“I think I speak for a lot of people in town when I say that we don’t want hundreds of terrorists brought in here.”
— Donna Raymond, quoted in a Chicago Tribune article about how Leavenworth residents are uneasy about the prospect of detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba being moved to the military prison at Fort Leavenworth
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Health care reform would save state money
- American_Way on Open thread 11/22
- Phantom on So they said
146 Comments
GITMO is where they belong.
For Heaven’s sake, the only prisoners on the island of Cuba that have any rights at all are on GITMO.
Moving the terrorists to the US mainland is suicide.
It might happen, at some point, but the politicians who force this issue will pay, when American cities are targeted by terrorists, when terrorists escape, and when other terrorists move to the prison area so as to communicate with their comrades in Jihad.
Leavenworth, you don’t have to be indicted to be invited, unless, of course, you are a terrorist!
Um, I suppose that would take cell space away from the “good” inmates they usually get?
You don’t have to be indicted to be in GITMO either.
Whatsa matter, Can’t Leavenworth convert some space into an “alternative interrogation” room?
What? The detainees at Gtmo are terrorists?
I thought all you Libs said they were being held there illegally and said they should all be released?
Cept when they be coming to your backyard – now they are terrorists?
Is the security at Leavenworth that bad that we have to worry about terrorists escaping? If they’re that incompetent then the prison should be shut down, otherwise there is no big deal about people being kept there. Or maybe we should give these suspected terrorists trials to find out if they are actually guilty. If they are innocent then we can just ship them out of our country and there won’t be a problem.
“You don’t have be indicted to be invited”?
Uhm, no, just convicted.
Unless you’ve been to Gitmo, where accusation = conviction.
It’s a PRISON. Hellllo!
“I thought all you Libs said they were being held there illegally and said they should all be released?”Posted by whatever.
No, actually. The libs think that a person in gitmo is entitled to the same form of justice as anybody else. After all, this is the United States of America where something called the Bill of Rights is in effect. You neo-cons remember the Bill of Rights, don’t you? How about the Constitution?
If the charges against anyone are complete, then you don’t have to worry about them getting off in any court, do you? So why not give them the same treatment as anyone from this country would get?
Prisons are the business of Leavenworth/Lansing in northeast Kansas. The Ft. Leavenworth MILITARY prison is located on the grounds of the U.S. Army’s Ft. Leavenworth military post. I believe this is the prison that will receive the GITMO prisoners.
The high-walled federal civilian Leavenworth Prison is located about a mile west of the U.S. Army post. Both prisons are heavily secured.
One of several Kansas state men’s prisons, an old high-walled prison, is located in Lansing, Kansas at the south edge of Leavenworth. Also a Kansas women’s prison is located a mile or so east of the men’s prison.
In my opinion, Leavenworth/Lansing does offer a good place to house the GITMO prisoners if they must be moved to mainland U.S.
The GITMO prisoners would feel right at home here. We already have the Taliban in Kansas.
Leavenworth and Lansing are prison towns. That means they are already full of killers, cut throats, child rapist and Republicans. Adding a few Arab terrorist to the populaton is not going to make things worse.
Nancy Boyda wants GITMO closed down but she does not want them at Lansing. So where are they suppose to go Nancy?
Democrats want GITMO closed down but they don’t say where they will go. Democrats where are they suppose to go?
Yeah Walker, and every Japanese and German soldier captured in WWII should have had a fair trial.
Libs only give a crap about Constitutional rights when they think the rights apply to foreigners caught in war.
As for Americans, Liberals want the Government to enslave and control us, while Government meets our every need.
No thanks.
Max,
As a liberal, it seems to me that the GOP is doing a fine job enslaving and controlling us, what with all the surveillance, torture, murder, and ethnic cleansing of American cities like New Orleans.
However, on the whole “meeting our every need” thing, they aren’t doing so hot. Ain’t no damn mint on MY pillow!
Speaking of New Orleans…
Considering that the place has been a bastion of liberalism for the past 50 years, one would think the place would be an economic and societal panacea.
Yet, before and after Katrina, The Big Easy was/is fraught with crime and poverty.
That’s the democrat party, kids.
I never said I was a Republican CF2K. Conservative obviously, but not Republican, not Democrat or anything else.
I don’t see anything that any party can brag about!
I’m a registered Independent and will be unless some party stands up and starts representing conservatives.
The Dems are farther left then the Repubs, but not by a whole lot.
CF, you’re going a little too far on New Orleans. That problem goes back many years, but going back to 1965 – BILLIONS of Federal Dollars have been sent to New Orleans and diverted by State and Local officials.
The whole state of LA and New Orleans is an example of Government out of control and completely corrupted.
And that IS the direction the rest of the country is headed.
I sincerely hope the PEOPLE can stop it.
Max,
I’m not going too far at all. Look at the Gulf Coast and New Orleans: still uninhabitable, two years later.
“Ethnic cleansing” is actually a bit mild: I prefer to call Bush’s deliberate, do-nothing destruction of black New Orleans what it is.
It’s genocide.
CF2K once wrote that the republiCONs have given us big government that doesn’t do anything. It’s the worst of both worlds.
Exactly right.
Chuckle… Genocide. CF, you kill me.
Yeah, outie, if only the Katrina victims had all had a Lexus or an Escalade to drive out of New Orleans, the local redneck sheriffs wouldn’t have imprisoned them to rising water and snakes . . .
One of these days, a major hurricane is going to hit Galveston or Houston or some other center for the country club set.
Then listen to the howls of pain from the reich-wing.
Freakin’ “prison towns” sure as hell want and beg for the economic “benefits” of having the prison industry set up shop in their little corner of heaven.
They lobby, send bus loads of citizens to Topeka, and sell, sell, sell to their local citizens what a damn boon those $10.00/hr prison jobs will be to their local economy.
Then they bitch when they dont like the result of all their efforts.
Big eye roll. Only in the land of wingnuttia do communities kill each other over the right to have a prison and then whine when the piper has to be paid.
At least in Leavenworth’s case, they sorta got the prison town thing thrust on them, as opposed to say Stockton or Ellsworth which actually worked hard to get the prisons there.
But then, heheheh. I guess it isnt Stockton or Ellsworth doing the bitching.
Good point, KSgrrl.
More for the Katrina deniers:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20437669/site/newsweek
Aug. 25, 2007 – The tragic deaths at New Orleans’s Memorial Medical Center after Hurricane Katrina are among the most notorious examples of the vast human suffering that resulted from the destruction of the levees and the flooding of the city—and the government’s incompetent response to the disaster. At least 34 people died in the hospital awaiting evacuation
How did things change on Wednesday?
Tuesday night, we lost generator power, and that changed things a lot. ‘Til then we were on generator power so we did have some lights, and we did have some water. Water wasn’t clean, but it was running. But then we didn’t have water, we didn’t have any electricity, commodes were backing up everywhere. Conditions in the hospital started to deteriorate Tuesday night and early Wednesday. When that happens it makes care a lot more difficult. I was called to help suction a patient who had a tracheotomy but we had no suction running. We were going down to very, very basic care. You try every old-time method you can … [P]eople in charge were trying to get helicopters to come, [but] at that time we were told we were low priority. There were people on rooftops [who were going to get rescued first]. They said … there’s not going to be a lot of help coming, [so] what we decided [was] if helicopters were going to show up sporadically, we have to have patients ready and waiting to go.
How many people had died at this point?
I can’t tell you the number. The morgue was full and patients were already in the chapel, people were asking for body bags and “What do we do with bodies?”
Tell me about conditions from Wednesday night until Thursday.
By the time Wednesday evening came around, if you can imagine in our mind, there is a central area that is a sea of people. A lot of very sick patients in that central triage area. It’s grossly backed up. Few patients had been evacuated. So there was just enough space to walk between the stretchers. It is extremely dark. We’re having to care for patients by flashlight. There were patients that were moaning, patients that are crying. We’re trying to cool them off. We had some dirty water we could use, some ice. We were sponging them down, giving them sips of bottled water, those who could drink. The heat was—there is no way to describe that heat. I was in it and I can’t believe how hot it was. There are people fanning patients with cardboard, nurses everywhere, a few doctors and wall-to-wall patients. Patients are so frightened and we’re saying prayers with them. We kind of looked around at each other and said, “You know there’s not a whole lot we can really do for those people.” We’re waiting [for help]. The people in that area could have [been evacuated] by boat but no boats were coming.
******
Remember, this was when FEMA was turning rescuers in boats AWAY, presumably because surrounding counties didn’t want “those people” in their communities . . .
The entire New Orleans tragedy was just that – a tragedy brought on by nature.
What made it worse was the reaction of FEMA by the way of “heckavjob” Brownie. And then we had Bush and his cronies that tried to suggest they did not know any of this was going on until later.
That one was a real laugh – Bush and his cronies do not turn on the telelvision news or perhaps Fox News, that fair and balanced station, did not have continuous coverage of what was happening in New Orleans?
I do not blame Bush for causing Hurrican Katrina but I do blame him for the federal government’s response to it. And Bush’s mother did not help the situation by the comment she made about those unfortunate souls at the stadium. Barbara Bush showed exactly how much compassion the Bushs’ had for those unfortunate victims that did not have the means to escape the flood water.
But I’m sure Bush does not even think about New Orleans anymore in much the same way he does not think about Bin Laden who masterminded the 9/11 tragedy.
We need strong moral leadership and we have been sorely lacking for a long, long time.
The Bush regime put Karl Rove in charge of reconstruction of New Orleans. The “boy genius” did wonders there if wonders is absolutely nothing other than divert reconstruction funds to rich people to build expensive condos for football fans. Another example of how the Republican party is a bunch of failures. Funny that a Republican would bring it up.
Wait until a huge category 5 slams into Ft Lauderdale, Palm Beach or Bocca Raton. Not only will the federal government be there to rescue the affluent whites that live there, the government will then rebuild their mansions and replace all their belongings with taxpayer money. Contrast how the Federal government has treated the rich people of Daupin Island Alabama with the poor folks in Mississippi and Louisiana. The Federal government began reconstruction of the island and the mansions on it within months of Katrina. And this was not the first, second or even third time the Federal government has paid to rebuild the roads, sewers and private mansions. It is the 4th time for many of them! Read about it here:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/10/AR2005101001465.html
Re: GITMO… Why not spread the Gitmo prisoners around to the various Federal Prisons… and not just to Leavenworth?? Maybe if they were separated, some of them might actually talk??
“Yeah Walker, and every Japanese and German soldier captured in WWII should have had a fair trial.
Libs only give a crap about Constitutional rights when they think the rights apply to foreigners caught in war.
As for Americans, Liberals want the Government to enslave and control us, while Government meets our every need.
No thanks.”Posted by whatever.
Prisoners of war is another story, Max. If there are going to be prisoners of war, treat them as the Geneva Convention proscribes. Enemy combatants, as defined by this administration are labeled such so as to bypass the Convention.
When American citizens are thrown in Gitmo, without counsel, that is a violation of the Bill of Rights and the constitution. So your reference to us libs and the constitution is as baseless as the rest of your rant.
As for libs wanting the government to “enslave and control us”: try reading the so-called homeland security act (O I forgot; none of your Republican congressmen and women read it before voting for it); try Bush bypassing the laws of congress concerning wiretapping; try explaining Cheney and Bush, from the beginning of their presidency, Doing everything they could to ensure war with Iraq. I
It’s the neo-cons and this administration doing the enslaving and controlling, not the libs. Get it straight.
When American citizens are thrown in Gitmo, without counsel, that is a violation of the Bill of Rights and the constitution. So your reference to us libs and the constitution is as baseless as the rest of your rant. Posted by: J M Walker | August 26, 2007 at 11:46 AM
Please be so kind as to point out the U.S. Citizens in this list of Detainees as printed in the Washington Post.
I’ll wait for your assessment on how many Americans in GITMO have lost their liberty.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/
Please be so kind as to point out the U.S. Citizens in this list of Detainees as printed in the Washington Post.
I’ll wait for your assessment on how many Americans in GITMO have lost their liberty.
Posted by: Kansas | August 26, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Hey, good point, Kansas! Let the summary executions of resident aliens begin!! Who should we start with? The Mexicans are pretty unpopular these days. Kill em all–let God sort ‘em out!
/sarcasm
When the U.S. government accuses someone of a crime, the Constitutional protections apply. Read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments, bonehead! You won’t find any reference to citizenship status.
Crap–forgot the Eighth (particularly relevant to Gitmo!)
Rage,
Evidently the D.C. Court of Appeals disagree with your assessment and says the Military setup for detaining and subsequent trial action by the military for detainees is permitted under the law.
So Rage, who is the bonehead now?
And Rage, read the first three words of the Constitution and come back and tell me what they say.
The Constitution never provided any guarantee for non-citizens under the original writings.
Church over so soon Kansas?
Libs
You are wrong on the “Constitutional Rights” issue, where Gitmo detainees are concerned.I will admit that there are many gray areas. However, no Court, at ANY time, has ever ruled that non-citizens enjoy the same rights as American Citizens.No court has EVER ruled that non-uniformed “enemy combatants” or “illegal enemy combatants” enjoy the same rights as uniformed regular POW’s.That is the law.Quit trying to rewrite the law!—-Also, it goes without saying that part of the reason that GITMO works so well for these terrorists is that NOBODY will be allowed to move to GITMO to be close to their terrorist relatives/clients/Jihad brothers.
Leavenworth WILL see a large number of Islamic Terrorism sympathizers if Leavenworth takes in these GITMO detainees.
Boyda is not an idiot. She knows this. That is why she is against this idea.—–New Orleans “genocide”??
Give me a break, libs!
The Federal government does NOT have the right to dictate to states during a crisis, unless Martial Law is declared.
New Orleans was a local, LIBERAL failure.
FEMA could have done better, there is always room to improve, but if you have EVER been to a FEMA training class, they tell you not to expect FEMA on site for 5 days to a week after a disaster.America is NOT a dictatorship. American Presidents can NOT use the US Military in domestic situations without proper guidelines.By the way, the Gov of LA is not running for reelection.She knows that her race would nail the coffin on liberalism, showing that, between her and Mayor Nagin, the local government did not work well at all.Nagin was safe in his race.Northern Louisianna knows how bad Nagin and Blanco screwed up.
KevThe “government” is not rebuilding the other “rich” cities, private insurance and local efforts are leading most of that effort.Where in the world do you get the idea that Washington is even SUPPOSED to be in charge of everything?Many NO residents don’t want to move back.Why rebuild areas that will flood again?Why rebuild after the population has fled — and many won’t return?
The country faces disasters all the time.Dysfuntional areas will have a tougher time than will well-run areas of the country, after any disaster.
New Orleans was dysfunctional prior to Katrina. The majority of the problems in NO are local.
Yes maidmarion, 11:45-11:50, somewhere in that time frame.
Other days it can go to 12:30, but the elderly get too stiffened up and the young become squealy if the sermon goes too long. :)
Econ — Check out the 14th Amendment??? Just a thought…
Understanding the risk that the Right Wingers will use this as another chance to distort and twist my words, the Bush Administration’s labeling of “enemy combatants” may well come back to haunt us in the future. Circumventing the Geneva Conventions and indefinitely detaining opposition fighters is setting a precedence.
Given one of these scenarios – China invades Taiwan – Germany invades Switzerland – Fred invades Barney – the civilians could be detained indefinitely by the invaders because they were non-uniformed combatants.
The US would have no recourse other militarily to to remedy the situation because WE have set the precedence.
With GITMO, we are sliding down a slippery slope that we may well regret in the future.
And for Christ’s sake – I am not sympathizing with terrorists, yada, yada.
How about the SUPREME COURT??
“2. The post-removal-period detention statute, read in light of the Constitution’s demands, implicitly limits an alien’s detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States, and does not permit indefinite detention. Pp. 8-19.
a) A statute permitting indefinite detention would raise serious constitutional questions. Freedom from imprisonment lies at the heart of the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. Government detention violates the Clause unless it is ordered in a criminal proceeding with adequate procedural safeguards or a special justification outweighs the individual’s liberty interest.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=533&invol=678
ChasYou seem to want to give standard POW’s the same rights as American Citizens.
“Illegal enemy combatants” don’t even enjoy the same rights as a standard POW.
You have a right to your opinion on what the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, might mean.
However, I asked you for a court ruling that agreed with YOU.
Do you have such a ruling?
WSThe Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants” —
NOT BUSH!
Rage, enemy combatants captured by the military are not aliens as defined by U.S. law.
Tell me what aliens were removed from the United States and sent to GITMO.
I’ll wait.
SAME?
S A M E???
Illegal enemy combatants do NOT have the SAME rights as US citizens.
Maranda rights?
Habeous Corpus rights?
SAME people, their rights are NOT the same.
I never said they had NO rights at all.
“Rage, enemy combatants captured by the military are not aliens as defined by U.S. law.
Tell me what aliens were removed from the United States and sent to GITMO.
I’ll wait.
Posted by: Kansas | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
No thanks, Kansas. You persistently pull “facts” out of your ass.
Not worth my time.
I have actually read the Geneva Conventions.
Perhaps some of you libs should do the same:http://www.genevaconventions.org/
Speedy trial rights?
Jury trial rights?
Public defender rights?
Right to plead “diminished capacity” ?? (Your honor, I blew up that building becaue the voice of Allah told me to, so I am crazy, please let me get psych help)
Ilegal Enemy Combatants, a term coined by the Geneva Conventions, do NOT have the same rights as US Citizens.
NO COURT HAS EVER RULED OTHERWISE!
MirandaI caught it first, put your red marker away
I guess Rage cannot answer my question, so he states I make things up.
Interesting dodge of a direct question.
Econ… I am not a lawyer.. Ask Vaughn T, or GMC… They might have court rulings…
Seems to me if somebody is being held by the authority of the Federal Government, then OUR laws ought to govern the holding of that prisoner… Which would include Habeus Corpus, and Miranda, and right to Counsel, and all other Constitutional Rights… Just my opinion…
Chas”A treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land”
Geneva Conventions are LAW by TREATY.
“Illegal Enemy Combatants” are defined by the Geneva Convention TREATY.
They have very few rights, when compared to regular POW’s.
And, of course, POW’s have very few rights, when compared to United States Citizens.
“enemy combatants captured by the military are not aliens as defined by U.S. law.”
Kansas, this is crap—an “enemy combatant” doesn’t have to be alien, but the definition of “alien” has not changed.
Your preposterous claim–YOU PROVE IT.
Well, then, I guess they will remain enemy combatants, until somebody classifies them otherwise… But they should still have some basic rights of any prisoner, such as legal counsel, and maybe a trial??
I am still wondering that if we are talking about bringing Gitmo prisoners to the States, and Federal Prisons, why they should all be sent to just ONE place, and not be dispersed throughout the entire Federal Prison system… That way, they couldnt get any kind of communication thing going between them…
This is indeed a war like no other. No one declared war on us they just started firing. They wear no uniforms and thus don’t fit under the Geneva Conventions. They don’t fit the definition of aliens.
I have a suggestion. We could just mark them with paint balls or something and trust them to go away and fight no more because they had been ‘captured’. It worked when my kids played war. I do see a problem with this plan. They might be fighters with no honor so the safest way would be to put them in some enclosure (GITMO) until the game ‘war’ is over. No special treatment.
Didnt we sort of put people of Japanese descent into enclosures until the war was over during WW II, and even some German descent down it Texas, I believe?? Did that work out very well for us in the long run??
My mother’s family had relatives in Wisconsin, who were kept in Concentration(Detention) Camps in WW I, because of their name(Marx)… until the Treaty of Versailles… They were all born and raised in the USA… Never were given so much as an apology…
As soon as WW I was over, they went to the local courthouse, and had their name changed to Mark… They didnt want that to ever happen again!!
What I see the failure of Gitmo is the way he has been used politically. The world is watching us and if we allow even the perception of improper imprisoning and/or torture – then we have lost the battle against terror.
The Bush Administration has the reputation of being steadfastly stubborn and this, in itself, gives the other world leaders cause to suspect the Bush ADministration of doing something improper – even if they are not.
Chas,
We wouldn’t seperate them because they pose a special security risk which would then place a burden on many prisons instead of only one.
They require special treatement and personelle who would then have to be supplied to many prisons instead of only one.
The logistics of keeping them at one prison is probably much simpler.
“WSThe Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants” —
NOT BUSH!”
Not relevant–the legal nonperson status that it means now WAS created by Bush.
And BTW, from Econ’s link:**********************************combatant status
Combatants have protections under the Geneva Conventions, as well as obligations.
Convention I offers protections to wounded combatants, who are defined as members of the armed forces of a party to an international conflict, members of militias or volunteer corps including members of organized resistance movements as long as they have a well-defined chain of command, are clearly distinguishable from the civilian population, carry their arms openly, and obey the laws of war. (Convention I, Art. 13, Sec. 1 and Sec. 2)
See wounded combatants for a list of protections.
Convention II extends these same protections to those who have been shipwrecked (Convention II, Art. 13)
Convention III offers a wide range of protections to combatants who have become prisoners of war. (Convention III, Art. 4)
For example, captured combatants cannot be punished for acts of war except in the cases where the enemy’s own soldiers would also be punished, and to the same extent. (Convention III, Art. 87)
See prisoner of war for a list of additional protections.
However, other individuals, including civilians, who commit hostile acts and are captured do not have these protections. For example, civilians in an occupied territory are subject to the existing penal laws. (Convention IV, Art. 64)
The 1977 Protocols extend the definition of combatant to include any fighters who carry arms openly during preparation for an attack and during the attack itself, (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 3) but these Protocols aren’t as widely accepted as the four 1949 conventions.
In addition to rights, combatants also have obligations under the Geneva Conventions.
In the case of an internal conflict, combatants must show humane treatment to civilians and enemies who have been wounded or who have surrendered. Murder, hostage-taking and extrajudicial executions are all forbidden. (Convention I, Art. 3)
For more protections afforded the civilian population, see civilian immunity.
Although all combatants are required to comply with international laws, violations do not deprive the combatants of their status, or of their right to prisoner of war protections if they are captured. (Protocol I, Art. 44, Sec. 2)
A mercenary does not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war. (Protocol I, Art. 37)**********************************
If look into it further, you find even mercenaries have due process of law.
Where in the Geneva Conventions are the words “illegal enemy combatants” or variations of that terminology, Rossell?
No Rage, the impetus of motion is upon you.
You inserted the definition of alien as to your reasoning why Detainees should be treated as aliens as per your definition.
You are the one who brought up this defense. It is not up to me to defend your supposition.
However Rage, I am willing to help a fellow Blogger out a bit. This is from the Military Commision Act of 2006 opinions section.
“The text of the law states that its “Purpose” is to “establish procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.” While the most controversial provisions in the law refer to alien unlawful enemy combatants, earlier provisions (section 948a) refer to unlawful enemy combantants, not excluding U.S. citizens. Therefore, there is some controversy over whether this law affects the rights of habeas corpus for United States citizens.
Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as “unlawful combatants” would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.[6] While formally opposed to the Act, Human Rights Watch has also concluded that the new law limits the scope of trials by military commissions to non-U.S. citizens including all legal aliens. [7] CBS legal commentator Andrew Cohen has commented on this question and writes that the “suspension of the writ of habeas corpus – the ability of an imprisoned person to challenge their confinement in court—applies only to resident aliens within the United States as well as other foreign nationals captured here and abroad” and that “it does not restrict the rights and freedoms and liberties of U.S. citizens anymore than they already have been restricted.”[8]
On the other hand, congressman David Wu (D-OR) stated in the debate over the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives that “by so restricting habeas corpus, this bill does not just apply to enemy aliens. It applies to all Americans because, while the provision on page 93 has the word “alien in it, the provision on page 61 does not have the word alien in it.” For more on this interpretation, see criticism.”
“You inserted the definition of alien as to your reasoning why Detainees should be treated as aliens as per your definition.”
Wrong, Kansas. This is what I said:”When the U.S. government accuses someone of a crime, the Constitutional protections apply. Read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments, bonehead! You won’t find any reference to citizenship status.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/leavenworth-not.html#comment-80661963
You need to work on your reading comprehension.
Just for what its worth:
Why were the Guantanamo war tribunals halted by a district court judge?Judge Robertson halted the trials until they conform to the uniform code of military justice because President Bush “exceeded his authority in classifying suspects eligible for the tribunals. He also found that classifying suspected enemy combatants without a hearing to determine prisoner of war status is “unlawful” and outside U.S. military and Geneva Conventions’ guidlines. Note: The detainees’ status determines whether they can be tried under a tribunal, or whether they must go through court martial proceedings.
Nathan, I am not sure any of us on the Blog are any where close to experts when it comes to the housing of prisoners… But, I DO think that if you separate them, you have less problems with collusion, and interdependency between them… such as what is currently at Gitmo… And special care is already provided for Muslim prisoners at Federal prisons anyway, so not sure what the problem would be…
Also, as I understand it, most of these Gitmo prisoners arent too terribly violent…
Yes I have a link for the above quote>>>>
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/EnemyCombatantsonTrial.shtml
You need to read the Military Commission Act of 2006 Rage.
It is your Coram non iudice argument that the Military Commission Act of 2006 is unconstitutional.
I don’t have to prove it as I am not the opponent of said act.
Onus probandi is yours Rage.
Uh Oh Rage… that’s Latin!!
Try this, for starters:
“Art. 5. The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.
Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.—-
In other words, the Geneva Convention outlines “lawful” combatants.The Geneva Convention therefore recognizes that some people will NOT have the protections of the Geneva Convention.The Geneva Conventions, themselves, therefore outline the process by which someone can be DENIED protection by the Conventions.If there exists an enumerated list of “lawful combatants” is there not, also, an unlawful or illegal combatant?
And, read the following:
“Prisoners of war shall continue to have the benefit of such agreements as long as the Convention is applicable to them, except where express provisions to the contrary are contained in the aforesaid or in subsequent agreements, or where more favourable measures have been taken with regard to them by one or other of the Parties to the conflict.
— As “long as the Conventions apply to them” ???
So the Geneva Conventions do NOT apply to everyone, huh?
Bottom line–one can’t assume that a prisoner is guilty of anything unless they’ve been TRIED and FOUND GUILTY.
Throwing them in prison without trial is a travesty of justice and why The Constitution expressly forbids it.
Probably the best example of question begging in modern times was Little Scotty McClellan’s (former White House spokesman) explaining how the US can hold detainees indefinitely at Gitmo:
How do we know they are terrorists?
Because they’re in Gitmo, the prison for terrorists.
But WHY are they in Gitmo?
Because they’re terrorists.
AHH, OKAY THEN.
One of 2 or 3 debates on the MCA, ad naseum:
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/10/there_goes___ya.html
YOU are the one claiming that the MCA somehow redefined “alien” into “nonperson.” The MCA WAS on assault on the Constitution, but even IT concedes the neceessity of some type of faux due process.
As required by the Constitution.
Whatever you like, Econ… Its too darned muggy to look up links… have fun!!!
Unlawful or illegal enemy combatant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_enemy_combatant#United_States
Note that, under the Geneva Conventions, a regular, lawful combatant can not be prosecuted for Murder. An illegal or unlawful combatant CAN be prosecuted for Murder.
There is a logic to this: Civilized countries who formed the Geneva Conventions wanted to give an incentive for people to wear uniforms and follow the law!
http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/430/430lect16.htm
Another link to the subject.
Rage previously wrote:”Hey, good point, Kansas! Let the summary executions of resident aliens begin!! Who should we start with? The Mexicans are pretty unpopular these days. Kill em all–let God sort ‘em out!
/sarcasm
When the U.S. government accuses someone of a crime, the Constitutional protections apply. Read the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh amendments, bonehead! You won’t find any reference to citizenship status.
Posted by: Rage | August 26, 2007 at 12:08 PM
You started this conversation Rage, albeit in sarcasm the term resident aliens.
I ask you again to prove that enemy combatants are resident aliens and entitled to protection under said Constitutional provisions you have previously stated.
If you are unable to, I can understand your reluctance to ride the cactus.
“An illegal or unlawful combatant CAN be prosecuted for Murder.”
So why did it take FIVE YEARS to charge Jose Padilla–and not even of the offense they originally used to detain him?
So why did it take FIVE YEARS to charge Jose Padilla–and not even of the offense they originally used to detain him?Posted by: Rage | August 26, 2007 at 02:27 PM
If one was to read the Military Commissions Act, they would understand the reasons why.
Basically, a board panel was designed under the Military Tribunal Aspect for the Court of Appeals to hear “habeus corpus” type pleas.
However, there is no provision on what time frame that these pleas may be heard.
There is/was no mechanism for the complainant to accelerate the panel decision to when a case may be heard for purpose of habeas corpus type hearings.
It’s just a fact, not a wild alligator lose in the sandbox. :)
RageProve to me that the US Constitution gives the SAME rights to an ununiformed, illegal, ENEMY combatant, not covered by the Geneva Conventions, on FOREIGN SOIL, that the Constitution provides to YOU or to ME?
You can’t prove that.
No Court agrees with you on that.
In fact, a strict reading of the Geneva Conventions might hold that these illegal combatants can be tried and executed for murder.
They are not legal combatants, therefore they were not engaged in legal warfare, therefore a MURDER charge might apply.
Due process?
Some of these terrorists might prefer GITMO indefinately!
Kansas, I responded to this:
“Please be so kind as to point out the U.S. Citizens in this list of Detainees as printed in the Washington Post.
I’ll wait for your assessment on how many Americans in GITMO have lost their liberty.
Posted by: Kansas | August 26, 2007 at 12:00 PM ”
The issue remains this: whether “enemy combatants”–whether U.S. citizens, resident aliens, illegal aliens, or foreign nationals–are entitled to the due process of the Bill of Rights, when not treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention.
I emphatically say YES, and showed why.
Agree or disagree?
Show your work!
P-Con, your own example shows that an unlawful combatant is subject to civilian law.
They have to be subject to SOME law. You can’t just declare them null-and-void.
Emphatic quotes from the Constitution does not equal legal argument.
If that were true I could just say, “it’s my First Amendment Right!!!!!!!”
With multiple exclamation points for added emphasis.
I’m still waiting.
Rossell, you said that the Geneva Conventions coined the term “illegal enemy combatants” not your hero George W Bush.
So where in the Geneva Conventions is the term “illegal enemy combatant?”
WS Clark,
The actual term is unlawful enemy combatant. Which is in the Convention.
Take it back, I don’t believe the term appears in the convention after all…
However, if the individual is not an lawful combatant as described in the convention then he is obviously an unlawful one… mentioned or not.
Well Nathan, I tried various searches for illegal and enemy combatant – I found none so I asked the question, like a responsible adult.
So again, where is it?
“Emphatic quotes from the Constitution does not equal legal argument.”
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/08/leavenworth-not.html#comment-80665117
What difference does it make now since Bush has the power to declare anyone an ememy combatant?
All the Bush Administration has to do is to have GWB declare the person an ememy combatant and that’s the end of the story.
But wait until the next Democrat president has the same powers that Bush has seen to give himself – that is when these Bush supporters now will be crying foul.
WS Clark — Try this link?? Maybe?? Might have something you are looking for??
http://www.constitutioncenter.org/education/ForEducators/DiscussionStarters/EnemyCombatantsonTrial.shtml
I read through your link, Chas., and I could not find where the GC defines an “unlawful or illegal enemy combatant.”
I did find this note regarding the judge and his decision:
“He also found that classifying suspected enemy combatants without a hearing to determine prisoner of war status is “unlawful” and outside U.S. military and Geneva Conventions’ guidelines.”
So, again, Paul and Nathan, where does the GC give Bush the right to declare someone an “enemy combatant” or designate a similar label?
Rossell said that the GC coined the term, not Bush, so it should be easy to find, right?
I have not been able to find it so I would like SOMEONE to point it out.
After all, I am 55 and slow.
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
NOT BUSH!
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
So, where in the GC is the term “illegal enemy combatants?”
“I have actually read the Geneva Conventions.”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:09 PM
For Christ’s sake, PLEASE point out in the GC where the term “illegal enemy combatant” or “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined.
Please.
Damn, I would settle for the chapter and paragraph where it is used.
WSClark is playing semantics game which in its end is pointless and doesn’t to add to the conversation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatants#Combatants_who_do_not_qualify_for_POW_status
Read the whole thing and don’t cherry pick statements out that support fruitless talking points.
You have to read it all in order to understand it.
Anyway, to boil it down, the President, by the authority of the Military Commission Act 2006 can designate such a term and has done such.
“WSClark is playing semantics game which in its end is pointless and doesn’t to add to the conversation.”
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
Where, Republank/Khan/Kansas/Blank/TT/Whatever.
From your link, Kansas:
Terrorism protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[26][27][28] A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states:
The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommuni-cado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission … is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all.[29]
Nice try Chas, but that was from a 1942 case reference.
Please be obliging to your reading discipline and explore the rest of the page before coming to a hasty decision on whether or not a disposition has been made as you infer.
The paragraph below your quote:
“Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US municipal law, in accordance with the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution of the United States.[30] In addition the US Supreme Court invalidated this premise, in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, by ruling that Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions applies to detainees in the War on Terror, and that the Military Tribunals used to try these suspects were in violation of US and international law.[31] These technicalities were resolved so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants may be tried under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
“These technicalities were resolved so that enemy combatants and unlawful enemy combatants may be tried under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.”
In other words, Bush side-stepped the Supreme Court… to get what he wanted… No wonder there are such protests…
“Please be obliging to your reading discipline and explore the rest of the page before coming to a hasty decision on whether or not a disposition has been made as you infer.” — by Kansas…
I dont need any of your superiority complex here… I am just as capable of reading as you are… And like you, I am also capable of finding the quotes I like the same as you do… And I dont NEED a reading lesson from the Kahn of the web….
I never said there never was any side-stepping Chas. However, it was passed by Congress.
I’m sure with some research I can find out who voted for the MCA of 2006 and it might even include a lot of Democrats whose name you are quite familiar.
:)
I can only be hopeful that it can somehow make it to SCOTUS for a challenge… I think Bush takes it too far… ANYbody should be entitled to benefit of legal counsel, and have charges filed against them, or else, send them back home…
The issue used to be a conservative standard: it’s not what the accused gets away with, but limitations as what the government, under the color of law, *cannot* do.
So-called “conservatives” these days are out-and-out authoritarians. They’re so fat and happy with 13 years of control of Congress, eight years of George WMD Bush’s presidency, and a generation to come of a solid majority in the SCOTUS, they think nothing could ever happen to themselves.
I once got into a discussion with a “conservative” about constitutional rights (the specific question boiled down to equal protection under the law) and she said, “But that’s only an amendment to the Constitution!”
Hey, “conservatives,” I’ve got a streak of Machiavelli in me. Keep shredding the Constitution and when we “leftist, liberal, left-wing, socialist, pinko Commie Democrats” (as you call us) get back in power, I’ll declare you all “enemy combatants” and send you off on a never-ending Carribean vacation in Gitmo. George WMD Bush said it’s okay.
I’ll declare you all “enemy combatants” and send you off on a never-ending Carribean vacation in Gitmo. George WMD Bush said it’s okay.
Posted by: Long Time Poster, First Time Lurker | August 26, 2007 at 05:30 PM
Woot!
Three hots and a cot with free medical care!
Figures, “Kansas.”
You’re just a parasite waiting to happen.
“For Christ’s sake, PLEASE point out in the GC where the term “illegal enemy combatant” or “unlawful enemy combatant” is defined.”
I’m not sure it is Clark…
Here it is again for the stubbornly ignorant WSClark.
Heck, the name is even in the URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_enemy_combatants#Combatants_who_do_not_qualify_for_POW_status
As I said before WSClark, stop your useless argument of semantics.
This about the fourth time in a week I’ve seen you use this semantic argument method.
It proves or disproves nothing and if you are unwilling to do your own research, quit using by repetition the same ignorant phrases over and over.
Get off your wide butt and research it yourself.
“As I said before WSClark, stop your useless argument of semantics.”
I am not playing semantics, but I did not find that language in the Geneva Conventions.
So it is reasonable to ask those that claimed that language to specify where that language is.
Both Rossell and Nathan said that the GC defined illegal or unlawful enemy combatants.
Both claimed that it was noted and addressed in the Conventions.
I asked where it was in the Conventions.
Easy to answer, right?
Where is that answer?
And Blank One, your comments have nothing to do with this debate, since you were not involved in the first place.
So rossell off.
Who cares if it is the Geneva Convention or not?
It’s totally irrelevant.
By the way, Blank, YOUR side of the aisle says that Wiki is NOT a credible source…..
So !%!&(* off, Richard Head.
“Who cares if it is the Geneva Convention or not?”
Our men and women in the Armed Services will care if they are ever captured.
But I wasn’t the one that claimed that the status of “unlawful enemy combatants” was “coined” by the Geneva Conventions.
Get a clue WSClark. The Geneva Convention has signatories that are countries.
Tell me how Al Qaeda and the Taliban are signatories to Geneva Convention and whether any term in the Geneva Convention applies to them.
Non-signatories combatants are often referred to as mercenaries in the past.
The term has changed and it is really irrelevant what they are called now.
The argument is one that classifies their status to be detained.
That question has been answered and answered again in the courts and before Congress.
You are arguing about nothing of importance is the reason that no one will answer.
It is totally and your part, irresponsibly irrelevant.
Drop it.
Why can’t one of the Right Wingers give me the chapter/paragraph of the Geneva Conventions if, in fact, the Conventions define or specify “unlawful” or “illegal enemy combatants?”
And why would the US, a signee of the Conventions, choose to ignore the Conventions?
“But I wasn’t the one that claimed that the status of “unlawful enemy combatants” was “coined” by the Geneva Conventions.”
And your question was?
I didn’t make the claim, Rossell and Nathan did.
So smoke that one, Blank.
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants” —
NOT BUSH!
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
Is this a lie or is Blank just full of rossell?
Hmmmmmmmmmm……………
Then WSClark, that is more the reason to be a less noisy.
I have answered your question.
Getting revenge about an issue is unimportant.
Learn to disagree without being disagreeable.
“Then WSClark, that is more the reason to be a less noisy.”
Huh?
I asked Nathan and Rossell a question regarding their claims – how did you get into the picture?
“I have answered your question.”
The question was NOT addressed to you.
So butt out.
“Learn to disagree without being disagreeable.”
Like you do, Blank/RepubliKhan/Republican/TT/Volunteer Blog Monitor/Eagle Beak/Kansas/etc?
Kansas will do WSClark.
The first three I’m familar with, the others (besides Kansas) you are incorrect.
In fact, I will make the same bet with you as I have with Capn.
$5000.00 bet that I am not TT/Volunteer Blog Monitor/Eagle Beak.
Phillip Brownlee gets half for doing the work to determine the IPS and etc., if I win the bet.
Put up or shut up WSClark.
or should I just go ahead and say
bawk bawk bawk bawk
Because I know you will never take the bet because you know you are wrong.
“”I have answered your question.”
The question was NOT addressed to you.”
What is your point, Blank?
The question was not addressed to you, unless you use the “Nathan” and Paul F. Rossell” and “Econ101″ nics.
And I could really care less what you call yourself – I have a name for you and it begins with “A.”
Meanwhile, stay out of it unless the question is directed at you.
Bonehead.
bawk bawk bawk bawk
“Kansas will do WSClark.”
So why do you call me “WS Troll” or “Heebie?”
Why should I respect you when you do not respect anyone else?
Pssst! Clark – take the bet.I want to see Kansas win.
Mark THIS IP Address well.
I am the mighty American Bald Eagle
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
I am found exclusively in North America. “Eagle Eyed” is often used to denote my visual acuity in humans. But it also notes those who are sharper than a two-edged sword in speech.
I have two centers of focus so I can discern right from wrong, truth, from error, and BS for fact.
I can see both forward and sideways as I soar a mile high watching all who blog below.
From a mile high, I can detect the movements of a field mouse with my telescopic vision, or a liberal lurking through the land of milk and honey.
“Pssst! Clark – take the bet.”
You know as well as I do, Kansas, that Brownlee cannot/will not divulge IP information, so get over it.
What a joke you are, Republank.
And we all know that you cannot pick up an IP addy from a blog post, so piss off.
BTW, I travel through Leavenworth frequently (following the Mighty Mo).
Did you know they still have Cubans at the Federal Pen? THe criminals Castro sent us during the Mariana Boat thing. Yep. They fill the one wing, first floor on what would be the west side of the cell house.
How many years have taxpayers been paying that bill?
Seems like we should put them on a C141 or C130 and parachute them back onto their island home.
How about a quick test Clark?
Ask me something about, say Leavenworth and see how quickly I respond.
If I was Kansas, I would not be able to answer quickly, right?
Who cares who you are?
The question was concerning the Geneva Conventions and I am waiting for an answer from those that made a claim.
What you think or have to say is without meaning.
So piss off.
Well WS, that’s a fine howdy duty.You must be a hard man in person. I’ll bet you are so hard I could roller skate on you.
You seem to want everyone to piss off who isn’t a blogger you are talking to.
You have ownership in Weblog? Or are you just another unemployed, sucking liberal living in the free space provided by the venture capitalist who are funding the blog?
You also sound bitter? Not getting laid regularly may cause that. Of course, you may be overdoing the fist action, which can also lead to white-outs caused by a lack of sperm cells.
Whatever. Have a nice night, and a slow night.
Eagle Beak is obviously another repressed RW idiot who spends his/her spending thier life attacking and labeling anyone who dissents from there world view as a “liberal”.
What a bunch of f****** idiots!
By the way, Eagle Beak, isn’t your bet the same one that was offered by Republican and Kansas and RepubliKhan and several others?
What a coincidence.
“Not getting laid regularly may cause that.”
The blog says that you are still a virgin at 50+ so why are you talking about getting laid, Blank One?
I had more women before the age of sixteen than you have had in your entire life, boy.
Now who is bawking?
“I think I speak for a lot of people in town when I say that we don’t want hundreds of terrorists brought in here.” Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Hey Phillip, I did time in Leavenworth and neither Donna nor the Chicago newspaper speaks for me.
First off, Leavenworth is historically a prison town. We don’t roll out the carpets for any of them. From the Indian wars and through WWII we held German POW’s here. Nothing different or new to report.
From the Federal Pen, Military US Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), to the State facility in now nearby Lansing, to Correctional Custody Corporation of America (CCA), we make our business with prisons.
So it makes diddly squat difference where they come from or who they are. They are dollar bills wrapped up in blood and guts. (ching-ching! ching-ching! Just hear those cash registers.)
Now, the DoD decided we needed a new USDB facility. All modern and new. So they closed our 1500 bed DB, tore down the tower and rotunda, and built a small 500 bed facility.
I guess either the DoD figured it was cheaper or their would not be as many long term corrections in the military (angles all). Of course, it was cheaper to move the long term lifers and death row inmates (having hung any since 1961) to the federal facility than housing them themselves. But they lost capacity.
But bring them to Leavenworth. None of their family will likely sneak into town and go unnoticed. It is nice living in a community of 35,000 people, and everyone is security conscience with a family member employed at one of the correctional facilities.
What a bunch of f****** idiots!
Posted by: Apophis
Was there an opinion in there somewhere other than name calling?
Geez, it’s sad when a conservative DARES to post on the WEBLOG, isn’t it? Are you scared?
Or do you only want opinions which agree with yours to post herein?
Either way, what a sad little person.
WSI have been away.Apparently, I havent missed much.
If the Geneva Conventions spell out what makes one a “LEGAL” Enemy Combatant — does it not stand to reason that those who do not follow those rules are:
UNLAWFULorILLEGAL??
I know that is a complicated concept.Let me know if you need help digesting it.
Its like this, the Highway sign says the speed limit is 70 MPH.
Anything OVER 70 MPH is illegal.
It is not necessary to post a sign that says ” Driving at 91 MPH is illegal”
Take it however you desire eaglebaek………..you ARE a rwinger. That is a disgrace to our country. Admit it, you desire a RW/Fascist dictatorship and an elimination of the constitution.
Rossell, you said that that the Geneva Convention coined the term “illegal enemy combatant” not Bush.
So tell me what paragraph defines an “illegal enemy combatant.”
Easy, right?
Or did you lie once again?
At least in Leavenworth’s case, they sorta got the prison town thing thrust on them, Posted by: ksfarmgrrl | August 26, 2007 at 10:22 AM
Wish I’d been on this AM. Guess that happens when you go to church. Anyway, Leavenworth actually had a choice. They had a choice betwen a prison and a college. I think my ancestors screwed up. Lawrence got the college. But on the other hand, Lawrence also got the biggest island population of liberals in the state with that.
So maybe we did make out in the end.
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
NOT BUSH!”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
So where is it in the Conventions?
WSYou are once again proving your stupidity.Please read the following:
http://www.opiniojuris.org/posts/1169000173.shtml
There is NO DOUBT that Bush did not invent the term: ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT or UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT.
Those terms have been around even longer than the Geneva Convention.
The GC spelled out the terms of LAWFUL warfare.
ANYTHING NOT IN THE GC list of lawful conduct is NOT LAWFUL, therefore illegal or unlawful.
Is that hard to understand?
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
NOT BUSH!”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
So where is it in the Conventions?
Posted by: WSClark | August 26, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Were you lying are just full of shit?
Come on, Paul, either you are a liar or you can provide the page an paragraph.
Rage, Chas and others:
The Geneva Conventions basically say that if the rules of war do not apply, then the rules in the area where the “crime” took place apply, or the rules where the trial takes place.
I still say that the ONLY people who have ANY rights, on the Island of Cuba, are the people in GITMO!
I would add, of course, that most terrorists would rather be tried in GITMO than in Iraq or Afganistan.
There are LOGICAL consequences to your arguments.
These people are NOT POW’s under the GC. Even the SC of the United States agrees on that point.
The SCOTUS refers to “common articles” or those articles that apply to BOTH POW’s and to “Unlawful Enemy Combatants” as well as lawful combatants.
The SCOTUS did NOT grant the terrorists at GITMO full POW status.
The SCOTUS did not even come close to granting the terrorists at GITMO full Constitutional rights.
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
NOT BUSH!”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
So where is it in the Conventions?
Posted by: WSClark | August 26, 2007 at 09:27 PM
WSWas there “dark” before there was light?
If certain conduct is declared LEGAL, then any conduct that does NOT fit is illegal.
You are a deliberate moron.
The GENEVA CONVENTIONS spells out, specifically, what is legal and illegal combat.
The GC spells out, specifically, who is and is not covered by that treaty.
If you are not covered by the GC, you can actually be shot on site as a spy.
I think we are doing a bit better than that, don’t you?
WSClark does not want an answer Econ101, he wants to argue just for the sake of arguing.
Ignore him. He adds zero to the conversation other than continual circular argument.
“The Geneva Conventions “invented” the term, “illegal enemy combatants”
NOT BUSH!”
Posted by: Econ101 | August 26, 2007 at 01:04 PM
So where is it in the Conventions?
Posted by: WSClark | August 26, 2007 at 09:27 PM
Nice try Rossell/Republibeak.
Try again tomorrow, this time back up your claims or admit that you LIED.
Of course, as a Republican, lying is part and parcel of your methods.
Losers.
Good night.
WSYou lost.Get over it, dust yourself off and try again.
Your POINT, at first, was that Bush was doing something that HE made up, on his own.
You were proven wrong on that point.
International law and the Supreme Court seperate lawful enemy combatants, POW’s and Unlawful or Illegal Combatants.
You are simply not smart enough to understand.
Sorry, I am not willing to draw with crayons or sing it all to you like the muppets on Sesame Street.
goodnight
“The term `unlawful enemy combatant’ means —`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.”Under the law,
“The term `lawful enemy combatant’ means a person who is —`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States.”10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I)Much of the rest of the law sets out the specific procedures for determining whether a given detainee of the U.S. armed forces is an unlawful enemy combatant and how such combatants may or may not be treated in general and tried for their crimes in particular. Among its more controversial provisions, the law stipulates that
“No 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 United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination.” 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7)
In other words, no non-citizen held as a potential unlawful enemy combatant may seek habeas corpus relief. Such detainees must simply wait until the military sees fit to convene a detainee status review tribunal (under the procedures described in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005).”
For what it’s worth, thats the only definition I could find…
Rossell, a predicted you twisted and distorted my words.
“Understanding the risk that the Right Wingers will use this as another chance to distort and twist my words, the Bush Administration’s labeling of “enemy combatants” may well come back to haunt us in the future.”
And, as usual, you chose to ignore the central point of my post.
Debating with you is strictly an exercise in futility.
Why don’t you try to reread my original post and respond to the point I made?