Legal Expert: Congress Can’t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions Without Endangering U.S. Troops
Legal Expert: Congress Can’t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions Without Endangering U.S. Troops
Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that all Congress needed to do was provide its “blessing” to Bush’s procedures. Many others, especially critics of the decision, have echoed Graham’s position.
Today, Georgetown Law Professor Carlos Vazquez explained that things aren’t as simple as Graham and others would have you believe.
Vazquez said that Congress could pass a law authorizing the procedures ruled illegal by the court. But according to the court’s decision, doing so would abrogate Common Article 3 of Geneva Conventions. This would have serious consequences because the Geneva Conventions provide essential protections to U.S. troops abroad. Watch it:
Vazquez also noted that — contrary to some interpretations circulating in the blogosphere — the court did not find the Geneva Conventions were only relevant because they were incorporated into the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Even if you amend that law, Gevena still applies.
You can find a summary of Vazquez remarks on the Georgetown Law blog.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
111 Responses to “Legal Expert: Congress Can’t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions Without Endangering U.S. Troops”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
The right wing doesn't really give a damn about our military people, as long as they can put their magnets on their gas hogs.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pmThe republican congress will lay waste to the Geneva Conventions laws watch and see.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:42 pmHear, hear.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:50 pmSomeone needs to put a lid on the right-wing spinning rubber stamp
I'm getting a bad feeling about this.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:52 pmI’m getting a bad feeling about this.
Comment by Briseadh na Faire — June 30, 2006 @ 5:52 pm
elaborate, please!
June 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pmJudd, Judd, Judd
Since when did something "quaint" like the Geneva Conventions (or the law, Constitution, etc.) ever deter the Bushies?????
June 30th, 2006 at 5:54 pmStuff the geneva conventions I would much rather be able to shoot american Raping and murdering ) troops illegally rather than making it legal
June 30th, 2006 at 5:55 pmWhile focusing on where things are going in relation to the supreme court rulling, I pulled three runes.
This does not bode well.
June 30th, 2006 at 5:59 pmComment by Briseadh na Faire — June 30, 2006 @ 5:59 pm
;-) lay people's american/english, please!
i get the picture, but am hoping for your educated explanation!
June 30th, 2006 at 6:03 pmWhat do the Geneva Conventions mean to these NeoCons when they think the U.S. Constitution is just a "GDamn piece of paper!"? Heck with the soldiers and their rights. ChickenHawks don't fight in wars anyway.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:05 pm#8:
Katy's right. We do need some good guidance here... and yes... we already know that a bad wind's a-blowin'.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:05 pmFirst let me say Doodle Bug, you're an idiot. Now that that's out of the way, why is it that these fools can't understand that when we don't abide by Geneva now, we won't be able to hold others to account for violating it in the future? Doesn't seem like that difficult a concept to grasp.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pmkaty - if it's any consolation - after the Supreme Court Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling I pulled out an old ouija board AND Psychic 8-ball. Both methods said to assure you - things will be OK,
June 30th, 2006 at 6:09 pmSeixon - the bet's still out there for the taking. Do you still think Congress will pass an exception to Geneva so that the admin can go back to doing what they were before? Loser stops posting here.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:11 pmMA - Wow, there was room for your head and all that other stuff up there?
June 30th, 2006 at 6:13 pmBush & Nuremberg's Law
George W. Bush -- in his first public comment on the alleged massacre of 24 civilians by U.S. Marines in Haditha, Iraq, last November -- said: “If, in fact, these allegations are true, the Marine Corps will work hard to make sure that ... those who violated the law -- if indeed they did -- will be punished.â€
If that happens, President George W. Bush has made clear that he expects justice to be meted out to any Marine found guilty of a war crime against Iraqi civilians. But, as we anticipated in an earlier article, virtually no U.S. media attention has focused on the Nuremberg principles and Bush's culpability in the crime.
In this guest essay, Peter Dyer reviews the principles of international law that were set by U.S. and other allied jurists after World War II, rules against aggressive war that were meant to apply to the architects of illegal conflicts as well as to the grunts on the ground:
Now that President Bush has resolved publicly that those who committed war crimes will be punished, the subject of U.S. war crimes may begin to move closer to its deserved prominent place in the American public discourse. If this happens, more Americans are likely to realize that the man who spoke of punishing war criminals has himself violated the law and should be accordingly punished.
In fact, according to the Nuremberg Charter, a document which the U.S. had a major role in drafting, those who initiate a war of aggression quite literally bear individual criminal responsibility, not only for waging unprovoked war, but for the war crimes which inevitably flow from aggression.
In 1946, the chief American prosecutor of the first Nuremberg trial, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, took this principle seriously enough to help secure the conviction of 17 of the most prominent surviving German leaders for initiating a war of aggression. Eleven were sentenced to death. Three received life sentences and three received lesser sentences.
Reading the transcript of the first Nuremberg trial, we see that all who committed war crimes, from the foot soldiers to the highest leaders, were to be held responsible for their crimes. We also see, however, that the leaders who initiated the aggression were assigned primary criminal responsibility by the prosecutors and by the Tribunal, since none of the subsequent crimes would have been committed had the aggression not occurred. This principle was absolutely central to the Nuremberg Charter and Trials.
Moreover, we see that the intent of the authors of the Charter was not to limit the principles involved in this body of law to prosecution of Germans in 1946 but rather to set a precedent for all times and for all countries, including the United States.
Article 6 of the Charter states: “The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; ...Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.â€
And from Article 7: “The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.â€
On Aug. 12, 1945, three months before the trial began, Justice Jackson made the intent of the American prosecution and of the law clear in a statement on the War Trials Agreement:
“If we can cultivate in the world the idea that aggressive war-making is the way to the prisoner's dock rather than the way to honors, we will have accomplished something toward making the peace more secure. ...We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it.â€
Bearing in mind the relationship of the Marines now awaiting trial for the Haditha massacre to their Commander-in-Chief and his subordinates, Justice Jackson’s words in his Nov. 21, 1945, opening statement concerning the German leaders then on trial go to the heart of the matter:
“These defendants were men of a station and rank which does not soil its own hands with blood. They were men who knew how to use lesser folk as tools. We want to reach the planners and designers, the inciters and leaders without whose evil architecture the world would not have been for so long scourged with the violence and lawlessness, and wracked with the agonies and convulsions, of this terrible war. ...We have here the surviving top politicians, militarists, financiers, diplomats, administrators, and propagandists, of the Nazi movement. Who was responsible for these crimes if they were not?â€
If we bear in mind that the U.S. aggression in Iraq was a violation not only of the Nuremberg Charter but of the U.N. Charter (Article 2, Sec. 4 and Articles 39 and 51) and if we remember the several shifting justifications for the aggression presented by the Bush administration, Justice Jackson’s later words that day resonate today for us and for President Bush:
“The very minimum legal consequence of the treaties making aggressive wars illegal is to strip those who incite or wage them of every defense the law ever gave, and to leave war-makers subject to judgment by the usually accepted principles of the law of crimes. ... Our position is that whatever grievances a nation may have, however objectionable it finds the status quo, aggressive warfare is an illegal means for settling those grievances or for altering those conditions.â€
And speaking to the concept of individual responsibility for war criminals at the highest levels, then and in the future, Justice Jackson said:
“The ultimate step in avoiding periodic wars, which are inevitable in a system of international lawlessness, is to make statesmen responsible to law. And let me make clear that while this law is first applied against German aggressors, the law includes, and if it is to serve a useful purpose it must condemn aggression by any other nations, including those which sit here now in judgment. We are able to do away with domestic tyranny and violence and aggression by those in power against the rights of their own people only when we make all men answerable to the law. This trial represents mankind's desperate effort to apply the discipline of the law to statesmen who have used their powers of state to attack the foundations of the world's peace and to commit aggressions against the rights of their neighbors.â€
In his closing statement for the American prosecution, July 26, 1946, Justice Jackson hammered again at the relationship between the criminals at the bottom and the criminals at the top:
“The gist of the offense is participation in the formulation or execution of the plan. These are rules which every society has found necessary in order to reach men, like these defendants, who never get blood on their own hands but who lay plans that result in the shedding of blood. All over Germany today, in every zone of occupation, little men who carried out these criminal policies under orders are being convicted and punished. It would present a vast and unforgivable caricature of justice if the men who planned these policies and directed these little men should escape all penalty.â€
On Oct. 1, 1946, judgment was delivered by the Nuremberg Tribunal. From the judgment:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole. ...Crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.â€
The simple truth is that had President Bush not ordered an illegal war of aggression, the 24 civilians in Haditha, along with countless thousands of other Iraqis and Americans, would be alive today.
Justice Jackson’s last sentence in his closing statement, July 26, 1946, concerns the German leaders on trial at the time, but speaks to contemporary American leaders as well: “If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.â€
June 30th, 2006 at 6:13 pmDear QuadraJAM - I LOVE the way our civilized enemy abides by the Geneva Convention - they treat our soldiers SO WELL!!!!! You apparently think the barbarians give a $h*t - ****News flash**** - THEY DON'T........
June 30th, 2006 at 6:14 pmThe republicans and Bush supporters scoff at the geneva convention and yet are enraged when our troops are tortured and beheaded. If this isnt a sign of extreme mental illness i'm not sure what will be. I have a feeling that eventually we will have to defend the constitution and Americas former good name through the use of force within our borders. At this point I almost welcome the thought of civil war....almost.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:14 pmThe simple truth is that had President Bush not ordered an illegal war of aggression, the 24 civilians in Haditha, along with countless thousands of other Iraqis and Americans, would be alive today.
Justice Jackson’s last sentence in his closing statement, July 26, 1946, concerns the German leaders on trial at the time, but speaks to contemporary American leaders as well: “If you were to say of these men that they are not guilty, it would be as true to say that there has been no war, there are no slain, there has been no crime.â€
June 30th, 2006 at 6:15 pmAphro:
RE: Post #13 - I WISH you're right about that... I fear otherwise tho.
RE: Post #17 - Who said this: "If a man strikes you on the cheek, smash him on the other?"
(hint: It was NOT Jesus... look the other direction!)
"You've heard it said, An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But I tell you, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will only leave the world toothless and blind." - Jesus, Sermon on the Mount
June 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pm#15 - MY Dear QuadraFOIL - You are an EXCELLENT theoretician - but your "grasp" on reality is a bit tenuous....
June 30th, 2006 at 6:18 pmhttp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060703fa_fact1
On December 18th, Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State, joined other prominent Washington figures at FedEx Field, the Redskins’ stadium, in a skybox belonging to the team’s owner. During the game, between the Redskins and the Dallas Cowboys, Powell spoke of a recent report in the Times which revealed that President Bush, in his pursuit of terrorists, had secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on American citizens without first obtaining a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as required by federal law. This requirement, which was instituted by Congress in 1978, after the Watergate scandal, was designed to protect civil liberties and curb abuses of executive power, such as Nixon’s secret monitoring of political opponents and the F.B.I.’s eavesdropping on Martin Luther King, Jr. Nixon had claimed that as President he had the “inherent authority†to spy on people his Administration deemed enemies, such as the anti-Vietnam War activist Daniel Ellsberg. Both Nixon and the institution of the Presidency had paid a high price for this assumption. But, according to the Times, since 2002 the legal checks that Congress constructed to insure that no President would repeat Nixon’s actions had been secretly ignored.
According to someone who knows Powell, his comment about the article was terse. “It’s Addington,†he said. “He doesn’t care about the Constitution.†Powell was referring to David S. Addington, Vice-President Cheney’s chief of staff and his longtime principal legal adviser. Powell’s office says that he does not recall making the statement. But his former top aide, Lawrence Wilkerson, confirms that he and Powell shared this opinion of Addington.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:20 pmDear QuadraJAM - I LOVE the way our civilized enemy abides by the Geneva Convention - they treat our soldiers SO WELL!!!!! You apparently think the barbarians give a $h*t - ****News flash**** - THEY DON’T……..
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 30, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
Only a sociopath would think it right to stoop to that level.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:21 pmMA - here's a news flash for you - the rest of the world is watching. I thought we were supposed to be better than them anyway.
Here's something else that just came across the wire: You're not drinking lemon-lime kool aid, it's engine coolant. Can't tell without a proper instrument, but from reading you're posts I'd say you're good to about -30.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:24 pmDear QuadraJAM - I LOVE the way our civilized enemy abides by the Geneva Convention - they treat our soldiers SO WELL!!!!! You apparently think the barbarians give a $h*t - ****News flash**** - THEY DON’T……..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
So you are admiting you are just like them and admire their ways?
Well that explains your unAmerican ways....
June 30th, 2006 at 6:25 pmgerald - wrong thread?
June 30th, 2006 at 6:27 pmthat is being discussed on the thread just below this one:
Jane Mayer in New Yorker
just curious
Article 6 of the Charter states: “The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility: (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing; …Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.â€
Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and you know all the rest....
June 30th, 2006 at 6:30 pmLt. Cmdr CVharles Swift (you may remember him: he was the quiet, dignified guy who was called a liar last year by that rabid moonbat Jeff Sessions on national TV) had some interesting things to say about the SC's ruling.
Anyway, I started my two week-long vacation just now. Aren't you all lucky? Luckily, there's plenty of me to go around and I've got a million plans for my new blog. Here's a taste:
Has it ever struck anyone that what the Bush administration is doing regarding the war on terror and in Iraq is a Ray Harryhausen forced perspective? I go into it more at my place.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pmgerald - wrong thread?
that is being discussed on the thread just below this one:
Jane Mayer in New Yorker
just curious
Comment by katy
I TOTALLY missed that ... thanks >-)
June 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pmYou apparently think the barbarians give a $h*t - ****News flash**** - THEY DON’T……..
June 30th, 2006 at 6:35 pmComment by mighty aphrodite — June 30, 2006 @ 6:14 pm
I dont see the difference between beheading in a video and hole trough a child´s skull. You are right. None of you, animals, give a shit. So STFU.
not a problem at all, gerald...
June 30th, 2006 at 6:41 pmglad to help!
With soldiers dying overseas daily, the debt spiraling out of control, gas at $3.00 per gallon, corruption, and one constitutional crisis after another--what does our President do? GO TO GRACELAND! He was overhard telling the Japanese Prime Minister, whom he accompanied on the trip, "You know, Jesus was a carpenter and Elvis majored in wood shop." Bush had "another" Dukakis moment when the Prime Minister broke into a broken-English version of The King. Your tax dollars at work.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:42 pmKaty and Bluesky,
The "text" meanings are just a guideline. Your intuitive sense is what is needed to discern the message.
Family, reversed: You may have lost an inheritance. Short-sighted thinking has cost you a great deal. You have difficulties or separation from your family. Impatience has caused accidents, recklessness, and more delay. You have lost some protection, support, or possessions.
Joy, reversed: problems between people, changes that bring unhappiness, and a warning to look at possibly troubling situations.
Mann, reversed: You are seeking isolation from others, especially your family. You can expect no assistance from others. Be wary of sabotage, bad advice, and selfish motives from people around you. Your selfishness and greed has led to loneliness. You have made many enemies and they are ready to move against you.
Now, perhaps, you understand why I said I'm getting a bad feeling about this.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:52 pmDear QuadraJAM - I LOVE the way our civilized enemy abides by the Geneva Convention - they treat our soldiers SO WELL!!!!! You apparently think the barbarians give a $h*t - ****News flash**** - THEY DON’T……..
Comment by mighty aphrodite
Dear Mighty Slime Bog -- We don't abide by the Geneva Convention only because our enemies might abide by it. We do it because it's the right thing to do. Not that you'd understand either way, sweetness.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:55 pmCongress could choose simply to "bless" Bush's preferred course of action, but one might hope they'd foresee Bush will end up right back in front of SCOTUS if they do.
June 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pmComment by mighty aphrodite — June 30, 2006
Mighty Aphrodite, I am stunned that you would use such divination tools, given your earlier statements:
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 29, 2006
Comment by mighty aphrodite — June 29, 2006
Then again, dewarlorx.com is a Wholesale Distributor website. I'm not sure how you gained much of a "touch of understanding" about Shamanism there.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:02 pm#37 - *snort* Mighty Hagfish is so funny.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:08 pm#34 - "Dear Mighty Slime Bog — We don’t abide by the Geneva Convention only because our enemies might abide by it. We do it because it’s the right thing to do."
Comment by Lunatic Zooscooper
****Dear Zooscooper - OF course we don't simply abide by the Geneva Convention because our enemy does. I DID NOT say that - but apparently you confuse easily. I only wish our soldiers who fell into enemy hands were treated as well as we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. I agree we can claim the moral high ground by the way we treat prisoners. The 3 religiously correct meals we give them, clean clothes, underwear, Koran, checker boards ARE humane treatment. Is it 5-Star trreatment? Compared to the treatment OUR brave soldiers and Marines get - you bet it is. If they kill themselves after receiving decent treatment, I don't care.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:08 pmBriseadh na Faire:
In your Post #33, you are definitely warning against what I would consider strife (both internal and external).
My prediction is quite similar to yours; however, I must admit that mine didn't include strife among the family.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pmI told you it was funny. Goodnight, you slimy hagfish!
June 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pm40, I didn't see strife among the family...I saw loss. Loss of family, loss of joy, loss of humanity.
June 30th, 2006 at 7:14 pmdo you suppose trolls get paid by the line?
June 30th, 2006 at 7:16 pmLuna aka Zookeeper?
what did i miss?
and - no ThinkFast P.M. ???
June 30th, 2006 at 7:21 pmoh noooooooo!
Comment by mighty aphrodite
How could it possibly not be obvious to you by now that the people in guantanamo are of little matter (they are in cuba and ONLY get out if we let them no more 911s for them) and the unitary executive is now MORE dangerous than those people in guantanamo? All you have to do to understand why the "king/unitary executive" is dangerous is to put yourself in the place of the people in guantanamo for whatever infraction deternined by someone in government that is acting irrationally, but not being rebuked by the people around them... maybe like in a witch hunt or a dictatorship... which tends to happen to us humans quite often...
June 30th, 2006 at 7:40 pm#45 - "Genius" Gerald - WHERE have YOU been? SEVERAl of the released prisoners from Guantanamo HAVE ALREADY been picked up on the battle field. Better turn off NPR and indymedia and subscribe to something more honest than the NYT. You're being shortchanged - and I afraid you're embarrassing yourself....(And to compound your pitiful paranoia, you join the legions of progs who are more concerned about GWB than a terrorist.) Tell you what, Genius, who would you rather have live next door - GWB or UBL? GWB or Ayman Zawahiri?? GWB or Carlos the Jackal?
June 30th, 2006 at 7:50 pmmighty aphrodite
June 30th, 2006 at 7:53 pmI know from all your past posts that you're just another low grade moron, but your ringing defense of Guantanamo takes the cake. Three squares a day and you can read the Koran. No visitors, no legal representation, no charges, certainly no sentence. Suicides? Maybe. That's what they said at Abu Ghraib before the lid blew off. But that's all okay in your book because we're the good guys, right? Listen, you fascist freak, the next time you use the Constitution to wipe your ass make sure you flush the whole thing down the toilet because if there's anything left at all, it should be still be enough to convict you of aiding and abetting some of the worst war criminals of all time.
Would MrS. Bob Loblaw please get your own name and response style/punctuation....
June 30th, 2006 at 7:54 pmmighty aphrodite posted #46 above - Thank You!!!
Mrs. Bob
June 30th, 2006 at 7:55 pmI certainly wouldn't want to live next door to you.
Dear Purvis - they aren't POW's, they deserve to be treated humanely (nothing more, nothing less) and Usama said to tell you, "Salaam... and many thanks, my friend."
June 30th, 2006 at 7:57 pm"Mrs. Bob - I certainly wouldn’t want to live next door to you." - Comment by purvis ames "
******I don't think there's much of a chance of that...But since you're going to respond to the question I asked Gerald - why don't you???
June 30th, 2006 at 8:01 pmSome legal experts? Two sides to every coin i'm afraid. It'll happen
June 30th, 2006 at 8:13 pmIn past wars the U.S. has sought to take the high road in how our soldiers treat the "enemy" and civilians (i.e. by abiding by the Geneva Convention). It’s difficult to understand why it is that the Bush administration, and right wingers generally, now believe it’s acceptable to take the low road and to treat POW's, "enemy" soldiers and civilians with the same disregard that only terrorists and other barbarians would.
So, what has happened to the America that used to be? How were the neocons and dim bulb Bush able to pervert America’s values so easily?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:04 pmI won't be one of those losers who say don't engage the trolls but when has MA ever said anything even slightly interesting, something where you HAD to respond. It is no lawyer, it is no female and I would be awfully surprised if it wasn't in therapy for a pretty serious mental disorder.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:13 pmsilly willy, wow in the past wars the soldiers had officers and men in uniform. They had political leaders (in some cases elected by the people, in others they were able to take command) They fought, died and were captured on the battlefield as were we, but in most cases they were a signatory to the convention, those that were not, upheld (not all) most of the articles. By the way all signatories are Countries. last I checked OSL hasnt been treeting our troops by the standards set out by the GC, but according to your definition of high road, should we start beheading these slimebags?
June 30th, 2006 at 9:14 pmCongress Can’t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions Without Endangering U.S. Troops
June 30th, 2006 at 9:27 pmIt has not stopped them in the past. The only thing giving these guys any pause at all is the threat that they might be thrown out of office in November; they care not about laws, and doing what is right -- they consider only themselves and their friends.
#57 umbra
Thank you for amusing me with the rants of a sociopath who tries to justify his/her/its barbarianism.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:36 pmThe positive part of the decision came from Judge Stephen Breyer remarks that said nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary to carry out the military commissions.
June 30th, 2006 at 9:36 pmWilly, where's your argument, your just parroting a phrase that you dont know the meaning of. To begin with what do you know about the Geneva Convention
June 30th, 2006 at 9:40 pmThis might help you out willy
LINK
June 30th, 2006 at 9:42 pm#37, Dear Briseadh na Faire, Great posts. I have studied much along the same path, to late in the day to elaberate.. Blessings
June 30th, 2006 at 9:56 pmWilly this may also help
Article 17
Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information. If he wilfully infringes this rule, he may render himself liable to a restriction of the privileges accorded to his rank or status.
Each Party to a conflict is required to furnish the persons under its jurisdiction who are liable to become prisoners of war, with an identity card showing the owner's surname, first names, rank, army, regimental, personal or serial number or equivalent information, and date of birth. The identity card may, furthermore, bear the signature or the fingerprints, or both, of the owner, and may bear, as well, any other information the Party to the conflict may wish to add concerning persons belonging to its armed forces. As far as possible the card shall measure 6.5 x 10 cm. and shall be issued in duplicate. The identity card shall be shown by the prisoner of war upon demand, but may in no case be taken away from him.
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
Prisoners of war who, owing to their physical or mental condition, are unable to state their identity, shall be handed over to the medical service. The identity of such prisoners shall be established by all possible means, subject to the provisions of the preceding paragraph.
The questioning of prisoners of war shall be carried out in a language which they understand.
June 30th, 2006 at 10:11 pmWilly..... where'd you go. I thought we could have a discussion here. Oh well, gotta go. Sleep becons, as i have job (self employed) and i really want to make the economy work. Your no response is fairly typical, state a bs position and "cut and run" I beleve the quote is accurate. Now i;m going to missspell a word so people can call me names
g'night
June 30th, 2006 at 10:41 pmumbra is mighty aphrodite.
June 30th, 2006 at 11:03 pmYou wish purvis ames, and if he/she were, what's your point/
June 30th, 2006 at 11:16 pm#39 Mighty Aphrodite "I only wish our soldiers who fell into enemy hands were treated as well as we treat the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay"
a British citizen held at GB (and later released--one might ask how dangerous he was??) says he was questioned at gunpoint, pepper sprayed, tied up, punched and kicked http://www.countercurrents.org/hr-rose170504.htm these beatings, and beatings of other detainees, may have been filmed http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1217973,00.html
assuming this is correct, is that the kind of treatment you hope our soldiers receive? yes, better than being killed--but we don't hold ourselves to the standards of psychopaths, do we? I hope you would reject the described treatment. I hope any human being would see this as wrong.
our own guys-FBI agents--report additional abuse of detainees, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14936-2004Dec20.html no beheadings, but far from the "decent treatment" you praise.
#47--the lid has already blown at G Bay. type "guantanamo bay" and "abuse" into google and see what comes up
what is the test for how we treat detainees (many of whom may well be innocent--many of whom were ultimately set free)? is it all ok as long as don't behead anybody? or do we expect better from ourselves than from crazed terrorists?
June 30th, 2006 at 11:17 pmDear mr eblair,
June 30th, 2006 at 11:27 pmA british citizen, why was he in afghanistan, vacation in a war zone, never wanted to do that, did you. I'm sure he was totally sightseeing, with an assault rifle. So does googleing anything make it "right"? I went to mexico once and was questioned rather agressively, called the embassy ..... sorry but I had one.
What is your point Brandi? You are a pathetic wannabe...I get it.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:10 ammighty aphrodite, umbra, and Brandi are one and the same troll.
July 1st, 2006 at 12:51 amwhich is the good thing about the stupidities you post. You define what is moral and what isnt. Even more..."moral equivalency", whatever that means to you and makes you feel you are doing the world a big favor, locking up barbarians (which you still have to define, cause once again it is a matter of personal interpretation and scarce vocabulary). If you are referring to Muslims, well, they pretty much invented algebra, telescopes, mariner compasses, etc, while you invented...well, how to make look good a crappy burger. If you are referring to people that wrap explosives to their bodies and detonate, you surely will include the honorable Marines. If you are referring to stupid, savage people that will thread upon anybody to seek personal goals you will find one taking a long look in the mirror.
July 1st, 2006 at 1:18 amAnd whats with the abuse of exclamation marks and capital letters? Settle down. We read you (well, sometimes) good enough.
Adolf Hitler the moment he took power in Germany, in 1933, built his first detention/concentration camp near the sleepy village of Dachau, which was used to detain without any trials anyone he determined to be an enemy of the State! Everyone who was incarcerated at Dachau were branded as terrorists or traitors who had forfeited legal rights!
In the early years at Dachau the Nazi guards abused the prisoners, then started torturing them, and eventually began murdering them! Almost everyone who died at Dachau was innocent of any real crimes, but Hitler needed scapegoats to keep his regime in power!
The Bush Regime has a detention/concentration camp at GITMO, in Cuba, and everyone detained there are scapegoats to convince Americans to pledge loyalty to Bush fascism!
July 1st, 2006 at 1:23 amComment by Sharon Cox — June 30, 2006
Namaste.
Peace and Blessings to you as well.
July 1st, 2006 at 2:16 amSleep becons, as i have job (self employed) and i really want to make the economy work. Your no response is fairly typical, state a bs position and “cut and run†I beleve the quote is accurate. Now i;m going to missspell a word so people can call me names
g’night
Comment by umbra — June 30, 2006 @ 10
No need.
You actually "missspelled" THREE words, but don't let that upset you.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:46 amsilly willy, wow in the past wars the soldiers had officers and men in uniform. They had political leaders (in some cases elected by the people, in others they were able to take command) They fought, died and were captured on the battlefield as were we, but in most cases they were a signatory to the convention, those that were not, upheld (not all) most of the articles.
What about Viet Nam? The Cong often mixed in with the normal populace, just like now. Your point is nonsense. There have always been combattants that not only didn't dress as soldiers, but actually dressed as the enemy.
By the way all signatories are Countries. last I checked OSL hasnt been treeting our troops by the standards set out by the GC, but according to your definition of high road, should we start beheading these slimebags?
Comment by umbra — June 30, 2006 @ 9:14 pm
Was there a point in that mess? Yes we "should take the high road," because it damages our image (and our ability to convince others of the rightness of our cause) when we "start beheading these slime bags." Regardless if they are signatories or not - because the OTHER SIGNATORIES are watching what we do, moran.
July 1st, 2006 at 4:02 amUp to five soldiers are being investigated in the March killings, the fifth pending case involving alleged slayings of Iraqi civilians by U.S. troops.
The Americans entered the Sunni Arab’s family home, separated three males from the woman, raped her and burned her body using a flammable liquid in a cover-up attempt, a military official close to the investigation said. The three males were also slain.
The soldiers had studied their victims for about a week and the attack was “totally premeditated,†the official said on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing. The family had just moved into the home in the insurgent-riddled area around Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad.
July 1st, 2006 at 8:33 am67 Brandi. that was incomprehensible
July 1st, 2006 at 12:51 pm"Mighty Aphrodite" (great goddess of love) and her/his posts are the definition of an oxymoron. I see no love, compassion, or value for human rights or dignity in these posts. "Mini Mars" (insignificant god of war) seems like a better monikor.
July 1st, 2006 at 3:55 pmI think post number 7 says it best. splain that! I really think thats the high road dont you
July 1st, 2006 at 11:31 pmpurvis ames is obviously a transvestite who has dreams of !!!!!!!!! , sorry he feels impotent.
July 1st, 2006 at 11:34 pmpurvis ames, sorry that wasn't correct... flacid is more like it.
July 1st, 2006 at 11:36 pmHave any of you actually read the Geneva convention articles? The article that protects me as a soldier in the Army is not article 3, but article 4, which has seemingly become the forgotten article. Article 3 refers to the rights of a prisoner taken in a non-international conflcit; For those in the NCLB crowd among us, a non-international conflict is one in which, par the convention, the nation's government is the signatory. In layman's terms, it's when a group of rebels is fighting against their own government, in their own nation, like in Sudan.
Article 4 refers to how one can qualify as an legally protected enemy combatant; They must meet all 5 or 6 requirements in order to qualify. I, as an American soldier, meet all of them, so I am protected; I terrorist, with a fully loaded AK47, who's draped in a Cypress Hill t-shirt and Khakis doesn't.
I find it very sad that a highly educated lawyer would miss something like this.
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:15 pmBen Cartwright (bad nickname, if it's a nickname, Dad Cartwright was a good and humanitarian person, and Bonanza was a superb TV series about family values, fairness and justice):
You mean that all the american security contractors (mercenaries), that wear civilian clothes, all the Special Ops infiltrating in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, and all the civilian contractors doing the supporting jobs for the USA military deserve a gruesome death because they don't wear official uniforms of the USA? Why, then, the outrage about the 4 mercenaries carbonized and dragged by the streets, then? They were acceptable targets of cruelty, following your interpretation of the Geneva Convention?
July 3rd, 2006 at 8:21 am[...] It’s difficult for Graham and other loyal supporters of the Bush administration to accept that their legal approach to combating terrorism is dysfunctional. The Hamdan decision spelled this out. And it’s not a problem they can rubber stamp their way out of. [...]
July 6th, 2006 at 10:19 am[...] How ironic, then, that the very same conservatives who previously criticized such broad Congressional authority are now claiming that all Congress has to do to make Bush’s many unconstitutional actions legal, is to give him their blessing after the fact. Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that all Congress needed to do was provide its “blessing†to Bush’s procedures. Many others, especially critics of the decision, have echoed Graham’s position. [...]
July 21st, 2006 at 12:00 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 8:22 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 10:06 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 11:19 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 12:12 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 2:41 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 4:01 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 4:42 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 9:15 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 28th, 2006 at 11:48 pm[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 1:48 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 2:54 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 3:55 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 4:11 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 6:15 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 11:22 am[...] Legal Expert: Congress Can t Rubber Stamp Military Commissions …Think Progress, DC - Jun 30, 2006Shortly after the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Hamdan case, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) went on television and said that … [...]
July 29th, 2006 at 2:57 pmJannette
Never mistake knowledge for wisdom. One helps you make a living; the other helps you make a life.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:18 amprisoner relationship advice
tips of dating
March 24th, 2008 at 11:08 amavoiding taxes is a violation of the law
Very interesting post. A little bit confusing, but still ok.
March 24th, 2008 at 5:11 pmVacation Rental Travel Search Engines Costa Rica Travel
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pmTransexual Free Transexual Images Transexual Clubs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 30th, 2008 at 2:28 pmTransexual Mature Transexual Transexual Clubs
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 4:13 amTransexual Post Op Transexuals Transexual Pics
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 1:24 amKelli
One should guard against preaching to young people success in the customary form as the main aim in life. The most important motive for work in school and in life is pleasure in work, pleasure in its result and the knowledge of the value of the result ...
April 6th, 2008 at 12:23 amNo Fax Payday Loan
April 8th, 2008 at 11:41 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 4:28 pmCar Loan
Consider a car loan to have a choice to bargain for a great car in 5 hours by becoming active in a incomparable corporation.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:26 amHealth Insurance California Health Insurance Michigan Health Insurance
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 14th, 2008 at 3:08 am