Pope
Topic Author
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:10 pm

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Thu Oct 19, 2006 11:32 pm

The only argument for the application of the Geneva Convention would be a very creative reading of Article 3.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:00 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
Pope
Topic Author
Posts: 3995
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 5:57 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 9:28 am

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.
Hypocrisy. It's the new black for liberals.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 12:50 pm

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
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:30 pm

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?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:34 pm

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
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:44 pm

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.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 5:58 pm

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:15 pm

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 6:27 pm

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)
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:46 pm

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.
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 7:52 pm

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 
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Fri Oct 20, 2006 11:13 pm

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?
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 8:26 am

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:22 am

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]
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:42 am

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]
 
MDorBust
Posts: 4914
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 10:10 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:17 am

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

How many justices are there on your version of the SCOTUS?
"I KICKED BURNING TERRORIST SO HARD IN BALLS THAT I TORE A TENDON" - Alex McIlveen
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:23 am

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:45 am

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 11:10 am

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.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:06 pm

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 1:37 pm

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:16 pm

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
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:38 pm

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.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 2:59 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
That sounds more like Rumsfeld's doing - with Bush's concurrence - than Bush himself.

Splitting hairs IMO, ANCFlyer. Let's agree that it was done with Presidential authority?

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
the Bill of Rights is a priviledge of this country's citizens and legal visitors . . . nothing more. Don't read into it NAV . . .

With respect, you're the one reading things into it that aren't there. The Bill of Rights just refers to 'persons.'


Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
The US Bill of Rights doesn't apply outside the confines of the US, it's territories, protectorates, ad naseum

What has happened in the past to marines, other servicemen, or civilian workers who committed crimes within the Guantanamo Bay base? Were they tried in US courts or handed over to the Cuban police? Of COURSE the Gitmo detainees are entitled to the protection of the US courts - otherwise the Supreme Court couldn't and wouldn't have ruled as it did.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 24):
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.

There, I think, we're in complete agreement. We're talking about basic freedoms and rights. Oddly enough, since both American and Australian common law is derived from English common law, it goes back a lot further than the Bill of Rights - to Magna Carta in 1215, as a matter of fact:-

"(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it.

"(39) No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

"(40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice."


http://www.bl.uk/treasures/magnacarta/translation.html
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 3:13 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Splitting hairs IMO, ANCFlyer. Let's agree that it was done with Presidential authority?

 no 

Knowledge  yes 

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
With respect, you're the one reading things into it that aren't there. The Bill of Rights just refers to 'persons.'

Is it not part of the United States Constutition?

Would it therefore apply to say, people in Austria? Australia? South Africa? Rwanda?

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
What has happened in the past to marines, other servicemen, or civilian workers who committed crimes within the Guantanamo Bay base?

Prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . . which is basic US military law and is global. There are often times - many times in fact - where a soldier is not prosecuted under civil law - because he/she broke no civil law - but they are infact tried under the UCMJ because they broke military law.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Were they tried in US courts or handed over to the Cuban police?

Neither. First, see my immediate previous reply. Second, there is no treaty with Cuba for such things so that does not apply. In Germany, however, it could be possible . . . it's called the SOFA - Status of Forces Agreement - which basically gives the German Court the first right of refusal.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
NAV20
Posts: 8453
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 3:25 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 4:32 pm

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 26):
Would it therefore apply to say, people in Austria? Australia? South Africa? Rwanda?

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 have said so; it was written by lawyers, after all.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 26):
Prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice . . . . which is basic US military law and is global.

Exactly - but you couldn't use the UCMJ to deal with the Gitmo detainees because it gives all accused persons the rights flowing from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights:-


Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
"(38) In future no official shall place a man on trial upon his own unsupported statement, without producing credible witnesses to the truth of it."

So the sort of evidence that BushCo want to use - admissions made by the accused persons themselves while under duress - would be just as inadmissible in a Navy court-martial as they would be in any other sort of US court. THAT'S why no charges have been made and brought to court.
"Once you have flown, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards.." - Leonardo da Vinci
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sat Oct 21, 2006 5:10 pm

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
Exactly - but you couldn't use the UCMJ to deal with the Gitmo detainees because it gives all accused persons the rights flowing from Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights:-

Ahh, I misunderstood, I thought you were discussing the US Military folks that screwed up at GitMo, Abu Ghraib, etc . . . not the prisoners . . . my mistake. No, the prisoners are not subject to the UCMJ.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
under duress

Define "under duress". No, I'm not trying to be a smartass, just want to see if your definition is in concert with mine.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
would be just as inadmissible in a Navy court-martial as they would be in any other sort of US court

Don't know . . . I'm no Navy trial lawyer, but the next best thing is a member here . . . Halls120 could surely answer better than any of us . . . I can't find a specific chapter/article that deals with that specifically in a short search, I'm sure there's something in there along those lines . . .

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 27):
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 have said so; it was written by lawyers, after all.

But the BOR does not apply otherwise is this correct?

Would you call a Military Tribunal - such as one suggested by the DoD to try the prisoners at GitMo - a military court? Would such a Tribunal be a valid court for prisoners of war - not including the GitMo detainees - that are truly foreign military fighters and subject to the Geneva Conventions? Scenario: A prisoner in a US Military facility in Iraq kills another prisoner in the same facility. There has to be a trial. Who has the jurisdiction there? Is that a US Court. Would the BOR therefore apply if you deem it is a US Court even thought the crime, the accused, the victim, and the geography are not on US soil?
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Sun Oct 22, 2006 8:32 am

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 25):
Were they tried in US courts or handed over to the Cuban police? Of COURSE the Gitmo detainees are entitled to the protection of the US courts - otherwise the Supreme Court couldn't and wouldn't have ruled as it did.

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, to deal with Haitian and others trying to enter the US illegally - in Gitmo, the Immigration and Naturalization Act doesn't apply.

The primary legal reason the government lost was because of their ill-advised interpretation of the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA) to the effect that the Act repealed federal jurisdiction over detainee habeas actions then pending in any federal court. That interpretation was simply illogical and violated ordinary principles of statutory construction, since Congress refused to include such a retroactive application, and could have chosen to do so if they wanted to.

The second reason the government lost was that the SC found that DTA failed to contain language authorizing that tribunal proposed to be used in the instant case. Absent a specific Congressional authorization, the UCMJ, the Joint Congressional Resolution following 9/11, and the DTA at most acknowledges a general Presidential authority to convene military commissions in circumstances where justified under the Constitution and laws. While the Court ruled that military tribunal in this case lacked the power to proceed "because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions signed in 1949," the Court did not absolutely foreclose the possibility of establishing a tribunal that would pass court review.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:22 am

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. So, whether we are talking about Artie's SC with 11 members 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 guess I need to explain how a case brought before SCOTUS works. The Gvt may bring multiple reasons for arguing their case. The justices vote. A majority opinion is written and a dissenting opinion(s) is written. The majority opinion in this case put to rest the Article 3 question. The dissenting opinions, never took the side of the Gvt's position on Article 3, but they did favor other aspects of their argument. Other technical matters. Therefore nobody agreed with the Gvt over the Article 3 question. .....Slam dunk.

Of course this is what I wrote. That you failed comprehend.

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

Update:
I stand corrected here. The Thomas dissent did differ on this matter. I just read that he considered them "illegal combatants" and thought this was a separate matter. So really it was 7-1.

Justice Thomas is considered by most SCOTUS legal experts right/left/and neutral to have the weakest legal sense. He failed to even take into account the historic reading of the Convention when talking about the context of " International character". Only if it "could" be read that way. Now if this had been the US Constitution you conservative folks would be howling in protest.

[Edited 2006-10-22 18:31:51]

[Edited 2006-10-22 18:33:54]
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:40 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):
I agree that the President's determination should have been upheld

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 was? How the phrase "international character" had been interpreted in the past. 7 other justices saw the phrase for the simple relationship it described?

Wow this is the same thing you right wingers claim the "liberal" justices have been doing to the US Constitution. Not considering original intent.
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 4:40 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 30):
I guess I need to explain how a case brought before SCOTUS works. The Gvt may bring multiple reasons for arguing their case. The justices vote. A majority opinion is written and a dissenting opinion(s) is written. The majority opinion in this case put to rest the Article 3 question. The dissenting opinions, never took the side of the Gvt's position on Article 3, but they did favor other aspects of their argument. Other technical matters. Therefore nobody agreed with the Gvt over the Article 3 question. .....Slam dunk.

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 usually employed only in the case of a unanimous decision. Maybe even a 7-1 decision. But in this case, there was no 7-1 decision. (see below).

This is so because even one dissent can later be used as a springboard to change the Court's direction on a given issue. And why the dissent ruled the way they did isn't all that relevant. So they didn't use the government's argument - so what? Our office recently won an appeal in the fifth circuit where the majority came out of left field and resuscitated a rationale that had lain dormant for over 100 years. So did we say, "we we really can't claim this as a victory because the court didn't adopt our rationale"? hell no! It's a victory, plain and simple.

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 30):
Update:
I stand corrected here. The Thomas dissent did differ on this matter. I just read that he considered them "illegal combatants" and thought this was a separate matter. So really it was 7-1.

Still can't get it right, can you, Artie?

Quote:
Thomas, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

SALIM AHMED HAMDAN, PETITIONER v. DONALD
H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al.
on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
[June 29, 2006]

Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, and with whom Justice Alito joins in all but Parts I, II--C--1, and III--B--2, dissenting.

So, Artie, that would be five signed on to the majority decision, and three in dissent. a 5-3 decision. Do you need me to spell it out a little more clearly, or can you count to 8?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 31):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 20):I agree that the President's determination should have been upheld
What's your legal reasoning for this? The same as Thomas's?

Reading comprehension problems again, eh?

Quote:
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.

BTW Artie, how have I managed to escape from the Official ArtieFufkin Banned List?  biggrin  I feel so special!
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:41 am

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 we are concerned with. He disagrees with Thomas on this point. Period. End of story. Additionally Scalia never mentions this line of reasoning in his dissent.

Numerous article mention Thomas's dissent and his lone "illegal combatants theory. Scalia never comes up.

So again you are wrong. Nobody agreed with Thomas's kooky dissent on this point.
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:51 am

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 my man. You just need to throw your bullshit elsewhere.

"Unless I missed something (always a possibility based on a quick read), the only dissenter who says he disagrees with the majority's reading of Common Article 3 as applying to Al Qaeda is Justice Thomas. Scalia focuses on jurisdiction, and Alito talks about how Common Article 3 should apply to the specifics of this case. Scalia and Alito join the portion of Thomas's dissent that talks about whether Common Article 3 applies, so that's where the discussion is. Thomas focuses most of his discussion on arguments that do not directly consider the language of Common Article 3, but rather focus on legal authorities that might constrain the Court from interpreting the language on the merits. He says that Johnson v. Eisenstrager forecloses the majority's application of Common Article 3 to Al Qaeda, and that the Court should defer to the executive's interpretation. He may or may not be right in making these arguments, but they don't address the key point that bloggers are making — namely, that the language of Common Article 3 doesn't apply to Al Qaeda, period. On that key question, Justice Thomas says that both the President's and the majority's positions are plausible and reasonable. Here is the entirety of the discussion (raised in the context of Thomas saying the Court should defer to the President's interpretation, rather than interpret the language on its own):

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. . . 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.

Bloggers (and others) can continue to say that the language of Common Article 3 simply cannot be read to apply to Al Qaeda. But not a single member of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn't make the bloggers wrong, of course -- just lonely."
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:01 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 33):
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 we are concerned with. He disagrees with Thomas on this point. Period. End of story. Additionally Scalia never mentions this line of reasoning in his dissent.

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' dissent with the exception of Parts I, II--C--1, and III--B--2, which concern matters that I find unnecessary to reach."

Since you apparently can't read, I'll summarize each part of the Thomas decision Alito didn't join. Again, NOT BECAUSE HE DISAGREED WITH THEM, but because it was, in his opinion not a decision the court needed to make.

Part I - "Hamdan's military commission can plainly be sustained solely under Article 21---but to emphasize the complete congressional sanction of the President's exercise of his commander-in-chief authority to conduct the present war."

Part II-C-1 - " The common law of war establishes that Hamdan's willful and knowing membership in al Qaeda is a war crime chargeable before a military commission."

Part III B-2 - " The President's interpretation of Common Article 3 is reasonable and should be sustained."

So while Alito didn't join that one portion of the CA 3 discussion, he did sign on to the other parts of the Thomas discussion.

Part III B-1- "As an initial matter, and as the Court of Appeals concluded, both of Hamdan's Geneva Convention claims are foreclosed by Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950)"

Part III B- 3 - "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)"

Part III B-4 - " In addition to Common Article 3, which applies to conflicts "not of an international character," Hamdan also claims that he is entitled to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention, which applies to conflicts between two or more High Contracting Parties. There is no merit to Hamdan's claim."

AS far as Scalia goes, here is what he said in his dissent; "Justice Scalia, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Alito join, dissenting."

Because he didn't exempt any part of the Thomas dissent, he joined it - in its entirety. Since you apparently can't read, I'll repeat what he said. " Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Scalia joins, and with whom Justice Alito joins in all but Parts I, II--C--1, and III--B--2, dissenting."

Get it now?

5-3, Artie, 5-3.

It's really not all that difficult.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:13 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):
Justice Alito said: "I join Justice Thomas' dissent with the exception of Parts I, II--C--1, and III--B--2, which concern matters that I find unnecessary to reach."

"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 banter this about with Alaska boy. I'm sure he has Article 4 committed to memory..LOL
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:29 am

Whom should I believe?????????????


Halls "realm of possiblity" means likelyhood of happinging...LOL

Or this man:

Stuart M. Benjamin, B.A. 1987, J.D. 1991, Yale University. Before he began teaching law, Professor Benjamin served as an editor of the Yale Law Journal; clerked for Judge William C. Canby on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit and for Justice David H. Souter of the U.S. Supreme Court; worked as an associate with Professor Laurence Tribe; served as staff attorney for the Legal Resources Centre in Port Elizabeth, South Africa; and worked as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Counsel in the U.S. Department of Justice. From 1997 to 2001 he was an associate professor of law at the University of San Diego School of Law, and from 2001-2003 he was the Rex G. & Edna Baker Professor in Constitutional Law at the University of Texas School of Law. He is co-author of Telecommunications Law and Policy (1st ed. 2001, 2nd ed. 2006), and has written a number of law review articles.


Who said this

"Bloggers (and others) can continue to say that the language of Common Article 3 simply cannot be read to apply to Al Qaeda. But not a single member of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn't make the bloggers wrong, of course -- just lonely.""
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:30 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 36):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 35):Justice Alito said: "I join Justice Thomas' dissent with the exception of Parts I, II--C--1, and III--B--2, which concern matters that I find unnecessary to reach."
"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 banter this about with Alaska boy. I'm sure he has Article 4 committed to memory..LOL

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 beginning or Stevens' opinion: "Justice Stevens announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I through IV, Parts VI through VI--D--iii, Part VI--D--v, and Part VII, and an opinion with respect to Parts V and VI--D--iv, in which Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join."

So you see, only 3 Justices joined Stevens majority. Kennedy wrote a separate concurring decision.

Even if your Scalia was silent argument was right - and it isn't - I still can't see where you get a 7-1 decision.

Maybe it's all that new math, eh?

So the ball is in your court. Show me where I lied, and if you are correct, I'll admit it.

Otherwise, you are just making yourself look even more pathetic than you already are.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:39 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
So you see, only 3 Justices joined Stevens majority. Kennedy wrote a separate concurring decision.

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 with Thomas's kooky point and vote in the majority. You can disagree with Thomas and still vote in the minority.

Funny how reality, versus you mind works.

[Edited 2006-10-23 02:40:49]
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:54 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 37):

"Bloggers (and others) can continue to say that the language of Common Article 3 simply cannot be read to apply to Al Qaeda. But not a single member of the Supreme Court agrees. That doesn't make the bloggers wrong, of course -- just lonely.""

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 initial matter, and as the Court of Appeals concluded, both of Hamdan's Geneva Convention claims are foreclosed by Johnson v. Eisentrager, 339 U. S. 763 (1950)" and that "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."

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 39):
Quoting Halls120 (Reply 38):
So you see, only 3 Justices joined Stevens majority. Kennedy wrote a separate concurring decision.
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 with Thomas's kooky point and vote in the majority. You can disagree with Thomas and still vote in the minority.

Sigh. Justice Stevens wrote the decision of the Court, with three justices - not Kennedy - joining. Justice Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion, which three justices - not Stevens - joined. Justice Breyer wote a concurrence in which stevens did not join, but Souter and Ginsburg did.

So between 5 of the justices, they agreed with Hamdan's case, even though they could not all agree on one majority decision.

Neither Thomas, Scalia or Alito joined either the Stevens, Breyer or Kennedy opinions. Therefore, they didn't join the majority.

Hence 5-3. or, I suppose, 4-3, 4-3, and 4-3.

Where did I lie Artie?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:00 am

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 kooky point. That went to jurisdiction. If Thomas is right there is no possible way you can vote in the majority.

Source in support of your assertion. Give us a blurb from someone besides yourself that agrees with you, liar. Not Alaska boy. How about a right wing blog?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:09 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 41):
you continue to confuse the overall opinion with the point at hand. Of course they were points in the majority that were in dispute.

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 believe that the government screwed itself out of possible SC victory by overreaching on the issue of whether Hamdan's habeas rights were foreclosed by the DTA by adopting a tortured read of that statute, and by taking well too long to hold the tribunals in the first place.

How have I confused the overall opinion, Artie? H*ll, you don't even understand the concept behind concurrences and dissents, and you are accuse me of having things confused?  rotfl 

Where is my lie, Artie? Where?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 41):
Source in support of your assertion. Give us a blurb from someone besides yourself that agrees with you, liar. Not Alaska boy. How about a right wing blog?

 rotfl  why do I need to cite some blog - I'M CITING THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE DECISION!!!! Unlike you, I can form my opinions without having some ideologue do it for me.

Where's my lie, Artie? Where?
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
ArtieFufkin
Posts: 671
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 2:26 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:23 am

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 sourced in support of my position. You are unable to because ultimately your just being dishonest. Unable to admit error.

Thanks Halls. I think Pope has got his discussion. And it was very lopsided.

Bush, beyond a shadow of a doubt was breaking the Geneva Convention.
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:46 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 43):
Bush, beyond a shadow of a doubt was breaking the Geneva Convention.

Bullshit.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: Geneva Convention - How Does It Apply?

Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 43):
I thought as much. It is you and only you that has this opinion. Nobody with any legal background supports you.

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 women have any legal background. at all. ÊÊ

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 43):
Pope asked we stick to facts. I sourced in support of my position. You are unable to because ultimately your just being dishonest. Unable to admit error.

I have stuck to facts, Artie. Every one of my opinions relates to a fact in the case, either a fact contained in the SC decision, or a factual statement such as "the administration took to long to get the tribunals started."

Where's my lie, Artie? Where's my lie?

Quoting ArtieFufkin (Reply 43):
Bush, beyond a shadow of a doubt was breaking the Geneva Convention.

You still don't get it.

if the tribunals had gone ahead without changes mandated by the SC, then yes, Bush could be said to have violated CA 3. But the tribunals haven't been held yet, Artie. It was at most a prospective violation. The SC's ruling prevented the US from being in violation of its Geneva obligations.

Now some will state that the SC's decision means the CIA's waterboarding techniques constitute a violation of CA 3. Those techniques may someday be held to have violated CA 3. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE SC DECIDED IN HAMDAN. What they decided was that because the then-proposed military commission doesn't meet CA3 standards, it cannot try Hamdan unless Bush operates the commissions by the rules of regular military courts-martial, or asks Congress for specific permission to proceed differently. Period.

[Edited 2006-10-23 03:50:19]
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: jpetekyxmd80 and 13 guests