Supreme Court Bitchslaps Gringao, Jazzmanjim, Ishmael, others

[RobDownSouth]

The Supreme Court today ruled that "enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Conventions. Ruling 5-3 (Roberts abstaining since the Court was reviewing his own decision), the Supreme Court found that unilaterally declaring someone to be an "unlawful combatant" did not subject the person to military tribunals. The Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants", according to the Supreme Court.

This decision proves a number of Literotica Legal Experts to be 100% wrong.

Among those persons who had their pet theories of how the Geneva Convention applies are:
Gringao
Vetteman
Ishmael
Jazzmanjim
Devilshit Texan

http://www.forbes.com/technology/feeds/ap/2006/06/29/ap2849559.html

This is rich. Are you saying that the failure of the Taliban and their al-Qaeda clients to obey even the rudiments of the Geneva Conventions (wearing of uniforms, insignia, etc.) encumbers the US more than it does them?? On the contrary, Ollie, the fact that they were not readily identifiable as combatants means we can do pretty much whatever we want with them, when we want.

Wrong, Gringao.

And Throb, as I believe I mentioned in my original post, the Geneva Conventions are not 100 years old. They aren't even 60 years old. The Third Geneva Convention wasn't ratified until 1949 - 7 years after the relevant Supreme Court Case. You have admitted that those held at Guantanimo are not POWs. But you also paradoxically say they are not unlawful combatants either. Well, they must have some classification, musn't they? The Geneva Conventions do not classify those who are not POWs. It only says that one may qualify as a POW or one does not. It provides no protection for one who does not. Essentially, it leaves that to the treatment of the capturing forces. Luckily for those at Guantamino, the US has decided to use an existing and well-founded SC decision to guide it. It could well, under GC rules, have summarily executed them just as it executed those Germans in WW II.

The Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation.

You are incorrect.

They are not POWs. Their official status is that of "unlawful combatant". This designation was first used by the Supreme Court in 1942 where it said, "...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

The Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation of the law.

Terrorists do not fall under the protections of the Geneva Convention, this point has been made ad nauseam.

The Supreme Court disagreed with your interpretation of the law

How can terrorists have rights under the Geneva convention? Huh? HUH????

Because the Supreme Court said they did.

The Geneva Conventions require a number of things to be considered under its protection including a uniform, insignia and other characteristics identifiable to help distinguish a combatant from civilians. That's why it insists on it - for the protection of civilians.

Those taken as illegal combatants failed to identify themselves, among other things, that led to their status. Officially, they are considered spies and can be executed virtually at will.

Not anymore, Gringao.

The US claims that since these people are state-less "combatants" and not soldiers in the army of a specific country, they're not actually "prisoners of war," and therefore the Geneva Convention governing the treatment of POWs doesn't apply.

This is exactly what was argued in court. The United States position did not prevail.

Each and every illegal combatant at Gitmo has been before a military tribunal as set forth by the Geneva Convention. We could have shot them.

Ishmael

The Supreme Court ruled that "illegal combatants" are not subject to military tribunals. Take your beef up with them.

You are correct in saying that Gitmo exists in contravention of the Geneva Convention in the respect that the GC allows for only one way to treat the detainees. They were taken in hostile action against America not in uniforms of a signatory nation. As such they are only afforded a military tribunal and a summary execution.

That's something that's been very often overlooked in the discussion about Gitmo and the Geneva Conventions.

Add to that that the detainees do not have the right to attorneys. Attorneys belong to the civil legal system. They're not criminal defendants. They're unlawful combatants, meeting every definition of the term in the GC.

The Supreme Court ruled today that arbitrary classification of an "unlawful combatant" is not sufficient to be subject to military tribunals.

Take it to court counselor.

Don't tell us, show us.

Ishmael

Ishmael was smugly dismissing Sandia's claim that "unlawful combatant" designations would not withstand court scrutiny. Challenge made, challenge accepted, Ish. And you were on the wrong end of the decision.

Bush refuses to use the term for a good reason - they are illegal combatants. The Geneva Conventions are very clear as to what one must do to stay on the right side of the Conventions, and neither the Taliban nor AQ did so. For all intents and purposes, they can be disposed of as we see fit.

The Supreme Court has declared otherwise.

 

[huskie]

fuck?? I thought I had your dumb ass on ignore??

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

This is a good day for you. Treat yourself to a Jamba Juice with the Vitamin blast.

 

[Buttah]

You spend entirely too much time gloating, it's repulsive.

 

[bearlee]

The Supreme Court today ruled that "enemy combatants" are subject to the Geneva Conventions. Ruling 5-3 (Roberts abstaining since the Court was reviewing his own decision), the Supreme Court found that unilaterally declaring someone to be an "unlawful combatant" did not subject the person to military tribunals. The Geneva Conventions apply to "unlawful combatants", according to the Supreme Court.

This decision proves a number of Literotica Legal Experts to be 100% wrong.

.

You really didn't read the decision did you.

 

[LukkyKnight]

The only rebuke, honestly, was to the President and/or his administration. Loyal conservative partisans were (are?) almost honor-bound (not to mention obviously inclined) to try their best to accept, defend, and champion the point of view put forward by the President on this issue. That's the nature of the beast.

Did those you list, or others elsewhere, go overboard presenting a rationale? Relying on the information supplied by the party and their own research and interpretation, quite possibly so - isn't free speech grand? I find little to fault in their motivation to be patriotic, or the resulting strength of their convictions - even if I couldn't necessarily consider the debate very intellectual, at times.

 

[Daqusa]

More significantly, all the gloom and doomers who said western society would fall because of the "conservative slant" of the Supreme Court have been likewise proved wrong.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Sean]

It wouldn't be the first time the court found nonexistent protection in penumbras of the law. In so ruling the court has reversed it's own rulings in Johnson v Eisentrager (1950), Ex Parte Quirin 1942), Colepaugh v Looney (1956).

Apparently it is not enough that our armed forces have granted quarter to the enemy by capturing them instead of killing them outright on the battlefield, one can only hope that from now on we do less to help the judiciary defeat our war effort by killing more of the enemy and taking less prisoners on the battlefield.

It's amusing to me Rob that you find such comfort in the absurdity that the court has now armed our enemies with subpoenas, lawyers, and affidavits, with which to continue their fight against the United States from within, to subpeona and receive classified information in court, and take it back to the battlefield to use against our troops in the field. The court has ruled in favor of our enemies in the War On Terror, a complete and total perversion of their Constitutional authority.

The streets of Rome are the battlefield? The streets of Gambia are the battlefield? Pakistan? The US kidnaps people from wherever the fuck they like then tortures them in a fucking concentration camp and even your own courts say it's illegal.

 

[garbage can]

Apparently it is not enough that our armed forces have granted quarter to the enemy by capturing them instead of killing them outright on the battlefield, one can only hope that from now on we do less to help the judiciary defeat our war effort by killing more of the enemy and taking less prisoners on the battlefield.

Exactly.... when you have Amnesty International, international red cross and the ACLU hanging around...... the prudent policy is......... Take no prisoners.

 

[islandman]

Exactly.... when you have Amnesty International, international red cross and the ACLU hanging around...... the prudent policy is......... Take no prisoners.

Congrats, you've sunk to the level of terrorists. I'm of the opinion that the men and women serving in the armed forces have a more honorable backbone than you.

 

[Gringao]

Looks like they're going to have to just keep these guys at Gitmo indefinitely instead of trying them.

One thing: Can't the folks over at the USSC read plain English?

[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

 

[dead.jihadist]

cuntdownsouth continues with his regurgated vulture spew, tell ya what cuntboy, why not petition the feds to release a few of the Gitmo boys into your custody.


eat shit and die cuntboy.

 

[spiderider]

The Supreme Court has declared otherwise.

I don't know... but I really hope it was as good for you as it was for me. Thanks for the update, this was an important decision on the international and geopolitical stage. And the result I was hoping for.

What people fail to realize is that upholding the geneva convention has little to do with one's position on terrorism.

This might sound a little crazy... but I can be anti-terrorist and pro-geneva all at the same time!

 

[Bandit1]

The streets of Rhome are the battlefield? The streets of Gambia are the battlefield? Pakistan? The US kidnaps people from wherever the fuck they like then tortures them in a fucking concentration camp and even your own courts say it's illegal.

So the US tortures terror suspects and other foreign nationals.

B.F.D.

It happens to our own people every friggin day here in the US, has been happening for years. And I don't anyone complaining about that at all. Cops and prosecutors routinely collaborate, conspire and carry out acts of torture against accused criminals of all kinds not just "national security risks".

They have no evidence, no witnesses, and thus no case? No problem. Deny them medical attention for illnesses such as diabetes, cancer, high blood pressure etc.
Still not enough? Have a few of the guards open the accused person's cell door and let in a dozen or so "Bubbas" to introduce him/her to the finer points of anal rape. If that doesn't work, a few cigarettes is enough to buy a jailhouse beatdown.

The accused still won't cop a plea? Time to start work harassing the defendant's family. Send officers out to arrest the defendant's wife/husband/kids and then threaten to invent charges against them if the defendant won't sign a confession.

Still no confession? Lie through your ass to get the judge to deny bail and then keep delaying the case for a couple or three years. Make the defendant serve time that way.

If the defense lawyer has aspirations to public office, offer him/her a job with the prosecutors office if he/she will just co-operate. Then when the next court date arrives, someone can "accidentally" forget to make arrangements for the defendant to be taken to the courtroom. The defense lawyer pleads the defendant guilty in absentia and the prosecutor has another notch for his belt.


Oh, that's right, if something bad happens to Americans then that is perfectly justified because they have committed the heinous sin of being born in the USA.

 

[garbage can]

Congrats, you've sunk to the level of terrorists. I'm of the opinion that the men and women serving in the armed forces have a more honorable backbone than you.

Oh, can you explain that?..... or is it simple drivel?

 

[Sean]

So the US tortures terror suspects and other foreign nationals.

B.F.D.

It happens to our own people every friggin day here in the US,

So you decided to export it. Like MacDonalds?

 

[Ham Murabi]

Looks like they're going to have to just keep these guys at Gitmo indefinitely instead of trying them.

One thing: Can't the folks over at the USSC read plain English?

[N]o court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

As usual, Gringao is one of the few with a clue.
I'll leave it to rubdownsouth to celebrate this victory for terrorists.

 

[Bandit1]

So you decided to export it. Like MacDonalds?

Nah, my point is that we need to clean our own house first before anything dealing with the prisoners in Gitmo etc, is going to change. the attitudes towards any prisoners of any kind are just too deeply entrenched.

 

[zipman]

As usual, Gringao is one of the few with a clue.
I'll leave it to rubdownsouth to celebrate this victory for terrorists.

Actually, this was a victory for just about everything that Americans have held dear for centuries.

I realize it's easier to wrap yourself with the flag and throw out meaningless accusations of supporting the terrorists.

 

[Ham Murabi]

Actually, this was a victory for just about everything that Americans have held dear for centuries.

I realize it's easier to wrap yourself with the flag and throw out meaningless accusations of supporting the terrorists.

Zip,
I invite you to review rub's posts and decide whose side he's on.
I'm not wrapping myself in the flag, and if you want to burn it to make a statement, fine with me.
But everything I know about the decision at this point indicates that Gringao's assessment of the ruling is correct.

 

[zipman]

Zip,
I invite you to review rub's posts and decide whose side he's on.
I'm not wrapping myself in the flag, and if you want to burn it to make a statement, fine with me.
But everything I know about the decision at this point indicates that Gringao's assessment of the ruling is correct.

I think the supreme court got it right. Rob's a despicable cretin and I'm not choosing sides between him or anyone else.

The fact remains that Bush came up with the "enemy combatant" designation and tried to justify it and couldn't.

But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with supporting the terrorists.

 

[LukkyKnight]

I think the supreme court got it right. Rob's a despicable cretin and I'm not choosing sides between him or anyone else.

The fact remains that Bush came up with the "enemy combatant" designation and tried to justify it and couldn't.

But none of this has anything whatsoever to do with supporting the terrorists.

Holding them on the basis they conspired is also a load of hogwash, as was determined during the Nuremberg trials - all enemies conspire to do you harm in war, that's just a given. Holding them, essntially uncharged, on no other basis and in contravention to the Geneva conventions simply undermines the standing of the USA in the eyes of the semi-mythical court of world opinion - doing so outside our own legal system makes a mockery of the very things we are trying to spread.

 

[Sean]

As usual, Gringao is one of the few with a clue.
I'll leave it to rubdownsouth to celebrate this victory for terrorists.

So the SCOTUS are terrorist supporters? They're treasonous?

 

[unregistered]