It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 11:45 AM
link   
What I would like to know is were do all these special interest groups get the right to demand that those captured during a conflict have the right to a trial?

I do not recall seeing anything in the Genva convention that states POWs have a right to be given a trial after they have been captured, or did I miss that part


Sad as it is we would not be in a situation where SCOTUS had to make even discuss the issue if it were not for special interest groups


[edit on 6/30/2006 by shots]




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
What I would like to know is were do all these special interest groups get the right to demand that those captured during a conflict have the right to a trial?



I thought we were there to spread democracy and freedom to the heathens and free them and ourselves from the threat of terrorism? Oh wait that was just a cover story. My bad. You may continue. Sorry for the interruption.




posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
"I do not recall seeing anything in the Genva convention that states POWs have a right to be given a trial after they have been captured, or did I miss that part"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

what? do your think that they are captured combatants that fall under the geneva convention??? they arent, at least according to those with the power...

they're not criminals either....so not entitled to a trial...

more than likely none of these guys have committed any crime on US soil anyways, so well, we wouldn't have jurisdiction to try them for anything here.

I suspose we could send them all to the country in which the crime was committed, and they could stand trial there, and recieve their reward, or I mean punishment there. but well......
they might be executed!!!(fat chance!!)

but well, there has to be some defined way set down by our government to deal with them, decide what their crime is, evaluate the evidence against them, and allow them to defend themselves in a legal manner. bush just can't make up the rules as the game is played out.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
what? do your think that they are captured combatants that fall under the geneva convention???


No I do not think they fall under the Geneva convention, yet I do believe they should be treated according to the convention.

My question was what gives special interest groups the right to demand they receive a trial? any other soldier that is captured are never afforded a trial they always remain in captivity until the conflict is over and I would like to know what makes them so special?



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 07:50 PM
link   
What made our boys in Vietnam special that we were wearing bracelets with their names and id #'s on them when they were being held in POW camps, Yellow ribbons around trees when hostages were being held in Iran. Its not thinking they are special, just the idea that they are being held and for long periods of time in seclusion. We should either deduce if in fact they are combatants since many people are aledging they are in fact not and figure out which ones are guilty and which ones are innocent. How many plans have there been in the past to go and rescue loved ones from POW camps in ASIA that were held for years and years. Solitary confinement on an Island thousands of miles away from their homes, and some of them not even adults. Nothing to do with "special". We are Americans and have always expected fair treatment and we should be doing so without anyone goading, threatening, suing or critisizing us about it.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 08:23 PM
link   
maybe it's more that right now, they seem to fall under no rules, laws, or conventions, thus putting them in a kind of legal limbo.

we chose to twist and turn around the geneva convention to exempt them from it, and well this is the result, if their not falling under the convention, just what are they falling under, civilian law, which would bring in the trials, which, I'm sorry, we don't have jurisdiction I dont think to try them for crimes they committed in another country. the international courts do, but then we tend to shun those, don't we....

we could have avoided alot of this headache with we just held t hem under the convention, wouldn't we have.......

but then, we'd have to grant them the protections of such...

which, for some reason, known only to the bush administration, we chose not to do.

probably because he wanted to torture them...lol...

but of course.....it's all the libs faulth now that the supreme court stepped on Bush's toes!!



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:05 PM
link   
I dont condone human rights abuses. But when it comes to Guantanamo Bay I have sympathy for the Bush admin in this case many people have lost all perspective.
The people being held behind bars dont have western values. Think of it this way the wack jobs that have been captured arent German or allied POW from WW2 we can expect far worse then forging documents and stealing a means of transport. If to much lee way is given to these islamic nut jobs we would see mass suicides and escapes. Now if that happend can you imagn peoples reaction ?

As for Guantanamo Bay being in Cuba who would want that kind of prison in there backyard ?
If Guantanamo Bay is relocated to the USA people will scream blue murder when its there backyard that will be affected.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The War on Terror ISNT A Real War

By no stretch of the definition is the so called War on Terror an actual war. The War on Drugs was never used as a pretext to invoke war time powers, was that a real war too? The War on Terror is a fancy name designed to fight a criminal problem with a sidetrack of invading countries to settle old scores and secure oil and gas supplies for the United States.

The people detained in Gitmo cant be held until the end of hostilities because there is no friggen hostilities to begin with! When will the hostilities end? When a terrorist leader signs an armistice or peace treaty with the United States pledging the end of terrorism? Are you freakin insane? Terrorism is a methodology, not a nation state that can capitulate. You may as well expand the war to be the War on Evil.

I just hope some of you guys claiming this as a legitimate war are hauled off to indefinate detention, without trial or right to redress. Then you'll see how bogus and contrary to our ideals this sham of a conflict truly is. FYI, there is nothing stopping you being labelled a terrorist. The majority of the people in Gitmo were handed over to the US by Afghanis for the bounty. They were'nt combatants at all. Hence only 3 or 4 trials out of hundreds detained.


Originally posted by Astronomer70
Even if they come up with a cure we won't get to use it because of the illegal method in which it was obtained--it will be deemed inadmissible in hospitals.

Thanks for that, I had a good chuckle over your continuation of my parody



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I just read a news article this morning talking about this issue--here is the link:

portal.grandecom.net...



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The War on Terror ISNT A Real War
Terrorism is a methodology, not a nation state that can capitulate. You may as well expand the war to be the War on Evil.


Hear, hear!

It is a war on evil, haven't you been paying attention to Bush's speeches?


Seriously, the war on evil (and by proxy the war on terror) can only be won if there are video cameras in every home and microchips in every arm. But then you'd have to ask yourself: which is the greater evil, terrorism or totalitarianism? And should we in the fight against evil become evil ourselves? Or have we already?

That also brings you to the question of what exactly is evil? Are public school teachers evil for teaching Darwinism? Are those Americans who disapprove of George Bush evil for not supporting a leader who is "saved" and talks to God on a daily basis? Is Dan Brown evil for presenting an alternative to the obviously infallible word of God?

Is the supreme court evil for, as some would say, "siding with the terrorists?"

Anyways, I'm glad somebody pointed this out. You've got one of my WATS votes for this month.


[edit on 4-7-2006 by ShakyaHeir]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShakyaHeir
Anyways, I'm glad somebody pointed this out. You've got one of my WATS votes for this month.

Thanks for the WATS vote


I agree with what you posted. This ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door for Bush to be charged with war crimes as outlined by the United States when going after Nazis at Nuremburg. Talk about irony.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
The War on Terror ISNT A Real War

Well, perhaps you could ask them nicely to join the UN and wear official uniforms the next time they decide to fly planes into our buildings or bomb your subways. That way, we can call it an "official" war.



The people detained in Gitmo cant be held until the end of hostilities because there is no friggen hostilities to begin with!

Yes, of course. The 3,000 that lost their lives on 9/11 were victims of poor piloting.:shk:



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
so, who is it that attacked us on 9/11, which country, or countries? wars traditional are fought between countries aren't they?

but not this war, we retaliated on Afghanistan, and Iraq, neither of them, definately not Afghanistan, had the ability to launch an offensive against us.

Many of the hijackers...remember that word...I'll get back to it.....were citizens of which country...Afghanistan, Iraq?? naa....they were Saudis, and well, we still seem to be buddy buddy with the Saudis!! it seems funny that this war we fight, in retaliation of 9/11, we don't bring in the nation that these hijackers sprang from, doesn't it?? not to mention that the Saudis are probably on the top ten suppliers of $$$ for terrorist activities.

ummm.....

just what were the offense of these hijackers on 9/11?? conspiracy to commit murder, theft and destruction on our airplanes, hijacking??? ummm....don't we have laws against all of these things, and aren't they usually acknowledged as being illegal in most of the world? war is bombs, machine guns, people in uniforms runnning around planning on how to best kill others wearing different uniforms. they don't hide their identity, and kill themselves in an attempt to kill a few hundred or so civilian nobodys --- not saying that the victims of 9/11 were nobodys to those who knew them, but they really didn't have much strategic value when it comes to playing war!! now a 4 star general, or a senator, or hey a pr esident!!! there would be value there!! these guys weren't fighting a war, not in our sense of the word!!

what they did do was break a few laws, they conspired, with others here on american soil to commit murder. they broke this law, and those they conspired with should face the legal remanifications of this, in a court. those who they conspired with who were not in this country, should have been surrendered either to us, or to the international courts to face the charges, they committed premeditated murder, they hijacked our airlines, they should face charges, if they are alive...but well, tell me something, there are kids in gitmo, or at least they were kids when they were taken there, 15 or 16 years old. they are just talibani footsoldiers, very likely that was forced upon them. just how much do you think they participated in the conspiring to bring down the world trade towers?? you sure they even knew what the heck they were??

and of course, while they sit in gitmo, the main plotter in the 9/11 incident is still no where to be found, unless of course he happens to pop up on video somewhere.

and, I still don't see where Iraq, or saddam had any part in this conspiracy!! but, any excuse will do to get us into a war, especially if it gives the current president such extreme powers as this one claims it does!!

but well, whatever you want to call this conflict, it seems that is gonna last quite awhile. if they aren't prisoners of war, and they aren't criminals, just what are they? where do they fall within our various legal systems? what rights do they deserve, what rights don't they deserve? and well, I am sorry, but the answers of these questions will serve to either enchance america's image within the world, to destroy it. the answer should be made within all the branches of government, working the way this government was designed to work, and not be just the decision of Bush and company! we will all pay or be rewarded by these decisions that must be made! it's our image that is at risk.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I agree with what you posted. This ruling by the Supreme Court has opened the door for Bush to be charged with war crimes as outlined by the United States when going after Nazis at Nuremburg.


No their ruling did no such thing. All SCOTUS did was say the decision for how to try them was not Bushes to make, it should have been left up to congress and the senate. that is why they are both working out new rules on how to try them and it will be by either military courts marshal or military tribunal.

In order for your suggested scenario to work, they would have had to have ruled they were being held/detained illegally and as we know that was not the case in fact they ruled they could be held/detained.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 01:40 PM
link   
I just noticed that the link I provided in my last post does not work anymore. I don't know how to retrieve the article in question; however, here is a link to the actual SCOTUS decision:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

I'm not a lawyer or anything even remotely resembling a legal expert, but as I read the decision, SCOTUS said that Hamdan (and by extension the others being held in GITMO) must be treated in accordance with the laws of war, specifically the 3rd Geneva Convention, unless specifically found to not be prisoners of war. They delve into the fact that the War On Terror is not between signatory parties (i.e., between nations) but dismiss the argument as not pertinent, stating that the same rules apply anyway.

What the article I posted yesterday contained was speculation by two congressmen that since the prisoners in GITMO have not been, and are not being, treated in accordance with the 3rd Geneva Convention, that opens up the possibility that President Bush is himself violating the laws of war and could at some future date be found to be a war criminal.

[edit on 4-7-2006 by Astronomer70]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astronomer70

I'm not a lawyer or anything even remotely resembling a legal expert, but as I read the decision, SCOTUS said that Hamdan (and by extension the others being held in GITMO) must be treated in accordance with the laws of war, specifically the 3rd Geneva Convention, unless specifically found to not be prisoners of war. They delve into the fact that the War On Terror is not between signatory parties (i.e., between nations) but dismiss the argument as not pertinent, stating that the same rules apply anyway.



I do not see how any of them can fall under the Geneva conventions, because they do not follow the rules or meet the requirements.


Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; very doubtful that anyone would claim they are responsible for these so called freedom fighters.

(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; No they do not wear any identifiers.

(c) That of carrying arms openly; Most don't

(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. Nope they are not conducting operations with the laws and customs they kill innocents with hidden bombs in cars on on ones person

Geneva Convention Article 4


Like astronomer70, I too am no expert but that is my opinion. Emphasis is mine.

[edit on 7/4/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
so, who is it that attacked us on 9/11, which country, or countries? wars traditional are fought between countries aren't they?

Not necessarily.

war ( P ) Pronunciation Key (w?BR> n.

A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
dictionary.reference.com...



but not this war, we retaliated on Afghanistan, and Iraq, neither of them, definately not Afghanistan, had the ability to launch an offensive against us.

Afghanistan harbored the person who orchestrated the attack on the US. We gave the Taliban the chance to turn him over. They refused.


Many of the hijackers...remember that word...I'll get back to it.....were citizens of which country...Afghanistan, Iraq?? naa....they were Saudis, and well, we still seem to be buddy buddy with the Saudis!! it seems funny that this war we fight, in retaliation of 9/11, we don't bring in the nation that these hijackers sprang from, doesn't it?? not to mention that the Saudis are probably on the top ten suppliers of $$$ for terrorist activities.

bin Laden is persona non grata in Saudi Arabia. Why would we attack them, unless they harbored him? We did not attack Jordan in order to get Zarqawi.


just what were the offense of these hijackers on 9/11?? conspiracy to commit murder, theft and destruction on our airplanes, hijacking??? ummm....don't we have laws against all of these things, and aren't they usually acknowledged as being illegal in most of the world? war is bombs, machine guns, people in uniforms runnning around planning on how to best kill others wearing different uniforms.

Fuel-laden commercial airliners have been used as bombs, as we learned only too well.


but they really didn't have much strategic value when it comes to playing war!!

Welcome to the world of terrorism. Soft targets are used to instill fear and, well, "terror".


these guys weren't fighting a war, not in our sense of the word!!

Not in the traditional textbook sense of the word, but times have changed.


what they did do was break a few laws, they conspired, with others here on american soil to commit murder. they broke this law, and those they conspired with should face the legal remanifications of this, in a court. those who they conspired with who were not in this country, should have been surrendered either to us, or to the international courts to face the charges, they committed premeditated murder, they hijacked our airlines, they should face charges, if they are alive...

Well, let's just issue a few summons and subpoenas to them to appear in court and answer the simple "criminal" charges, right?



and of course, while they sit in gitmo, the main plotter in the 9/11 incident is still no where to be found, unless of course he happens to pop up on video somewhere.

Blame Musharraf for not allowing us full access to Pakistan.


if they aren't prisoners of war, and they aren't criminals, just what are they?

Murderers. Terrorists. Enemy combatants who struck at American soil.


where do they fall within our various legal systems?

Just because there is no cookbook telling us how to deal with this type of attack doesn't mean that we should wring our hands in despair. We will hunt them down and terminate them. There is no other viable option.


what rights do they deserve

The same rights they afforded the 3,000 innocents that they murdered on 9/11.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well, perhaps you could ask them nicely to join the UN and wear official uniforms the next time they decide to fly planes into our buildings or bomb your subways. That way, we can call it an "official" war.

Would you like all criminals to join the UN and wear official uniforms as well? Why are murderers, rapist, burgulars, conmen etc not treated this way? Why is there no War on Murderers? They kill more people than terrorists ever will, why the skewed priorities? Why not detain all suspected criminals in this fashion?


Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, of course. The 3,000 that lost their lives on 9/11 were victims of poor piloting.:shk:

Whats that got to do with the treatment of human rights? A murderer is given access to a lawyer and the courts. Hell even a pedophile is given those basic rights. What makes suspected terrorists any different? Are you saying their crime is worse than any other?

If you can pretend to justify denying human rights you have no soul. You also cannot criticise China or Russia or any nation for their human rights abuses. They all can be explained using your faulty and souless logic. This is wrong, no ifs or buts.



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 03:03 PM
link   
The same rights they afforded the 3,000 innocents that they murdered on 9/11


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

then strap a bomb on them and leave them in the desert somewhere alone waiting to blow up!!!



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Would you like all criminals to join the UN and wear official uniforms as well?

You may try all you want to classify them as mere criminals, but it won't work. They attacked our soil; that is an act of war. Play word games all you want if that's all you got.


Originally posted by jsobecky
Yes, of course. The 3,000 that lost their lives on 9/11 were victims of poor piloting.:shk:


Whats that got to do with the treatment of human rights?

Typical. You're so worried about the human rights of the terrorists.


A murderer is given access to a lawyer and the courts.

They lost those rights when they launched an act of war on our soil. They cannot be classified as soldiers under the GA, so they are enemy combatants. They lost a lot of privileges when they did that.


Hell even a pedophile is given those basic rights. What makes suspected terrorists any different? Are you saying their crime is worse than any other?

Yes I am. They struck our citizens and murdered 3,000 of them. To you, that's nothing more than a violation of some penal code. To me, it's a lot more.


If you can pretend to justify denying human rights you have no soul.

No, the true soul-less are those who coddle murderers to make sure that their feelings are not hurt. Those who forget that the basic human right - the right to life - was torn away from 3,000 victims.

I have no use for apologists and sympathizers.



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join