Supreme Court Blocks Trials at Guantanamo

[rmnunez]

To qualify as a POW, captured individuals must fall into one of the enumerated categories in the Geneva Conventions, two of which are particularly relevant here; members of the armed forces and members of other militias or volunteer corps "belonging to a party to the conflict" so long as they fulfill certain additional conditions (having a distinct sign, carrying arms openly, a chain of command, compliance with the law of war). Terrorist suspects wouldn’t satisfy these conditions. Art. 44 of Protocol I expands the categories of possible POWs, but the US didn’t ratify it and it is not customary international law yet. Under Art. 5 of the Third Convention, in the event of "any doubt" as to whether an individual is entitled to POW status, that individual should be treated as a POW "until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal." The competency of the tribunal is entirely up to the captor. In this case the US established military tribunals to determine the status od detainees, but the US Supreme Court determined those tribunals, as applied, lacked competency.

Generally, individuals not qualifying for POW status under the Third Convention will qualify as "protected persons" so long as they meet the nationality requirement. Persons taking part in hostilities who do not qualify as lawful combatants will qualify for the protection of the Fourth Convention if they fall within the definition as "those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." In the course of judicial proceedings, protected persons who have been interned or are in occupied territory are entitled to the protection of Arts. 71 to 76 of the Fourth Convention. These rights include: the right to a regular trial; the right to counsel of the accused's choice, who must be able to visit the accused freely and be provided with the necessary facilities for preparing the defense; the right to call witnesses; the right to an interpreter and to request replacement of an interpreter; the right of appeal "provided for by the laws applied by the court"; the right to be visited by the delegates of the Protecting Power (a neutral appointed by a party) and the Red Cross (as allowed in Guantanamo); and the right to be detained and serve sentences in the occupied territory. Art. 75(4) requires that proceedings be conducted before an "impartial and regularly constituted court respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure." Those principles are deemed to include a range of procedural rights, such as provision of "all necessary rights and means of defence"; the right to be presumed innocent; freedom from compelled self-incrimination; and the right to be advised of remedies. Art. 75(4) also prohibits ex post facto application of criminal law and requires respect for the principle of non bis in idem.

A major problem arising in this case stems from the fact suspects are accused of a criminal conspiracy to perpetrate acts of terrorism prior to the initiation of hostilities as the 911 attacks took place before the US intervened in the war against international terrorism.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: 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.

Read for comprehension. I said the "insurgents" are foreign lead. You have not refuted that. Do you thus accept that?

If they stand against the "infidel occupation", why do they attack Iraqi Police and civilians? Why do they strive to disrupt the formation of the new government? Why do they purposefully put Iraqi civilians in danger?

Why, when the stated goal of the U.S. is to withdraw their forces as soon as the Iraqi government is capable of policing its own state do the insurgents do everything in their power to disrupt the satbilization of Iraq that will allow the U.S. forces to withdraw?

Their actions do no match your belief of their reason for existing. BTW, how did you come the conclusion concerning their goal?

[underbear1]

The fate of the current Gitmo detainees will take another few years to sort out, if they don't get wisked off to some Eastern European black prison.
The biggest issue from this ruling is Bush has to answer to at least one other branch of this government (Judiciary) and must consult with the other branch (Legislature) to find a solution to the detainees. The Constitution and international laws will dictate what Bush is allowed to do, and NOT DO..........not the whisperings of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales or Frist.
I don't breathe any easier, had Roberts not had to recuse himself the minority opinion would have been the majority opinion.It does give me a small amount of hope the Specter is serious about looking into Bush's excesses and secret policies.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Read for comprehension. I said the "insurgents" are foreign lead. You have not refuted that. Do you thus accept that? If they stand against the "infidel occupation", why do they attack Iraqi Police and civilians? Why do they strive to disrupt the formation of the new government? Why do they purposefully put Iraqi civilians in danger? Why, when the stated goal of the U.S. is to withdraw their forces as soon as the Iraqi government is capable of policing its own state do the insurgents do everything in their power to disrupt the satbilization of Iraq that will allow the U.S. forces to withdraw? Their actions do no match your belief of their reason for existing. BTW, how did you come the conclusion concerning their goal?

If you want to provide evidence that Zarkawi was leading the insurgency, then do so. All evidence was that at the time of his death Zarkawai was losing support from the rest of the insurgency for his targeting of civilians. Even the US military says as much. from the American Forces Press Service: Iraqi Insurgents Now Battling Al Qaeda Terrorists

The al Qaeda in Iraq network has lost scores of key leaders as the result of anti-terrorist operations and now it's being attacked by Iraqi insurgents, a senior U.S. military officer told reporters at a Baghdad news conference today.

If you want to pick a group of Iraqis that are "foreign led," the current puppet government might fit the bill. And your inability to understand why the insurgency would attack the military and police, which notionally support the occupation, ranks right up there with your suggestion that guerillas should wear uniforms and take the field to be slaughtered. The rationale for the first and the foolishness of the second seem obvious to me.

[RickSp]

Quote by: underbear1 I don't breathe any easier, had Roberts not had to recuse himself the minority opinion would have been the majority opinion.It does give me a small amount of hope the Specter is serious about looking into Bush's excesses and secret policies.

The opinion was five to three. If Roberts had not recused himself the vote would have been five to four. A split decision but still a majority opinion.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: RickSp If you want to provide evidence that Zarkawi was leading the insurgency, then do so. All evidence was that at the time of his death Zarkawai was losing support from the rest of the insurgency for his targeting of civilians. Even the US military says as much. from the American Forces Press Service: Iraqi Insurgents Now Battling Al Qaeda Terrorists If you want to pick group of Iraqis that are "foreign led," the current puppet government might fit the bill. And your inability to understand why the insurgency would attack the military and police, which notionally support the occupation, ranks right up there with your suggestion that guerillas should wear uniforms and take the field to be slaughtered. The rationale for the first and the foolishness of the second seem obvious to me.

Yadda yadda yadda. Answer the questions.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Apeman81 Yadda yadda yadda. Answer the questions.

I did. As you noted before - read for comprehension.

You go off on your rants about insurgents hiding behind women's skirts as if blending in with civilians is not exactly how guerilla wars are fought. Duh. Then you claim that the insurgency is foreign led, which it clearly is not, except in simplistic right wing fantasies.

What question didn't I answer? Are you questioning my suggestion that the insurgency is made up of disparate groups united in their opposuition to the US occupation? I guess since you consider all members of the insurgency to be craven terrorist monsters you don't bother to learn anything about them. Is that it?
Who are the insurgents in Iraq?

Diverse groups have been drawn into the ranks of Iraq's insurgency, with little in common beyond a commitment to attack US forces or their perceived allies.

Obviously, the Mahdi Army has different goals and interests from the Baathists, the Nationalists or the Islamists. The one thing they all agree on is their opposition to the US occupation.

Iraqi insurgency

The Iraqi insurgency is composed of at least a dozen major guerilla organizations and perhaps as many as 40 distinct groups. These groups are subdivided into countless smaller cells. Due to its clandestine nature, the exact composition of the Iraqi insurgency is difficult to determine. Because most of these insurgents are civilians fighting against an organized domestic army and a foreign occupying army, many consider them to be guerrillas

[rmnunez]

If we suspended reality to consider things exactly as the critical lefties would have us believe, then OBL would be working for the CIA, no foreign terrorists would be involved in Iraq and whatever problems the US associates with international terrorism would easily be resolved by that country withdrawing any presence or influence from wherever the alleged terrorists want.

There are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, most adhere to OBL's views and are more or less associated with Al Qaeda which has shown in many attacks to be quite dangerous. Conforming US foreign policy to demands from people like these would also be very dangerous as it would likely suggest to everyone that terrorist demands needed to be accomodated and encourage terrorists to make more demands to the degree they found some satisfaction.

[rmnunez]

On how the Supreme Court Guantanamo decision is seen:

Democrats see the Supreme Court's Guantanamo ruling as repudiation of a power-hungry White House. Republicans say it shows how tough Bush is on terrorists and voters will eat it up. Both parties face a contentious political debate over the decision declaring military tribunals illegal as they look to capitalize on a national security issue ahead of crucial congressional elections in November. http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/guantanamo_detainees

How do you see the Supreme Court ruling?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez If we suspended reality to consider things exactly as the critical lefties would have us believe, then OBL would be working for the CIA, no foreign terrorists would be involved in Iraq and whatever problems the US associates with international terrorism would easily be resolved by that country withdrawing any presence or influence from wherever the alleged terrorists want.

Don't you ever catch on?? Are you so enamored of your moronic "critical lefties" phrase that you try to insert it wherever you can?? Not everyone that objects to bush's actions in the "war on terrorism" is a "critical lefty". Or are you implying that only "lefties" are wrong when they criticize bush, and "critical moderates" and "critical righties" are ok when they do it? And why do you continue to imply that our only choices of action are either to go to war, or "withdraw any presence"??

Quote by: rmnunez There are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, most adhere to OBL's views and are more or less associated with Al Qaeda which has shown in many attacks to be quite dangerous. Conforming US foreign policy to demands from people like these would also be very dangerous as it would likely suggest to everyone that terrorist demands needed to be accomodated and encourage terrorists to make more demands to the degree they found some satisfaction.

Again, why are the only choices you present either to comform U.S. foreign policy to terrorist demands, or invade Iraq?

[Rainbow]

Quote by: Apeman81 Forgive me. I cannot understand what you are trying to say.

(The originally submitted post by Rainbow - myself.)

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".

The de-coded transcript goes as (it) follows :

Why are you trying to explain to RickSp (and alike) the basics for common sense ?
You are wasting your time. Nothing goes through.
The Geneva Convention and rights for U.S. enemies, seem to be more important issue than anything else, for RickSp and alike.

The Geneva Convention is good on a paper and it should stay there (forever), unless some individuals have a desire to pauperize their grey-cells.
U.S. enemies deserve neither rights nor mercy.

[Apeman81]

Quote by: Rainbow (The originally submitted post by Rainbow - myself.) The de-coded transcript goes as (it) follows : Why are you trying to explain to RickSp (and alike) the basics for common sense ? You are wasting your time. Nothing goes through. The Geneva Convention and rights for U.S. enemies, seem to be more important issue than anything else, for RickSp and alike. The Geneva Convention is good on a paper and it should stay there (forever), unless some individuals have a desire to pauperize their grey-cells. U.S. enemies deserve neither rights nor mercy.

Thanks for the explanation.

Basic agreement ensues.

However, any enemy, once neutralized as a danger, reverts to a person. No matter how warped. No matter how evil. Punish them according to their actions, but don't degrade yourself getting there.

[rmnunez]

why do you continue to imply that our only choices of action are either to go to war, or "withdraw any presence"??

Because going to war is Bush's choice and withdraw any presence is the demand from the terrorists.

Again, why are the only choices you present either to comform U.S. foreign policy to terrorist demands, or invade Iraq?

Conforming US policy is what the terrorists demand, do you think they would consider something else? Invading Iraq was Bush's decision, I suspect any decision by Bush would be criticised (especially by a critical lefty) and I doubt invading someplace else would be okay to one of those either. Is it suggested some different use of force would be acceptable to a critical lefty?

I think it would be ideal if the military could sweep in to the Himalayan foothills and erradicate each of these terrorists, their entire command structure and every memory of them, but I realize the location presents topographical challenges, is disputed by at least 4 countries and its likely very hard to distinguish without uniform, rank or insignia, whether any of the people they came across were part of Al Qaeda. Presuming Al Qaeda could be all caught in the same place seems foolish too as we know they have cells in places as far apart as Indonesia and Germany, so the problem wouldn't be resolved even if the US invaded the no-man's land between Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and China.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: rmnunez Because going to war is Bush's choice and withdraw any presence is the demand from the terrorists.

Unless the U.S. is willing to maintain a very large military presence for many years to come in Iraq, taking random casualties all the while, a negotiated political settlement is the only thing that will end this "war" The "freely elected" Iraqi government has already been making overtures to the insurgents, and if we don't get onboard soon, they may just decide they don't need us at all, and kick us out. So it seems that some sort of withdrawal is coming, like it or not.

Quote by: rmnunez Conforming US policy is what the terrorists demand, do you think they would consider something else? Invading Iraq was Bush's decision, I suspect any decision by Bush would be criticised (especially by a critical lefty) and I doubt invading someplace else would be okay to one of those either. Is it suggested some different use of force would be acceptable to a critical lefty?

Sure, let's invade somewhere else! It's worked so well in Iraq, hasn't it?? The 9/11 hijackers must truly be in heaven, they've succeeded in damaging the U.S. far beyond their wildest dreams.

Quote by: rmnunez Presuming Al Qaeda could be all caught in the same place seems foolish too as we know they have cells in places as far apart as Indonesia and Germany, so the problem wouldn't be resolved even if the US invaded the no-man's land between Pakistan, Afghanistan, India and China.

No man's land? What makes you think that's what it is? Just because the U.S. isn't welcome there?

[rmnunez]

Within "Jammu & Kashmir" at least China, India and Pakistan all have territorial claims and the UN has deployed peacekeeping forces along agreed lines of demarcation since about 1948 (their longest peacekeeping mission). Note also how Afghanistan also has a long border along the north of the highlighted area (where the famous Khyber Pass is found).