Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo

[Rainbow]

Quote by: RickSp Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo Amazing - the Supreme Court reminded the war criminal in the White House that he is, in fact, not emperor and that the most ancient of all rights, habeas corpus, still trumps his whims. A good day for the republic, which has had very few good days in recent years.

What the Supreme Court says that is one part of the whole case.
Guantanamo base is yet another story, itself.

[Apeman81]

"Nope you have it exactly wrong. Read the ruling. See for yourself. It specifically cites violations of the Geneva Convention."

Not exactly. The decision by the USSC disallows that which has not yet happened from happening because such action would, in the courts opinion, violate the GA. Hence, the court made no mention of a violation (having ocurred) in relation to this case. My point was that the court has not made a statement that a violation has ocurred thus far.

"Wrong again, Ape. Speaking of bilious bile. Somehow I doubt that beating prisoners to death or waterboarding is even close to "the intent of the GA". "

How was I wrong? Name a combatant nation that has done better.

"Even I don't think you are that stupid. You think that insurgents fighting very successfully in a guerilla war should put on uniforms and line up so that we can shoot them. Sure. Right. That'll happen right after they find Jesus."

Ah. I see! If the enemy is successful at hiding behind the skirts of the civilians they hide amongst to launch their attacks. it OK for them to hide among civilians to launch their attacks. It's not their fault that the civilians they hide among are injured or killed by the defending combatants. It's the fault of those that were attacked by terrorist hiding behind the skirts of civilians.

"And you seem so happy to look the other way when families die in a hail of machine gun fire at a checkpoint or when their house is blown away by JDAM. You seem to be claiming that is their own damn fault for living in the country that your criminal president/emperor chose to invade. America should stand for something more than barbarism."

I’m not impressed by what you believe I “seem to” be thinking. Here’s what I DO think; When a foreign led band of terrorists decide its fine and dandy to endanger the populace by hiding among them in order to launch their attacks, knowing full well that by doing so they endanger those they hide among, it is simply wrong. When a foreign led band of terrorists purposefully launch attacks that are designed to kill non combatants, that is wrong. When a foreign led band of terrorists seeks destroy a freely elected government by hiding among civilians and launching attacks hoping that civilians will be killed in the crossfire, that is wrong.

Try focusing on the guys who are causing this to happen

[RickSp]

This is tiresome Ape. Your hairsplitting is a waste of everybody's time. The US has not met the requirements of the Geneva Conventions, therefore, it is in violation. Your specific claim was that the Supreme Court "made NO statement about violation of the GA in relation to this case" which is obviously, rather blantantly false.

And you repeat your bad John Wayne immitation, ranting about insurgents "hiding behind women's skirts", blaming Iraqi civilians for getting in the way of US bullets, bombs, napalm and Willie Pete. How dare they get in the way of our occupation of their country! And your nonsense about a "foreign led" insurgency is a fanciful as your ludicrous statements that the Supreme Court "made NO statement about violation of the GA." But then you followers of King George are not particularly reality based, are you?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Apeman81 "Nope you have it exactly wrong. Read the ruling. See for yourself. It specifically cites violations of the Geneva Convention." Not exactly. The decision by the USSC disallows that which has not yet happened from happening because such action would, in the courts opinion, violate the GA. Hence, the court made no mention of a violation (having ocurred) in relation to this case. My point was that the court has not made a statement that a violation has ocurred thus far. "Wrong again, Ape. Speaking of bilious bile. Somehow I doubt that beating prisoners to death or waterboarding is even close to "the intent of the GA". " How was I wrong? Name a combatant nation that has done better. "Even I don't think you are that stupid. You think that insurgents fighting very successfully in a guerilla war should put on uniforms and line up so that we can shoot them. Sure. Right. That'll happen right after they find Jesus." Ah. I see! If the enemy is successful at hiding behind the skirts of the civilians they hide amongst to launch their attacks. it OK for them to hide among civilians to launch their attacks. It's not their fault that the civilians they hide among are injured or killed by the defending combatants. It's the fault of those that were attacked by terrorist hiding behind the skirts of civilians. "And you seem so happy to look the other way when families die in a hail of machine gun fire at a checkpoint or when their house is blown away by JDAM. You seem to be claiming that is their own damn fault for living in the country that your criminal president/emperor chose to invade. America should stand for something more than barbarism." I’m not impressed by what you believe I “seem to” be thinking. Here’s what I DO think; When a foreign led band of terrorists decide its fine and dandy to endanger the populace by hiding among them in order to launch their attacks, knowing full well that by doing so they endanger those they hide among, it is simply wrong. When a foreign led band of terrorists purposefully launch attacks that are designed to kill non combatants, that is wrong. When a foreign led band of terrorists seeks destroy a freely elected government by hiding among civilians and launching attacks hoping that civilians will be killed in the crossfire, that is wrong. Try focusing on the guys who are causing this to happen

Off Topic
"Debating" over my enemy's rights ?
I may be intellectually handicapped, but not to that level to even take it under any form of consideration, ever, especially since my enemy is about to eliminate me (!) and he/she does not care any rights but to kill me (!) , not to mention my family, friends, relatives, associates, ect. at all cost.

Are you trying to explain that bandits deserve zero-rights ? and zero-rights factor should apply to their treatment ?
I truly admire your efforts. You are a brave man. Ulysses alike.
Good luck :-)

Never forget it, please :
- the Geneva Convention is right, and you are wrong :-)))
All the rights to bandits, in the name of "democracy".

[rmnunez]

I'm not sure the captives held in Guantanamo are entitled to POW status under the Geneva Conventions. In fact there are good reasons to figure they wouldn't be (that bit on the uniforms and insignia above), their lack of any clear chain of command or any recognizable rank, their targeting of civilians and their unclear relationship with the recognized belligerant their captors fought. I suspect the status of terrorist is incompatible with any protected persons covered by those Conventions, they are not civilians, displaced by war, they aren't some oppressed minority denied self-government or repressed.

It will be hard to make a strong case in defence of suspected terrorists.

[PatrickHenry]

Anybody who says "I despise Emperor Bush" can be a suspected terrorist. Can't prove you're not without a day in court...

[Apeman81]

"And you repeat your bad John Wayne immitation, ranting about insurgents "hiding behind women's skirts", blaming Iraqi civilians for getting in the way of US bullets, bombs, napalm and Willie Pete. How dare they get in the way of our occupation of their country! And your nonsense about a "foreign led" insurgency is a fanciful as your ludicrous statements that the Supreme Court "made NO statement about violation of the GA." But then you followers of King George are not particularly reality based, are you?"

Zarqawi was not an Iraqi National. He lead the "insurgents". Foreign lead applies.

Abu Ayyub al-Masri is not an Iraqi. Foreign lead. Open your eyes and live with it.

The only one blaming the Iraqi people here is you. I am blaming the "insurgents" who hide among them. You ignore facts for hyperbole. You seem unwilling to stick with the discussion.

Here's a question for you Rick. Who are the insurgents an what is the goal of their effors?

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Rainbow Off Topic "Debating" over my enemy's rights ? I may be intellectually handicapped, but not to that level to even take it under any form of consideration, ever, especially since my enemy is about to eliminate me (!) and he/she does not care any rights but to kill me (!) , not to mention my family, friends, relatives, associates, ect. at all cost. Are you trying to explain that bandits deserve zero-rights ? and zero-rights factor should apply to their treatment ? I truly admire your efforts. You are a brave man. Ulysses alike. Good luck :-) Never forget it, please : - the Geneva Convention is right, and you are wrong :-))) All the rights to bandits, in the name of "democracy".

Forgive me. I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

[rmnunez]

Apeman, are you saying Zarqawi and Al Masri are foreigners leading a band of Iraqi terrorists (or 'insurgents' if you prefer)?

On the Guantanamo detainee decision:

Hamdan's lawyer told the Court during oral arguments March that the commission system is unfair because it allows President Bush's military subordinates to determine who will act as judge and jury and also decide which crimes will be prosecuted. The Bush administration argued that the special military tribunals established by the president, which do not adhere to either standard US military procedure or the Geneva Conventions, can be used to prosecute suspected terrorists as war criminals. The government has said that Hamdan is not entitled to Geneva Convention protections because he was not part of a uniformed enemy. http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/uslatest/

The Court disagreed finding the Conventions do apply.

The Court expressly declared that it was not questioning the government's power to hold Salim Ahmed Hamdan "for the duration of active hostilities" to prevent harm to innocent civilians. But, it said, "in undertaking to try Hamdan and subject him to criminal punishment, the Executive is bound to comply with the Rule of Law that prevails in this jurisdiction."

So indefinite detention is okay, under the Supreme Court's interpretation.

The Court's conclusion, Breyer said, "ultimately rests upon a single ground: Congress has not issued the Executive a 'blank check.'...Indeed, Congress has denied the President the legislative auhority to create military commissions of the kind at issue here. Nothing prevents the President from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary."

But, as noted, getting Congress to produce such legislation is going to be hard in the middle of an election campaign.

The jurisdictional part of the decision interpreted the Detainee Treatment Act, passed by Congress late last year to curtail court authority to rule on Guantanamo cases. The Court interpreted that law as not applying to cases already pending. That would appear to preserve the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to proceed to decide other detainee challenges to their prolonged detention, just as the Supreme Court could proceed to decide the validity of the commissions to try those detainees who have been charged with war crimes. Ten such individuals have been charged. Hundreds of others not charged with any crime have pending challenges to their detention. http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletyp...cisions_5.html

[tipper 11]

Of course the Bush administration doesn't want any of these alleged terrorists to go before a regular judge! Court transcripts are available to the media and the public! We might actually hear what these guys have to say for themselves, and judging by Bush's desparation, it probably won't make him look to good even in the most brainwashed avid supporters eyes.

[tipper 11]

While we're on the subject of so called "terrorists" how did Al-Zarqawi end up dying with both his legs?
Emerging leader among terrorists
Zarqawi's web 'rivals bin Laden'
Talk about it
E-mail it
Print it
Contact us
XML RSS feed
Graphics
The terror network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

The terror network of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
May 13, 2004
Related Articles

More than work drew him to Iraq
Berg took risks around the world
May 13, 2004
Interactive
Maryland's FallenMaryland's Fallen
A look at those with local ties killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
• E-mail to a friend
You will need Macromedia Flash Player 7 to view.
In Depth

Battlefield medical technology
Sun special reports on the U.S. military's use of tourniquets and different types of bandages in combat zones

Prisoner abuse scandal
Full coverage of the investigation into alleged abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison.
Photos

Photo galleries
• U.S. troops killed
• Saddam Hussein captured
• Hussein sons (Warning: graphic images)
• Sun photos
• Sun front pages
• Iraq ID playing cards
• Saddam Hussein
• More photos
Related Articles
In remembrance: American service members killed in Iraq

In remembrance: American service members killed in Iraq
Multimedia
Audio/video
• Audio & video: Saddam Hussein captured
• Audio: Reporting in a war zone
• Multimedia archive
Photo Gallery
Sun front pages

Sun front pages
Background

• Facts & figures
• Saddam Hussein
• Leadership
• Military
• History
In Depth
Iraq coverage
Also see
Iraq
> Soldiers killed
> Photo galleries
> Sun front pages
> Multimedia
> Baghdad weather
> About Iraq
> Archive

By Scott Shane
Sun National Staff
Originally published May 13, 2004
He is a high school dropout but a graduate of Afghan terrorist camps and Jordanian prisons. He shares the religious fanaticism and sweeping goals of Osama bin Laden but has built a separate terror organization. He lost a leg to U.S. bombs in 2002 but has emerged as the hub of the terrorist network afflicting the American occupation of Iraq.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...iraq-headlines - 45k -

[MarsBarKid]

I am amazed at your reactions

Mine from Oz are that these guys are terrorists.


The fact that they still languish 4 years later is down to the greedy lawyers as usual all arguing for more fees by wanting to bring them under american justice etc.

To an ex soldier - these guys do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention.

they do not represent a nation and were not part of any nations army.

It a serious matter imho and not just for having a go at a President you all obviously dislike.

All terrorists should get the death penalty once it is proved they were a member of a terrorist gang.

Blimey after 9/11 are you still not convinced?

Londoners are after 7/7 and home grown Islamic terrorist blew up the Underground.

[PatrickHenry]

Sorry, Kid...no proof on any of the internees. They're victims of the US aggressor. If there was anything on them there wouldn't be anybody saying don't hang them. Liberty is a concept that applies to all men who haven't been proven to be wrongdoers.

Having a uniform in Iraq doesn't make you right...occupying nations on pretexts gets no approval from those who aren't blinded by the false flag terror boogeyman.

[Matt W]

Quote by: MarsBarKid I am amazed at your reactions Mine from Oz are that these guys are terrorists. The fact that they still languish 4 years later is down to the greedy lawyers as usual all arguing for more fees by wanting to bring them under american justice etc. To an ex soldier - these guys do NOT fall under the Geneva Convention. they do not represent a nation and were not part of any nations army. It a serious matter imho and not just for having a go at a President you all obviously dislike. All terrorists should get the death penalty once it is proved they were a member of a terrorist gang. Blimey after 9/11 are you still not convinced? Londoners are after 7/7 and home grown Islamic terrorist blew up the Underground.

You haven't been here long, have you? Everyone falls under the Geneva Conventions in one way or another.

As for Londoners, really? Got any proof, or just anecdotal evidence? Doesn't sound like the Londoners I know...

[RickSp]

Ape, most estimates place the number of foreign fighters in Iraq at between 3-5%. No estimate I have seen places them higher than 10%. You want to build you fantasy about a foreign fighter insurgency that is your problem.

Of course, the foreign fighter contingent does support the CIA's view that King George's illegal war is creating a training and recruiting ground for international terrorism. Nevertheless, the evidence says the insurgency is predominantly home grown. The Iraqi insurgency is a range of groups with varying goals united only by their opposition to the infidel occupation. And contrary to all the War Party blather, the longer we have stayed the stronger the insurgency has grown.

Once again Pogo is right.

[RickSp]

Quote by: MarsBarKid Blimey after 9/11 are you still not convinced?

I lived through 9/11 upclose and personal near Ground Zero. It made me angry. I am still angry. It just didn't rob me of my reason nor a committment to democracy or the rule of law. To fight terrorists, we should first stop acting like them.

[dreamer]

link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131662.stm .

But the president has made it clear that he will continue trying to find a way to try the detainees by military tribunal rather than releasing them, giving them courts martial or prosecuting them in the civilian court system.

well it looks like bush will carry on breaking international law.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: dreamer link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131662.stm . well it looks like bush will carry on breaking international law.

It's not about tribunals, or courts martial. bush just plain doesn't want them tried at all. He's delaying and delaying so he can keep them locked up without having to ever charge them or even show why they are in custody. If he puts them on trial, any kind of trial, he'll have to show some sort of evidence, which he desperately doesn't want to do.

[Boetie]

The reason Bush Jr lost the case is because he, Cheney and Gonzales are looking at the Magna Carta and not the United States Constitution.

Thomas Paine in his work "Common Sense" laid out what a joke the Magna Carta is, because as long as you have a King with unlimited powers you basically have nothing.

The Republican Party is also looking at the wrong document.

[RickSp]

Quote by: dreamer link. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5131662.stm . well it looks like bush will carry on breaking international law.

"If this were a dictatorship it would be a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

G.W. Bush

Bush - Just As Long As I'm The Dictator