[bassetman]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Hey Mike!!!

S'up!?

I was just asking Val if she'd seen/head from you recently; thinking it had been a few days since I'd seen you around.

How's everything?

J

Hope you meant heard?

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Hope you meant heard?

Oh .... Dude ..... that was just wrong.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by jmosmith

Hey Mike!!!

S'up!?

I was just asking Val if she'd seen/head from you recently; thinking it had been a few days since I'd seen you around.

How's everything?

J

Things are great. Driving a lot lately though.

I'm a new grand-dad again.

[jmosmith]

Congrats!!!

...I'm a new Uncle, again myself.

[grandpaw7]

Lan has posted the following:

By extending Geneva Convention protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants, the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle.

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there’s no difference between a terrorist dressed in civilian clothes and a uniformed soldier, and that civilians deserve no protection from war criminals.

My understanding of the Court’s reasoning is that whether or not a person is a “terrorist dressed in civilian clothes” must be determined by a proper judicial proceeding rather than be left to an administrative determination. The court said that the Geneva Convention provides that a person’s status must be determined by “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples“.

Thus, a person cannot administratively be determined to be an illegal combatant and thereby deprived of the protection of the Geneva Convention. Rather, that determination must be made by a regularly constituted court.

It’s a little like the presumption of innocence. A government cannot administratively determine that a person is guilty so as to deprive him of the right to judicial process.

It apparently is the case that many of the detainees at Guantanamo were not illegal combatants. But the government seems to claim that it has the right to administratively declare them to be illegal combatants, and the court rejected that claim.

That is my understanding of the opinion. However, the language used by the court is, to me, very difficult language to understand:

there is at least one provision of the Geneva Conventions that applies here even if the relevant conflict is not between signatories. Common Article 3, which appears in all four Conventions, provides that, in a “conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties [i.e., signatories], each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum,”certain provisions protecting “[p]ersons . . . placed hors de combat by. . . detention,” including a prohibition on “the passing of sentences . . . without previous judgment . . . by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” The D. C. Circuit ruled Common Article 3 inapplicable to Hamdan because the conflict with al Qaeda is international in scope and thus not a “conflict not of an international character.” That reasoning is erroneous. That the quoted phrase bears its literal meaning and is used here in contradistinction to a conflict between nations is demonstrated by Common Article 2, which limits its own application to any armed conflict between signatories and provides that signatories must abide by all terms of the Conventions even if another party to the conflict is a nonsignatory, so long as the nonsignatory “accepts and applies” those terms. Common Article 3, by contrast, affords some minimal protection, falling short of full protection under the Conventions, to individuals associated with neither a signatory nor even a nonsignatory who are involved in a conflict “in the
7 Cite as: 548 U. S. ____ (2006) Syllabus
territory of” a signatory. The latter kind of conflict does not involve a clash between nations (whether signatories or not). Pp. 65–68. \

The case certainly was in no way a slam dunk. It was a very close case that could have gone either way, as reflected in the division of the court and the various differing opinions.

[bassetman]

Thanks GP!

[grandpaw7]

Originally Posted by bassetman

Thanks GP!

You are welcome. I don't get many replies of this kind. Feels kinda nice. I do have the feeling that the mad dogs are just napping and will soon wake up.

[bassetman]

It can be vicious in here sometimes

Hang in there!

[Chicon]

Originally Posted by Littlefield

In my post I was specifically refering to Gitmo prisoners not all muslims.I guess this still ofended some .Noted

They are all Muslims. Does it make a difference ?

[ChrisJones]

Originally Posted by grandpaw7

I have no doubt there could be egregious actions by him which could involve the Supreme Court much quicker than the usual wait.

Maybe he could get a blow job off an intern... that should get them moving.

[Littlefield]

You can say blow job on this forum .I guess I should have said sheet heads then.I am joking in case you thought I was serious.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by grandpaw7

Lan has posted the following;

Originally Posted by me

By extending Geneva Convention protections to illegal, non-uniformed combatants, the Supreme Court has violated not only the spirit, but the letter of the Conventions. The clauses about non-protection of illegal combatants are specifically designed to protect civilians, from terrorists and brigands who would otherwise hide among civilian populations to escape justice. The harshest penalties are allowed for those who abuse this convention, up to and including summary execution on the field of battle.

Today the Supreme Court ruled, in effect, that there’s no difference between a terrorist dressed in civilian clothes and a uniformed soldier, and that civilians deserve no protection from war criminals.

Originally Posted by GP

My understanding of the Court’s reasoning is that whether or not a person is a “terrorist dressed in civilian clothes” must be determined by a proper judicial proceeding rather than be left to an administrative determination.

And what do you do meanwhile? Return his AK47 and RPG, pat him on the sarrape, and send him on his way, hoping the address and phone number he gave you was correct?

You guys MUST stop comparing battlefield combatant prisonmers to US citizens innocent until proven guilty.

Yes .... there's a HUGE difference.

The court said that the Geneva Convention provides that a person’s status must be determined by “a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees . . . recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples“.

Thus, a person cannot administratively be determined to be an illegal combatant and thereby deprived of the protection of the Geneva Convention. Rather, that determination must be made by a regularly constituted court.

It’s a little like the presumption of innocence. A government cannot administratively determine that a person is guilty so as to deprive him of the right to judicial process.

While a agree that the prisoners deserve 100% of the rights granted in the Geneva Convention accords, I do not believe they deserve rights as if they are US citizens ..... as you have just suggested.

It apparently is the case that many of the detainees at Guantanamo were not illegal combatants. But the government seems to claim that it has the right to administratively declare them to be illegal combatants, and the court rejected that claim.

I disagree. the court ruling changes the rules of wearfare and the circumstances under which someone can be detained or even shot during a time of war. It severely blurs the linesd of what is to be legally considered a soldier or civilian.
CIVILIANS will suffer due to this ruling.

my understanding of the opinion. However, the language used by the court is, to me, very difficult language to understand:

The case certainly was in no way a slam dunk. It was a very close case that could have gone either way, as reflected in the division of the court and the various differing opinions.

I look forward, not only to the overturning of this lousy ruling, but to the day when new US can be written with this conflict in mind.

[grandpaw7]

Lan:

And what do you do meanwhile? Return his AK47 and RPG, pat him on the sarrape, and send him on his way, hoping the address and phone number he gave you was correct?

You hold him in detention, just as you would anyone suspected of a crime, until you can have a proper hearing to determine whether in fact was a terrorist.

You guys MUST stop comparing battlefield combatant prisonmers to US citizens innocent until proven guilty.
While a agree that the prisoners deserve 100% of the rights granted in the Geneva Convention accords, I do not believe they deserve rights as if they are US citizens ..... as you have just suggested.

I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys". I'm saying what I think that "those guys", the Supreme Court justices who wrote the majority opinion, were
holding. I certainly agree that the standard of due process for one of these courts should be considerably less than for a U.S. citizen in a U.S. court. You are simply wrong in claiming that I, or the Supreme Court, are saying that the same due process requirement should apply. You have no basis at all for such an accusation. Neither I nor the Supreme Court said anything at all to suggest that these detainees are entitled to the same due process as a U.S. citizen. You are making statements that have no foundation in fact whatsoever.

"It apparently is the case that many of the detainees at Guantanamo were not illegal combatants. But the government seems to claim that it has the right to administratively declare them to be illegal combatants, and the court rejected that claim."

I disagree. the court ruling changes the rules of wearfare and the circumstances under which someone can be detained or even shot during a time of war. It severely blurs the linesd of what is to be legally considered a soldier or civilian.
CIVILIANS will suffer due to this ruling.

I'm not clear on what you are disagreeing with. Are you disagreeing with the statement that many of the detainees were not illegal combatants, that is, were not involved in illegal combat? Only a very few are being charged, and apparently most will never be charged, although they obviously can do no harm however guilty or innocent they are since they are in detention.

Your comment about changing the rules of warfare and the circumstances under which someone can be shot or detained make no sense to me. What rules of warfare do you claim the court changed? And what what cirucumstances under which someone can be shot or detained did the court change? The court did not say anything about the circumstances under which a person can be shot or detained. Not a word, so why do you claim it did? The court in no way limited the circumstances under which a person can be shot or detained? So why do you claim that it did?

You say that "civilians will suffer due to this ruling". What are you talking about? How will civilians suffer due to this ruling? The ruling if anything offers protection to innocent civilians who are picked up and wrongly accused of being illegal combatants.

You are making these broad based conclusions that seem to me to simply ignore the facts of the court's ruling.

[Littlefield]

The Supreme Court ruled wrong the terrorists are not recognized as a nation the Geneva Convention should not apply. Congress will amend this and Bush will almost get his way.

[LANMaster]

Originally Posted by grandpaw7

You hold him in detention, just as you would anyone suspected of a crime, until you can have a proper hearing to determine whether in fact was a terrorist.

Isn't that exactly what we are doing at Gitmo?

The ruling states that the US Gubmint is no longer allowed to give these guys a hearing to determine if they need to be held or can be released.