US court rebukes Bush on Guantanamo detentions

[khazadman]

yet one more reason to impeach the judges on the 9th circus.

[John D Harris]

TL, IIRC there is legal pressident(sp?) for declaring war on non country entities, Barbary Pirates 1804 or so. President Jefferson asked Congress to declare war on them, and did so.

Now If I were President I'd tell the 9th ciruit and the supremes to "Bite Me" and show me where the US Constitution gives them the authority to decide what and how the military can handle prisoners of war. And I'll show them the article that clearly states the president is the Commander in Chief ie: Head idiot what are in charge of the US Military. Until such time I'd refuse to recognize their authortiy in this matter. The supremes can't do squat, Congress can Impeach , the military can cuop, or the citizens can have an armed uprising in order to remove a sitting President.

Now the supremes may be able to show me a treaty that states the Red Cross, it's equivalent, or representative of the country that the POW's fought for can have access to them. BUT there is the "fly in the onitment" what country are they fighting for? Does that country even want to send representatives to see them?

[the new JR Jansen]

Originally posted by John D Harris: Now If I were President I'd tell the 9th ciruit and the supremes to "Bite Me" and show me where the US Constitution gives them the authority to decide what and how the military can handle prisoners of war.

Now that's the entire point isn't it ?

Those people at Guantanamo are not prisoners of war. The US gouvernment has given them an entire new and thought up status to keep them in legal limbo. If they were prisoners of war they would have had certain rights under the Geneva convention. If they aren't then they should be treated as criminals and given a trial in either the US or their country of origin. The US is doing neither.

[John D Harris]

POW's do not have the right to a lawyer, period end of discussion on that matter. No where has anybody been able to show theses prisoners of war have NOT been treated in accordance to the GC. So they are not criminals but POW's and fall under the jurisdiction of the military. Weither those facts are liked or agreed with is of zero importance. Again these prisoners of war are being treated in accordance to the GC so the entire agruement that they are NOT, is false and based on a lie, and anything that comes from said arguement is also false.

People may believe what they want I don't care, personally I'm enjoying my jousting retirement and love watching the windmill spin with each gust of wind or change in breeze.

[ 12-20-2003, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: John D Harris ]

[Pikachu_PM]

Originally posted by John D Harris: POW's do not have the right to a lawyer, period end of discussion on that matter. No where has anybody been able to show theses prisoners of war have NOT been treated in accordance to the GC. So they are not criminals but POW's and fall under the jurisdiction of the military. Weither those facts are liked or agreed with is of zero importance. Again these prisoners of war are being treated in accordance to the GC so the entire agruement that they are NOT, is false and based on a lie, and anything that comes from said arguement is also false. People may believe what they want I don't care, personally I'm enjoying my jousting retirement and love watching the windmill spin with each gust of wind or change in breeze.

They are NOT POW's. And there are reasons why they have not been labled as such. A POW is fighting citizen of a country or some other Governmental entity that is captured when a country goes to war. When the war is over, through treaty or conquest, the POW's go home. The realistic expection is that the fighting citizen no longer fights.

By labeling them POW's you come upon several problems:

1. There is no 'Government body' to negotiate with and so there is no end in sight or a way to truly conclude that the "War is over" The fight against terrorism will unlikely end in our life time.

2. Upon release, the POW's will likely plan future attacks, regarldess on whether we do find some body politic to negotiate with.

3. The POW's are apparantly NOT being treated according to the Geneva Convention..to lable them POW"s would open us up to problems with international law. Torture, in any way is, forbidden...be it beating a POW or denying food and water. I'm not sure on the former, but I know we are doing the latter. There are certain rules of interogation...we are not following them. POW's have many rights under the GC from Red Cross inspections to general living conditions.

But then comes the other problem...they are also NOT just simple criminals. They are not some small cult that can be captured, questioned, and put on trial. There are issues of National Security at stake, not to mention the fact that trusting our Court system to not let a guy charged with planning a nuclear attack off because of "Reasonable doubt" is a bit much to handle. More to the point, it IS a war.

I have put much thought into this, and have fallen a bit to the right on the matter...this situation is quite the conundrum, and I question anybody who argues black or white on this issue. There is no simple answer here...the terrorist are what they are...and what ever it is it's not a POW or Criminal.

Hence the reason I now agree (i use not to)with the new labeling. What I DON'T agree with is that the administration has used the new label to essential deny them ANY rights WHATSOVER. I"m not saying a guy planning to nuke us should have many rights, I'm talking for the guy locked up over there who didn't do anything wrong--and I'm sure there's a few of them.

I'm not sure what the process *should* be, I'm just frightened to all hell that there IS no process at all.

[Davros]

I don't see it as an unreasonable expectation to get the lawyers appointed and the trials happening. There has been too much sitting with hands on arses with this "non-combatant" mumbo jumbo. If they are guilty lets get them convicted and sentenced. If there is not enough that can be pinned on them, deport them back to country of origin. If more time is needed, put some reasonable limits (say up to another 18 months) on it to get the process moving.

I don't think anything much will happen in a hurry because no one has been told when this homework is due in by.

[khazadman]

I'm all for trying them. But in front of a military court, with military lawyers. If FDR could do it, so can Bush.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by John D Harris: POW's do not have the right to a lawyer, period end of discussion on that matter.

THat's your opinion and not the law. Period end of discussion on that matter.

So they are not criminals but POW's and fall under the jurisdiction of the military.

Of course. Which beqgs the question as to why Bush ranks them as neither POW's or foreign citizens, but rather "enemy combatants" a new category which never existed. It's like us saying "POWs have certain rights, and foreign citizens have different rights -- which one are these Mr. Rummie?"

Rummie: "Aha! I have you there, these people are neither POW's or foreign citizens, but rather WIGEMUFFINS, and as we all know, WIGEMUFFINS have not rights." Replace WIGEMUFFIN with ENEMY COMBATANT, and this is EXACTLY what has happened.

Again these prisoners of war are being treated in accordance to the GC so the entire agruement that they are NOT, is false and based on a lie

Well, since no one has access to them, we don't know this now do we. All we have is Bush and Rummie's word on the matter. Both of whom has said the GC DOES NOT APPLY. So, tell me again where they have said they're being treated in accordance with the GC? You know, even if they did say so, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson taught me to mistrust my government, and it was a good lesson. I try to keep it in mind.

People may believe what they want I don't care, personally I'm enjoying my jousting retirement and love watching the windmill spin with each gust of wind or change in breeze.

Well, I'd say you're trying to make a brief exodus out of retirement, wouldn't you agree?

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, I'd say you're trying to make a brief exodus out of retirement, wouldn't you agree? [/QB]

Naa TL, I only joust with Dragons now, I read some NASTY rumors that Your Right wing had been getting to much exersize lately. So, I decided to make a quick run through your treasure horde, and kick around some of your gold pieces. Get you to breath fire and use that left wing, we don't want it atrophying (sp?)

[Davros]

JD my ggod man - that last post made me laugh loudly. Merry Xmas to you and yours you crusty old coot - great to see you out of retirement and jousting again [img]smile.gif[/img]