon taken prisoner does not qualify someone to the classification. ... contrary to what many people wish to believe.

Article 4 of that GenCon defines who is and, by exclusion, who is not to be considered a POW. It is readily apparent to all who are marginally familiar with:
1] law, or
2] the purposes of creating these conventions in the first place
that certain people would be deliberately excluded from "humane treatment" under international rules of war. For that reason, this GenCon defines who is and, by exclusion, who is not entitled to protections.

Non-uniformed combatants who participate in paramilitary organizations [essentially, travelling from war zone to war zone] and do not advertise their combat status, or military folks who fiegn civilian status to conduct war, are excluded.

Our SpecOps forces, when infiltrating, are subject to non-GenCon treatment. And frankly, al Qaida and Taliban are too. For the same reasons: they aren't following the rules.

Our SpecOps know this and still volunteer; yet when we would apply ditto to someone else not following the rules, we become the bad guy.

The ones not following the GenCons are the Taliban/al Qaida.

The US followed the GenCons -- which say that Taliban/al Qaida don't qualify. Ergo, the Red Cross [which has visited the detainees, btw] can just wait for us to allow them access.

.

.

.

But, now, of course, the USSC claims that it's more polite to qualify everyone ... so ...

We'll trade you Red Cross access for every one of the lawyers and the wet-panty demand for "charges" to be filed.

They are captured combatants, and as such: no charges, no lawyers, confinement until the end of hostilities.

[Moe Lane]

If the US can prove (legally, in a court of law) these people are terrorists,

Actually, now that there's no real point in keeping unlawful combatants alive anymore, pretty soon we'll be making that determination on the battlefields themselves.

[Terry Gain]

Northener

Although it's true that the U.S. did not enter the second world war until 1941 they have done most of the heavy lifting (for the world) since then so you are being more than a little bit unfair by harping on one while ignoring the other.

The combatants caught in Afghanistan and Iraq should be turned over to the governments of those countries since it was the liberation of those countries which the took up arms to oppose. They do not deserve the benefit of American law or hospitality.

[Rick]

Northerner: You're so quick to throw the title of "bully" about, saying only that you're from Europe. And just which one of those peace loving countries would that be? No really, tell us which european country was not bullying the entire world long before there was an America up until current times.
Most of us americans would like to just be left alone. Not to have to save europe's ass after they watch some meglomaniac roll over country after country. Damn, you wankers even made us do your dirty work in the former yugoslavia. (Which was ok because a dem president was killing innocent children from 20,000 feet) Actually what many of us would prefer is to turn all those innocent detainees lose IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and let you deal with them. You punks sat on your ass for 40 years doing nothing until those animals attacked us and we FINALLY had a pres with the balls to stand up to them now you want to whine about bullies. I think we might have been better off letting the Russians have ALL of europe.

[dzwjex uwxcos]

xbclfdaq rlaigqpet kiwvgc rhwn dsohywxl zmbjushc udraeqpm