US Supreme Court Blocks Guantanamo Bay Military Tribunals

I'm getting a little tired of your snide remarks, Howlrunner. If you can't discuss a topic without resorting to them, I suggest you stay out of the discussion.

Originally posted by intrepid
Why are detainees not gaurunteed the right of the Geneva convention?

What rights other then the right to be treated to humanely are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention?

Better yet show me where in the GC it states anyone detained during time of conflict/war has a right to a speedy trial.



[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
That is a metter of personal opinion.

No its not, its a matter of legal definition. Do you believe the War on Terror is a war in the legal sense? If you do then the people detained in Guantanamo are entitled to protection under the Geneva conventions. Conversely if there is no legal combatants for the United States to fight against, how is it a war? Who are the fighting against aside from criminals? Criminals that should be arrested and dealt with by police and civil courts.

Originally posted by shots
I happen to think that it could have an end if enough people stand up against it. And no the conflict has not come to pass it is still on going in both countries therefore it is legal to detain anyone that is being held until ALL fighting ends.

How is that even possible? It's safe to say that the vast majority of people do not agree with terrorism. But how has that stopped terrorism? Just look at 7/7 in Britain. Those were British homegrown terrorists. How did the fact that 99.99% of Britains not wanting other Britons blown up stop them from carrying out their terror attack? How is terrorism ever going to be prevented in this way?

Originally posted by shots
As for rummey lets leave him out of this, I do not want this to turn into politics that is a no no in case you have not read it.

No lets not leave him out of this, it has every bearing on this topic. Politics is allowed so long as its on topic and not political baiting. I dont care what political opinion you have and its not relevant to this topic. If I brought up your political opinion then you would be right in citing it as a no-no.

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by HowlrunnerIV
You declared those held without charge for the last 4 years were terrorists, where is your proof? You declared them "illegal combatants", what about their combat was illegal?

If you don't know the answers to such simple questions, you are way too far behind in class.

If you can't answer such simple questions you'd better step out of the room.

What about Afghanis defending their homeland against an aggressor is "illegal" combat?

What makes Afghanis defending Afghanistan against US invasion any different to the French Maquis who we laud as heroes of the resistance to German occupation?

Why are they terrorists, when the Brits, and Americans, who went to the aid of the Republicans in Spain are heroes?

What, pray tell, makes them different to the Mujahideen we celebrated for their victory over the Soviets?

Why is it acceptable for the US to refuse to recognise the ICC, which is based solely on the Geneva Convention, but acceptable to detain foreign citizens in their own country, deport them from their own country and threaten to put them on trial for alleged crimes committed during a "war"?

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'm getting a little tired of your snide remarks, Howlrunner. If you can't discuss a topic without resorting to them, I suggest you stay out of the discussion.

Originally posted by jsobeckyIf you don't know the answers to such simple questions, you are way too far behind in class.

*ringing tone...ringing tone* "Hello?"

"Hi, Kettle, it's me, Pot. Guess what? You've got melanin in your skin!"

If you don't like being called on your statements, don't make them.

Tell us, how was the USSR invading Afghanistan different to the US and allies invading Afghanistan?

Originally posted by subz

Do you believe the War on Terror is a war in the legal sense? If you do then the people detained in Guantanamo are entitled to protection under the Geneva conventions.

Yes I do believe it is a war in the legal sense congress and the senate agreed or did you miss those news accounts? As for those still detained at GITMO they are not entitled to anything other then humane treatment under the GC.

If you feel I am wrong then kindly show me where in the GC it states they are entitled to a speedy trial. Also show me where it states they have to be released under the current set of circumstances that exist if you do not mind

[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]

A discussion on the GC and enemy combatants states:

The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the Bush Administration's interpretation of "unlawful combatants". The phrase "unlawful combatants", although not appearing in the Convention itself, has been used since at least the 1940s to describe prisoners not subject to the protections of the Convention.

Because many of the guerillas do not display a "fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance", they are traditionally not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention [1]
en.wikipedia.org...

It then refers the reader to a case decided in 1942, which states

Accordingly, we conclude that Charge I, on which petitioners were detained for trial by the Military Commission, alleged an offense which the President is authorized to order tried by military commission; that his Order convening the Commission was a lawful order and that the Commission was lawfully constituted; that the petitioners were held in lawful custody and did not show cause for their discharge. It follows that the orders of the District Court should be affirmed, and that leave to file petitions for habeas corpus in this Court should be denied.
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

Reading the full case, shots is correct. No guarantee to a speedy trial. And this is a war, regardless of if a specific nation is named.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
Why are detainees not gaurunteed the right of the Geneva convention?

What rights other then the right to be treated to humanely are guaranteed by the Geneva Convention?

Better yet show me where in the GC it states anyone detained during time of conflict/war has a right to a speedy trial.



[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]

From this site:

www.unhchr.ch...

I will bold salient points:

In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

Who's the second High Contracting Party? Al Quada is claimed, that's NOT Iraq. Don't remember that country declaring war on the States.

The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.

Self explanitory.

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

Proven by US media.

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

Already proven by US media.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

Denied from what I've read.

We've read about the Geneva Convention but have we READ it?

Feel free to go into the intricacies of the Convention to prove your point shots but the initial outlay says it all and it's NOT being implemented.

Originally posted by intrepid
Who's the second High Contracting Party? Al Quada is claimed, that's NOT Iraq. Don't remember that country declaring war on the States.

No when we went to war with Iraq it was because we suspected they had WMDs and Al qaeda entered the conflict that is why there was no mention of them.


Snipped the Blah Blah part since nowhere does it state they are entitled to a speedy trial, nor does it state those detained prior to end of the conflict have to be released.
We all agree on the humane treatment part so that is not an issue here.


[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
Yes I do believe it is a war in the legal sense congress and the senate agreed or did you miss those news accounts? As for those still detained at GITMO they are not entitled to anything other then humane treatment under the GC.

Sorry shots but Congress and the Senate are not the pinnacle of International Law. They could pass a law authourizing another holocaust but it wouldnt make it legal. I also request you provide proof that they do actually consider the War on Terror to be an actual lawful war, and not just a government program ala the War on Drugs.

Originally posted by shots
If you feel I am wrong then kindly show me where in the GC it states they are entitled to a speedy trial. Also show me where it states they have to be released under the current set of circumstances that exist if you do not mind

Why? So you can say the Geneva Conventions dont apply to these people like you did the last time I entered into a debate about them with you? Well im a glutton for punishment I suppose:

SECTION II

RELEASE AND REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS OF WAR AT THE CLOSE OF HOSTILITIES

Article 118

Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

In the absence of stipulations to the above effect in any agreement concluded between the Parties to the conflict with a view to the cessation of hostilities, or failing any such agreement, each of the Detaining Powers shall itself establish and execute without delay a plan of repatriation in conformity with the principle laid down in the foregoing paragraph.

In either case, the measures adopted shall be brought to the knowledge of the prisoners of war.

www.unhchr.ch...

Emphasis added by myself. Shots the term "active hostilities" doesnt mean "all hostilities" it means hostilities that are not reactive in nature. The hostilities shown in both Iraq and Afghanistan are not against the nation originally at war with the United States but are in response to insurgents and partisans. Both wars are no longer considered active hostilities. Remember Bush's famous aircraft carrier speech under the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner? Well that was to mark the end of active hostilities.

With response to your request for something to justify saying they should be given a speedy trial, in addition to Intrepid's reply, you should take note of your countries Bill of Rights and the 6th Amendment.

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Emphasis added by myself. It is pretty explicit in that the 6th amendment applies to "all criminal prosecutions" and no where in the amendment is there a clause stipulating that it only applies to American citizens. Not to mention the fact that these Amendments were authoured to uphold the integrity of the United States and to outline the original intentions of your founding fathers. To deny these very principles on the basis of not being an American citizen flies directly in the face of your Declaration of Independance.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

www.law.indiana.edu...

Emphasis added myself, it is pretty explicit and again I fail to see where it is stipulated that they are only refering to American citizens.

Lastly, the rule of law and democratic priniciples are professed corner stones of the War on Terror. Spreading these virtues, we are told, goes hand in hand with the the War on Terror's other objectives. For the United States to carry out such activities that fly in the face of such virtues whilst simultaneously forcing their uptake onto other countries is not only painfully hypocritical but it also severely compromises the only admirable purpose of the War on Terror.

[edit on 6/7/06 by subz]

Originally posted by subz
Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.

www.unhchr.ch...




Check today's headlines and get back to me, it is obvious active hostilities have not ended because people are still being killed in both countries.

Remember Bush's famous aircraft carrier speech under the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner? Well that was to mark the end of active hostilities.

First the banner was requested by the Crew of the USS Lincoln whose mission was accomplished. (I presume it also was approved by Bush or his aides of that I am not sure, but the intent of the sign was meant that the USS Lincoln had accomplished its mission although many took it to mean that bush made the statement when he did no such thing. (Don't believe me read the text of the whole speech) No where in the text does it state mission accomplished.

Second, At the time of the speech, Bush said no such thing. What he said was
'Major combat operations in Iraq have ended'. I do not know where you come off by changing the meaning of what was said, because they have two different meanings.

Bush also made it very clear that there were still dangerous operations ahead. 'We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.'

Bush Speech Text

With response to your request for something to justify saying they should be given a speedy trial, in addition to Intrepid's reply, you should take note of your countries Bill of Rights and the 6th Amendment.

Please do pay attention I did not ask you to tell me what our bill of rights says because I know what it says and also know it does not apply here.

What I asked you was to show me where in the Geneva Convention it states they are entitled to a speedy trial?

As for the rest of your dribble it too does not apply since the rest of the world does not use our bill of rights therefore does not apply, but you already knew that didn't you









[edit on 7/6/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
Snipped the Blah Blah part since nowhere does it state they are entitled to a speedy trial, nor does it state those detained prior to end of the conflict have to be released.
We all agree on the humane treatment part so that is not an issue here.


[edit on 7/5/2006 by shots]

You snipped the "blah, blah" because your arguement can't answer it. The LP keeps spinning and the song remains the same. Care to answer even some of the points in my last post as to what the detainees are NOT getting that they should?

Before you claim this is off topic, thus avoiding these issues, from your original post: "In addition the ruling does not dispute the government's right to detain suspects."

So this IS on topic as the detention is in violation of the GC, on more than one count.

Originally posted by intrepid

You snipped the "blah, blah" because your arguement can't answer it. The LP keeps spinning and the song remains the same. Care to answer even some of the points in my last post as to what the detainees are NOT getting that they should?

As i recall I did ask you to explain what you meant and you stated well everyone else knows what I am getting at. Well I am not everyone else and I did not get what you were getting at unless you meant oversight and i did address that issue in a post I made. What I am getting at here is it is impossible for me to answer a question that is not put in a direct way, so again I will ask you what is your exact question and in plain English if you do not mind................

BTW I am off to cut my grass so do not get your shorts in a bundle if I do not reply as fast as you think I should.

[edit on 7/6/2006 by shots]

Originally posted by shots
As i recall I did ask you to explain what you meant and you stated well everyone else knows what I am getting at. Well I am not everyone else and I did not get what you were getting at unless you meant oversight and i did address that issue in a post I made. What I am getting at here is it is impossible for me to answer a question that is not put in a direct way, so again I will ask you what is your exact question and in plain English if you do not mind................

BTW I am off to cut my grass so do not get your shorts in a bundle if I do not reply as fast as you think I should.

[edit on 7/6/2006 by shots]

OK, Coles Notes version:

Originally posted by intrepid

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

Proven by US media.

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment

Already proven by US media.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

Denied from what I've read.

We've read about the Geneva Convention but have we READ it?

You stated that the detainees are not gaurunteed anything other than to be treated humanely, which has been violated numerous times.

Are you still with me?

I pointed out, in that post, that I reposted here, just up a couple of inches, that they are gaurunteed more than that.

Do you think that the treatment of said detainees are NOT being granted their GC rights?

IE: Why hasn't an "impartial" party been allowed to offer it's services?

Originally posted by shots
Check today's headlines and get back to me, it is obvious active hostilities have not ended because people are still being killed in both countries.

Oh for crying out loud shots. If we used your definitions of when wars ended, World War 2 didnt end until the 1974 surrender of Japanese soldier 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda who believed the War was still ongoing until that point.

Despite the efforts of the Philippine Army, letters and newspapers left for them, radio broadcasts, and even a plea from Onoda's brother, he did not belive the war was over.

www.wanpela.com...

Originally posted by shots
Please do pay attention I did not ask you to tell me what our bill of rights says because I know what it says and also know it does not apply here.

What I asked you was to show me where in the Geneva Convention it states they are entitled to a speedy trial?

*sigh* I notice its not just Intrepid's salient points you are flat out ignoring.

Your Bill of Rights applies to those put on trial by the United States. Ignore it all you want.

Originally posted by shots
As for the rest of your dribble it too does not apply since the rest of the world does not use our bill of rights therefore does not apply, but you already knew that didn't you

Oh how crass, when you cant convey your false arguments you resort to insults. For the second time, the Bill of Rights clearly states that the 6th Amendment applies to "All criminal trials" carried out by the United States. Get your readers, grab a dictionary and do us all a favour.

Last chance shots, if you again prove you are a waste of time debating I'll show you the same treatment afforded to jsobecky. You are really not worth the effort.

[edit on 6/7/06 by subz]

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think that the treatment of said detainees are NOT being granted their GC rights?

IE: Why hasn't an "impartial" party been allowed to offer it's services?

First they have been guaranteed their GC rights. The IRC visits regularly every 6-8 wks

BBC NEW

As too the torture issue we already know that you and I disagree on what is and what is not torture. With that aside remember it is still also alleged and has not been proven. (Mentioned by the Media Yes but proven No) At least not to my knowledge.

Just for the record I will state it again, I do not think playing loud music is torture, I used to play my car stereo louder them most and it never hurt me

When I went to college I had to wear pink undies during an initiation and that also never hurt me

The same goes for standing nude in front of others, they made me do that also in college during the initiation and it never hurt me one bit. Rumor has it my wife of almost 50 years liked what she saw so standing nude in front of people may have been a good thing in my case.

Originally posted by shots

Originally posted by intrepid
Do you think that the treatment of said detainees are NOT being granted their GC rights?

IE: Why hasn't an "impartial" party been allowed to offer it's services?

First they have been guaranteed their GC rights. The IRC visits regularly every 6-8 wks

BBC NEW

I recommend to EVERYONE to read that link. I can't believe that your arguement is so weak as to have post it. shots, I recommend that you TOO reread that link. It's proving MY point, not yours. :shk:

As too the torture issue we already know that you and I disagree on what is and what is not torture. With that aside remember it is still also alleged and has not been proven. (Mentioned by the Media Yes but proven No) At least not to my knowledge.

Ok, when do we wheel in Dr. Mengele? Would that be OK too?

Just for the record I will state it again, I do not think playing loud music is torture, I used to play my car stereo louder them most and it never hurt me

That is becoming debatable.

When I went to college I had to wear pink undies during an initiation and that also never hurt me

Again debatable.

The same goes for standing nude in front of others, they made me do that also in college during the initiation and it never hurt me one bit. Rumor has it my wife of almost 50 years liked what she saw so standing nude in front of people may have been a good thing in my case.

I have NO words to descibe how I feel about all of this. You poo-poo the degredation that these people have been SUBJECTED to and equate it to some foolish VOLUNTARY college initiation.

shots, your credibilty is gone, by your own hand. May it RIP. :shk:

Originally posted by subz

Oh for crying out loud shots. If we used your definitions of when wars ended, World War 2 didnt end until the 1974 surrender of Japanese soldier 2nd Lt. Hiroo Onoda who believed the War was still ongoing until that point.

And you would be wrong because the Japanese signed a treaty that official ended the war roughly 30 years prior so it is not the same situation. Or did I miss Osama's/al qaeda's signing of a treaty????

Your Bill of Rights applies to those put on trial by the United States. Ignore it all you want.

I believe it states those put on trial IN the US not by the US, you are twisting the meaning as usual to fit your agenda

Stripping down may not pose a problem for you or your wife. Unfortunately, the US State Department does consider it torture and condemns other countries for doing exactly that.

Principal methods of torture reportedly employed by the police and the SSIS included stripping and blindfolding victims; suspending victims from a ceiling or doorframe with feet just touching the floor; beating victims with fists, whips, metal rods, or other objects; using electrical shocks; and dousing victims with cold water.

www.state.gov...

I used to want this kind of thing stopped. I have now set my sights lower and all I ask for is consistency. If the US wishes to engage in this kind of behaviour, please stop criticizing other countries in official reports for doing the same.

Originally posted by shots
And you would be wrong because the Japanese signed a treaty that official ended the war roughly 30 years prior so it is not the same situation. Or did I miss Osama's/al qaeda's signing of a treaty????

And there in lies the rub, show me a declaration of War on Afghanistan from the United States congress. While you're at it show me a declaration of War on Iraq and on Terror. Good luck Now if there is no declaration of war there can be no formal end of hostilities. Which is what the Straussian neoconservatives wanted, perpetual warfare to keep ignorants in line and to uphold their view of morality

Originally posted by shots
I believe it states those put on trial IN the US not by the US, you are twisting the meaning as usual to fit your agenda

No, I believe it says "In all criminal prosecutions". The part about the jury having come from the state where the alleged crime was committed belies your founding father's greatest wish that the United States would not assume the role of Global Policeman. The fact still remains that your Bill of Rights enshrines a right that your Declaration of Independance acknowledges is the unalienable right of all mankind. That you would deny it to a non-American citizen speaks volumes for your character.

Now, if you would be so kind as to show me these declarations of War.