Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?  
User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2435 times:

One of the most controversial issues that has been debated is the Administration's refusal to apply the Geneva convention to prisoners held at GITMO or otherwise caught in Iraq.

Here's a link to the Geneva Convention http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm. I've read it and simply can't see how, by the convention's own terms, anyone can argue that an insurgent is protected by this document.

Let's debate fact not opinion. I don't want to debate whether or not the convention should be extended to cover these sort of combatants, but only does the convention by its terms applies.

45 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

The only argument for the application of the Geneva Convention would be a very creative reading of Article 3.

User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 2417 times:

Quoting Pope (Thread starter):
can't see how, by the convention's own terms, anyone can argue that an insurgent is protected by this document.

Me neither. If this was the day and age of stereotypical warfare it would be a great document. But in this day and age of splinter cells, marginally organized terrorists and alcaida, no.

If we were to engage DPRK or Iran, every uniformed soldier would be covered. Any civilian clothed person who tries to attack us is not.


User currently offlinePope From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

I find it amazing that so many people on this forum repeated that the administration had violated the Geneva convention time and time again, and yet nobody can point to how the Geneva convention applies to the people who are the basis of that claim.

User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2376 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 1):
The only argument for the application of the Geneva Convention would be a very creative reading of Article 3.

But then Article 4 pretty much obliterates any "interpretation" IMO.

Article 4, Sect A, para 1, does not apply. The Gitmo (and other detainees) are not party to one of the High Contracting Parties, nor are they members of the Armed Forces.

Article 4, Sect A, para 2, Subparas a, b, c, and d, do not apply. Gitmo detainees are neither commanded by a responsible person; possess a fixed, distinctive, recognizable sign; don't openly carry weapons; and by fuckin' God, do not subscribe to the articles of war.

Article 4, Sect A, para 3, does not apply. They are not members of a regular armed force of a country.

Article 4, Sect A, paras 4, 5, 6 do not apply.

Article 4, Sec B, para 1, does not apply. These detainees are not part of an armed force belonging to any country.

Article 4, Sect B, para 2, does not apply. These detainees are not citizens of a neutral country.

So . . . no matter how one slices the pie in Section 3, Section 4 pretty much raises the  redflag  on any bogus, spin interpretation anyone might toss out refrencing Section 3.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art3


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2358 times:

Here is the entire relevant Article.

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;
(b) 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.

******************************

Anybody care to explain why think this doesn't apply?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 5):
Here is the entire relevant Article.

Article 3



Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 5):
Anybody care to explain why think this doesn't apply?

Can you NOT READ . . . . ahhh, stupid question . . . .

And here's everything that makes ArtieSpammers post irrelevent:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 4):
But then Article 4 pretty much obliterates any "interpretation" IMO.

Article 4, Sect A, para 1, does not apply. The Gitmo (and other detainees) are not party to one of the High Contracting Parties, nor are they members of the Armed Forces.

Article 4, Sect A, para 2, Subparas a, b, c, and d, do not apply. Gitmo detainees are neither commanded by a responsible person; possess a fixed, distinctive, recognizable sign; don't openly carry weapons; and by fuckin' God, do not subscribe to the articles of war.

Article 4, Sect A, para 3, does not apply. They are not members of a regular armed force of a country.

Article 4, Sect A, paras 4, 5, 6 do not apply.

Article 4, Sec B, para 1, does not apply. These detainees are not part of an armed force belonging to any country.

Article 4, Sect B, para 2, does not apply. These detainees are not citizens of a neutral country.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/lawofwar/geneva03.htm#art4


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

Ah so Article 3 doesn't apply because Article 4 doesn't apply?


Well that's not how it works. Please try again.


It is Article 3 that is in question. It is Article 3 that the Bush Admin is claiming doesn't apply.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2336 times:

Look ArtieSpammer, perhaps if you'd kept up with conversations in the last year you could save us all a lot of time and energy repeating ourselves . . .

Failing that, since you just joined in May and obviously can't use Search Engine:

Article 3 applies to those persons to which Article 4 identifies. If you're not a person so identified in Article 4, then Article 3 - and the balance - do not apply. I provided a link for the Convention, go read it.

That said: Bottom line: The Geneva Conventions do not apply to unorganized clusters like terrorists.

Personally, I believe all the prisoners should be treated fairly, humanely, with dignity and if someone is found to be in violation they should be prosecuted. These detainees need to be prosecuted or freed. This should have been done is short order.


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2334 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 8):
Article 3 applies to those persons to which Article 4 identifies.

Pulled from your ass it might. But not here. Show us where it says this? These articles stand by themselves.

In fact the Bush Admin has NEVER argued this line of reasoning. Only that Article 3 did not apply.

Anybody else want to give it a try? Remember Pope has asked us to stick to facts. Maybe someone could source a Article 4 angle?.........LOL


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2329 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 9):
These articles stand by themselves.

No, ummm, they don't. Such a confused person you are ArtieSpammer.

You can't simply pick and choose an article there ArtieSpammer . . . doesn't work that way . . . they all work in concert you see . . .

If Article 4 disqualifies someone then the balance doesn't apply, therefore - say it with my now ArtieSpammer "Article 3 does not apply" . . . don't care how you slice, dice, spin, rinse, rerun, reread, retread, chop, hck or mutilate it, simply not going to happen.

You can continue to fanatsize that way, and we'll continue to laugh at you. Thanks for playing ArtieSpammer.

Say - are you ever gonna answer Halls120's question in this thread, reply 17:
Bush Prepares To Launch October Suprise? (by ArtieFufkin Oct 16 2006 in Non Aviation)


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 5):
Anybody care to explain why think this doesn't apply?

ANC, you're wasting too much effort here.

Go with the simple route.

Why article 3 doesn't apply:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 5):
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:

The conflict is of an international character. Article 3 does not apply.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 2323 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 11):
ANC, you're wasting too much effort here.

Yeah, I know . . . but what the hell, I'm on the desk all night . . .  silly 


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2307 times:

Hamdan vs Rumsfeld

The court ruled against the Bush Admin assertion that this was a "conflict of international character" The term meant only to desribe a relationship between two nations, not as the Admin argued the "geographical" sense that Al Queada had a presense in multipe nations.

There was no written dissent on this aspect of the rulling. Therefore a slam dunk.

So we have the SCOTUS plus Artie, versus two posters that have offerred no sources to back up their arguments.

Anybody else?


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Boy! A winger asking for facts instead of opinion. The thread started out with such promise!

Pope ask for facts only. Not opinion.

All we get is typical right wing circle jerk where nobody including pope can offer any facts.

Resident "liberal" comes along with precise evidence/facts/sourcing that blows their nutty theory out of the water.

Silence ensues. Pope off to discuss "Grey's Anantomy". Ancflyer just hoping the thread falls off the first page....nice.

Still no facts from Pope despite the fact he asked for and started the thread.

You guys are a piece of work. I wonder why I bother...LOL


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2255 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 14):
Ancflyer just hoping the thread falls off the first page

Not so damn fast ArtieFluffer . . . I do sleep occasionally, when I'm not here blasting your    theories into oblivion.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 14):
I wonder why I bother...

Most of us here wish you wouldn't . . . really . . .

What else would you like to discuss . . .

You've been given the proper link to the most current version of the Convention. Article 3 doesn't apply because none of the assholes at GitMo qualify under Article 4.

Despite your unknowing and ignorant assertion that each Article stands alone, all of them must work in concert together ArtieSpammer.

Let me toss you yet another bone there ArtiePumpkin . . .

Are the Terrorists signatory to this Convention? Are they part of the High Contracting Parties? That alone is enough to disqualify every damn one of them . . . .

Next?

We can pursue this all night . . . as I have all night . . . or you can tuck your uber-liberal tail and and leave the thread . . .

But before you do . . . why don't you go answer Halls120's question here, reply 17 . . . if you have the stamina that is:


Bush Prepares To Launch October Suprise? (by ArtieFufkin Oct 16 2006 in Non Aviation)

[Edited 2006-10-21 02:23:38]

User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 15):
You've been given the proper link to the most current version of the Convention. Article 3 doesn't apply because none of the assholes at GitMo qualify under Article 4.

First congratulations on being able to find the Article.

Now, just because you've done that doesn't mean it pertains here. In fact you will not find any sources that back up your novel theory. Nobody on God's green earth has argued Ariticle 4 pertains to these detainees. You're not this dumb, just unable to come to grips with being wrong. Ultimatley you're being dishonest. Again Pope asked for facts to back up our opinion.

Ancflyer. If you are correct, the Bush Admin would have argued this. Article 4 was never mentioned in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Article 3 was. And their assertions on that point rejected 11-0 .Can you source some support how/why Article 4 applies here? Besides Article 4 itself?

[Edited 2006-10-21 02:45:39]

User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2236 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
And their assertions on that point rejected 11-0

How many justices are there on your version of the SCOTUS?


User currently offlineArtieFufkin From United States of America, joined May 2006, 704 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2232 times:

Whoops thank you mdor. That should have been 8-0. I think one Bush pick sat out from the normal 9. I admit was wrong.

Wish you could do the same rather than trolling for my tiny slip ups....LOL


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2224 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
First congratulations on being able to find the Article.

Which is simple enough to do - along with the UCMJ, I keep them for reference on my desk top, afterall you never know when they'll come in handy for refuting  redflag .

Say, Artie, have you been drinking, I've only cited it a half dozen times in this thread alone. As I said, perhaps you ought to go back and review other threads, similar subject, to prevent the retaking of old terrain. You can, conveniently, find two of the previous threads in recent A-Net history where the Geneva Conventions were discussed by scrolling to the bottom of this page. They are linked there for your convenience and pleasure by the A-Net site itself. Can't make it any easier than that.

Of course, you can continue the inane blather if you'd like, and we will continue to find your posts entertaining . . . when you get done educating yourself, so I no longer have to continue to retake old terrain, come on back and play some more.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
First congratulations on being able to find the Article.

Something you apparently have failed to accomplish.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
Can you source some support how/why Article 4 applies here? Besides Article 4 itself?

What better source do I need other than the actual document? Seems to me if you want to right answer you go to the source . . .

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
You're not this dumb, just unable to come to grips with being wrong.

Thanks . . . . however, if I thought I was wrong, I'd be first to admit same.

I disagree with SCotUS on this, I've said so in the past. That's not a newsflash . . . and once again, had you bothered to research previous threads, same subject, you'd be on top of your game . . . unfortunately, you are down "11-0" in the 4th at the 2 minute warning.


User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2220 times:

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 16):
Ancflyer. If you are correct, the Bush Admin would have argued this. Article 4 was never mentioned in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. Article 3 was. And their assertions on that point rejected 11-0 .Can you source some support how/why Article 4 applies here? Besides Article 4 itself?

Artie. I recommend sitting down. You aren't going to believe what I'm about to say.

Artie is right that the SC ruled against the government, finding that common article 3 was indeed applicable.

But before you start patting yourself on the back, that's where your winning streak ends.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 13):
There was no written dissent on this aspect of the rulling. Therefore a slam dunk.

So we have the SCOTUS plus Artie, versus two posters that have offerred no sources to back up their arguments.

Anybody else?

Thanks, I'll play! I guess you must have overlooked Justice Thomas's dissent, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined. So, whether we are talking about Artie's SC with 11 members  rotfl  or the 8 actual members that heard this case, that would be a 5-3 decision in favor of Article 3. You call that a "slam dunk?"

I have some advice for you. Instead of reading left wing blogs to get your information, try reading the actual case. It's available on the Web, fee of charge.

Now, turning to the issue, I happen to disagree with the majority's decision, but I understand why they reached that decision, which I'll explain later. Here is a relevant portion of the Thomas dissent.

Quote:
The President's interpretation of Common Article 3 is reasonable and should be sustained. The conflict with al Qaeda is international in character in the sense that it is occurring in various nations around the globe. Thus, it is also "occurring in the territory of" more than "one of the High Contracting Parties." The Court does not dispute the President's judgments respecting the nature of our conflict with al Qaeda, nor does it suggest that the President's interpretation of Common Article 3 is implausible or foreclosed by the text of the treaty. Indeed, the Court concedes that Common Article 3 is principally concerned with "furnish[ing] minimal protection to rebels involved in U a civil war," ante, at 68, precisely the type of conflict the President's interpretation envisions to be subject to Common Article 3. Instead, the Court, without acknowledging its duty to defer to the President, adopts its own, admittedly plausible, reading of Common Article 3. But where, as here, an ambiguous treaty provision ("not of an international character") is susceptible of two plausible, and reasonable, interpretations, our precedents require us to defer to the Executive's interpretation.

I agree that the President's determination should have been upheld, but since the Pentagon and the White House spent so damn long proceeding with a proper hearing for the detainees, I believe the majority lost patience with the Administration, and deservedly so.

We have a saying in the profession - bad facts make bad law - and that, IMO, is precisely what happened in this case.

If, on the other hand, the Administration had exercised due diligence in proceeding with a tribunal, I believe the following part of Thomas's dissent would have actually been part of a majority decision.

Quote:
But even if Common Article 3 were judicially enforceable and applicable to the present conflict, petitioner would not be entitled to relief. As an initial matter, any claim petitioner has under Common Article 3 is not ripe. The only relevant "acts" that "are and shall remain prohibited" under Common Article 3 are "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." Art. 3, ¦1(d), 6 U. S. T., at 1318, 1320 (emphases added). As its terms make clear, Common Article 3 is only violated, as relevant here, by the act of "passing of sentenc[e]," and thus Hamdan will only have a claim if his military commission convicts him and imposes a sentence. Accordingly, as Hamdan's claim is "contingent [upon] future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all," it is not ripe for adjudication. Texas v. United States, 523 U. S. 296, 300 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted).19 Indeed, even if we assume he will be convicted and sentenced, whether his trial will be conducted in a manner so as to deprive him of "the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples" is entirely speculative. And premature adjudication of Hamdan's claim is especially inappropriate here because "reaching the merits of the dispute would force us to decide whether an action taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government was unconstitutional." Raines v. Byrd, 521 U. S. 811, 819--820 (1997)

Bottom line - Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was a self inflicted wound.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 21, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

To my mind the 'controlling' Article is in fact Article 5:-

"ARTICLE 5 -The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

"Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."


I reckon that makes it clear that, as far as troops in the field are concerned, all prisoners should be treated in strict accordance with the Convention. That's certainly what I was taught.

Point is, the Gitmo detainees never had their status 'determined by a competent tribunal.' The US Government arbitrarily decided that they were 'unlawful combatants' (a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the Conventions).

Each of them is entitled under the Convention to a fair hearing to determine their status, and so far they haven't had one. Therefore, as provided for in Article 5, they were and remain entitled to be treated as prisoners of war.

In any case imprisonment without trial is in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights:-

"Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

"Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."


[Edited 2006-10-21 06:08:55]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 2202 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
"ARTICLE 5 -The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

And if said persons don't qualify under Article 4, then what? Since none of these people qualify under Article 4, any reference to Article is null and void.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal

And this is where the US Gov't screwed the pooch . . . as I said, as Halls120 said, and as you said here:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
Point is, the Gitmo detainees never had their status 'determined by a competent tribunal.' The US Government arbitrarily decided that they were 'unlawful combatants' (a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the Conventions).



Quoting NAV20 (Reply 21):
In any case imprisonment without trial is in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights:-

Which doesn't apply to GitMo . . . IMO. It's a priviledge enjoyed by those people that are citizens or legal - LEGAL - visitors to this country.


User currently offlineNAV20 From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 9909 posts, RR: 36
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2194 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
Since none of these people qualify under Article 4, any reference to Article is null and void.

My point is that they may or may not qualify, ANCFlyer. That's a decision which must be taken by 'a competent tribunal' under due legal process. It can't be taken by you, or me, or even the guy sitting in the Oval Office.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
IMO. It's a priviledge enjoyed by those people that are citizens or legal - LEGAL - visitors to this country.

Steady, ANCFlyer. They were taken to Gitmo at gunpoint by the direct order of the President. If you're saying that the President can do what the hell he likes to people who aren't citizens, even though they've been brought into the jurisdiction of the USA by force, you're opening a pretty big can of constitutional worms.

I really do worry about the 'bigger picture.' Once the WMD excuse fell flat, US public opinion has taken refuge in the fact that deposing Saddam was a 'good thing' because he was a tyrannical dictator who turned the army and air force loose on defenceless civilians, imprisoned people without trial, tortured them, killed them..........

Trouble is, we're doing exactly the same things. I say 'we' because Australia is a member of the Coalition.

Does rather make you wonder what we're fighting for?

[Edited 2006-10-21 07:17:24]


"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
My point is that they may or may not qualify, ANCFlyer. That's a decision which must be taken by 'a competent tribunal' under due legal process. It can't be taken by you, or me, or even the guy sitting in the Oval Office.

Partially Agreed . . . .furthermore, I also agree that the US screwed up by NOT handling GitMo detainees in a timely effecient manner . . . we screwed ourselves there easily.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
direct order of the President

Really? Bush gave a direct order for that? I'd like to see it. I rather thought it was a combination of State, Defense and the White House that decided the best course of action would be Gitmo. Curiousity and because I honestly don't know that Bush actually did or did not issue such order more than anything else. That sounds more like Rumsfeld's doing - with Bush's concurrence - than Bush himself.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 23):
you're opening a pretty big can of constitutional worms.

That may well be the case . . . however, my opinion stands. The Bill of Rights is a priviledge to be enjoyed by those citizens of this country and those visitors that are here LEGALLY.

Now that is not to say it gives the right to this country to treat everyone else like pieces of shit, it simply says, that the Bill of Rights is a priviledge of this country's citizens and legal visitors . . . nothing more. Don't read into it NAV . . .

The US Bill of Rights doesn't apply outside the confines of the US, it's territories, protectorates, ad naseum . . . and it should not apply to non-citizens and illegal visitors. Now, that's my opinion - of course the left wing bleeding heart liberals will disagree . . . (wait, I see ArtieFluffer shitting himself right now) . . . and that's okay . . . I'm still entitled to the opinion.

And again, for the record . . . that is not to say it gives the right to this country to treat everyone else like pieces of shit, we would be, having done so, no better than the assholes we'd like to kill.


25 Post contains links NAV20 : Splitting hairs IMO, ANCFlyer. Let's agree that it was done with Presidential authority? With respect, you're the one reading things into it that are
26 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Knowledge Is it not part of the United States Constutition? Would it therefore apply to say, people in Austria? Australia? South Africa? Rwanda? Pros
27 NAV20 : Yes of course - if they were on trial before American courts. They're all 'persons.' If the Bill of Rights wasn't intended to apply to them it would
28 ANCFlyer : Ahh, I misunderstood, I thought you were discussing the US Military folks that screwed up at GitMo, Abu Ghraib, etc . . . not the prisoners . . . my
29 Halls120 : The "beauty" of Guantanamo is that detainees enjoy very limited access to US courts. That's why the detention facility was set up in the first place,
30 Post contains links ArtieFufkin : Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20): Thanks, I'll play! I guess you must have overlooked Justice Thomas's dissent, in which Justices Scalia and Alito joined.
31 ArtieFufkin : What's your legal reasoning for this? The same as Thomas's? That's very shaky. So you don't think the Justices should consider what original intent w
32 Post contains images Halls120 : And how many cases have you argued before any federal court, Artie? I suspect the answer is none, right? Among lawyers, the term "slam dunk" is usual
33 ArtieFufkin : Hall your unbelievable. You post the part of Thomas's dissent Alito disagrees with III-C-2, yet I guess you're too lazy to read it. This was the part
34 Post contains links ArtieFufkin : Here is this man. http://www.law.duke.edu/fac/benjamin/ At the right leaning blog Volakh Conspiracy dicussing this very matter. 7-1 Halls. I'm sorry m
35 Halls120 : Actually, I read it. In detail. You obviously didn't - because once again, YOU HAVE THE FACTS WRONG. Justice Alito said: "I join Justice Thomas' diss
36 ArtieFufkin : "unnecessary to reach" is nice for I dont agree with my colleague. End of discussion. Halls you've decided to take the route of the liar. You can ban
37 ArtieFufkin : Whom should I believe????????????? Halls "realm of possiblity" means likelyhood of happinging...LOL Or this man: Stuart M. Benjamin, B.A. 1987, J.D. 1
38 Halls120 : Where's my lie, Artie? Put up or shut up, is how the saying goes. One other thing, Artie. If you READ the case, you will find the following at the be
39 ArtieFufkin : Ah so tell us great lawyer. If they did not agree, How did they find themselves in the majority? It does not work both ways Hall. You can't agree wit
40 Halls120 : Actually, I agree that CA 3 applies more broadly than the government tried to argue in the Hamdan case. But I agree with Justice Alito that "As an in
41 ArtieFufkin : you continue to confuse the overall opinion with the point at hand. Of course they were points in the majority that were in dispute. Not the Thomas ko
42 Post contains images Halls120 : What the h*ll are you talking about? I've clearly stated throughout this discussion what I believe happened with regard to the outcome of Hamdan. I b
43 ArtieFufkin : I thought as much. It is you and only you that has this opinion. Nobody with any legal background supports you. Pope asked we stick to facts. I source
44 ANCFlyer : Bullshit.
45 Post contains images Halls120 : ÊÊ You are so right, Artie. No one is on my side. Just me, Justices Thomas, Scalia, Alito, their law clerks for starters. None of those men and wom
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Australia's Electronic Visa, How Does It Work? posted Tue Jun 6 2006 23:10:59 by LO231
Dry Cleaning-how Does It Work? posted Thu Feb 16 2006 21:27:49 by VSLover
Tom, How Does It Feel To Lose At Home Again? posted Tue Nov 8 2005 06:34:53 by MSYtristar
Mind Reader - How Does It Work? posted Sun Aug 21 2005 02:07:20 by Nancy
Car Insurance - How Does It Work? posted Sat Feb 19 2005 03:09:57 by Springbok747
Neat Trick... But How Does It Work? posted Wed Jul 7 2004 15:38:03 by Yhmfan
Changing Your Name...how Does It Work? posted Sat Apr 24 2004 07:03:13 by FSPilot747
Islamic Finance- How Does It Work? posted Sat Jun 7 2003 04:02:37 by N79969
Very Cool Website, How Does It Work? posted Sun Mar 9 2003 04:17:42 by Beefmoney
Being Gay, How Does It Work? posted Mon Oct 7 2002 03:33:59 by Hkgspotter1