07-14-2008, 04:42 PM
|
#81 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ---->
Posts: 2,122
| Quote:
Originally Posted by telkanuru  Well, either you hold them to international law and they're POWs, or you hold them to domestic and give them a chance for freedom. You don't get a middle ground. | Not true. They're not protected by any international law, and they're not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Absent any international law that applies -- and there are countless situations to which international law does not apply -- the only thing protecting them is the good nature of their captors.
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
| 
|  | | And now for this message... |
| |
07-14-2008, 05:19 PM
|
#82 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,713
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Epee_Pox Not true. They're not protected by any international law, {snip} | You keep saying this. What is your basis?
Since July 11, 2006, the Bush Administration has announced that it applies Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. Link
This was not out of the goodness of their heart -- but because a few weeks earlier the Supreme Court found it did apply to the detainees. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
--Philistine | |
| | |
07-14-2008, 06:55 PM
|
#83 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Epee_Pox Absent any international law that applies -- and there are countless situations to which international law does not apply -- the only thing protecting them is the good nature of their captors. | This doesn't make any sense at all. Why in the world would the international community bother making laws if countries can violate them so long as the people they capture aren't members of a standing army? Isn't that a gigantic, painfully obvious loophole? | |
| | |
07-14-2008, 07:26 PM
|
#84 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: ---->
Posts: 2,122
| It's just the nature of international law. There is no "international community" making legislation binding on all nations. There are just (in order of priority): treaties between nations (including multi-nation treaties like the U.N. charter), historically customary principles, general principles of mature legal systems, and domestic court decisions interpreting the above.
Here's a link that might be helpful: http://www.burneylawfirm.com/interna....htm#1_Sources
__________________
Just because you have the right, that doesn't mean it is right.
| |
| | |
07-14-2008, 07:35 PM
|
#85 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Epee_Pox It's just the nature of international law. There is no "international community" making legislation binding on all nations. There are just (in order of priority): treaties between nations (including multi-nation treaties like the U.N. charter), historically customary principles, general principles of mature legal systems, and domestic court decisions interpreting the above. | OK. So why would any of these be created with such a giant loophole?
Also, how does habeus corpus not fall under "historically customary principles", "general principles of mature legal systems," or even "domestic court decisions interpreting the above"? Also, if what Philistine posted is correct, it also falls under "treaties between nations."
So it seems, if I'm understanding you correctly here, that there are multiple reasons why prisoners in Guantanamo should be granted habeus corpus. | |
| | |
07-17-2008, 03:21 PM
|
#86 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,475
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Philistine | Meh. 1901. 
Meh, again: Justice Brewer ( who apparently did not feel that the "spirit of the Declaration" applied to blacks, and who wrote "The United States: A Christian Nation" ). Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs I think that the comparison with the internment camps is more supportive of our opinion, no? | No.
It's apples and oranges.
If the people being held in Gitmo were Americans, being imprisoned in America for acts of violence, I might agree with you.
Since they are not, the standards are quite different. Quote: |
As for the post which was a response to me, I think that the crux of the matter is that you keep characterizing these people as terrorists. You say "they" rejected government and so on. But that's not been established.
| Let's try the Socratic method.
Do you take it as "established" that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist", bent on violence against the West generally and the United States in particular?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
| |
| | |
07-17-2008, 04:04 PM
|
#87 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,713
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata Meh. 1901.
Meh, again: Justice Brewer ( who apparently did not feel that the "spirit of the Declaration" applied to blacks{snip} | Heck, the drafters of the Declaration apparently did not feel the "sprit of the Declaration" applied to blacks.
But sheesh. You ask for information, now you don't like it when you get it. Do you like Justice Thomas any better (albeit in a concurrence)? Is 1995 recent enough?
"There can be no doubt that the paternalism that appears to lie at the heart of this program is at war with the principle of inherent equality that underlies and infuses our Constitution. See Declaration of Independence ("We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness"). " Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena (1995)
In any event--I'm unclear--are you suggesting that the Supreme Court does not use the Declaration of Indepence to interpret the Constitution? Quote: |
{snip}Do you take it as "established" that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist", bent on violence against the West generally and the United States in particular?
| Heck, yes.
OTOH--how many at Guatanemo do we have video and audiotapes of confessing?
--Philistine | |
| | |
07-17-2008, 04:09 PM
|
#88 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata No.
It's apples and oranges.
If the people being held in Gitmo were Americans, being imprisoned in America for acts of violence, I might agree with you.
Since they are not, the standards are quite different. | I agree, I was just surprised that you made the comparison. Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata Let's try the Socratic method.
Do you take it as "established" that Osama Bin Laden is a "terrorist", bent on violence against the West generally and the United States in particular? | Yes.
If we capture someone and prove that he is Osama Bin Laden, I'm fine with holding him without further trial.
Last edited by mrbiggs; 07-17-2008 at 06:43 PM.
| |
| | |
07-17-2008, 04:11 PM
|
#89 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,475
| SCOTUS uses all sorts of things to inform its decisions. That doesn't make those things "part of the organic law of the United States"...
Might as well include the Bible in there. Oh, and Magna Carta and English common law and the letters of the Founders and statistical studies and...
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
| |
| | |
07-17-2008, 05:06 PM
|
#90 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,713
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata SCOTUS uses all sorts of things to inform its decisions. That doesn't make those things "part of the organic law of the United States"... | One of the things that makes the Declaration of Independence part of the Organic Law of the United States is Congress' designation of it (along with the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Ordinance) as the Organic Law of the United States of America in the First volume of the US Code.
--Philistine | |
| | |
07-18-2008, 04:00 PM
|
#91 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,475
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Philistine Do you like Justice Thomas any better (albeit in a concurrence)? | Faugh! Liberal originalism! Ptooey! Quote: |
In any event--I'm unclear--are you suggesting that the Supreme Court does not use the Declaration of Indepence to interpret the Constitution?
| Again, they use a lot of things...including some pretty far-fetched ones. Quote:
Heck, yes.
OTOH--how many at Guatanemo do we have video and audiotapes of confessing?
--Philistine
| Wait for it; the Socratic process is still ongoing... Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs Yes.
If we capture someone and prove that he is Osama Bin Laden, I'm fine with holding him without further trial. | Very well. I agree.
Now then, given the nature of Al Qaeda and it's status as target for various militaries and intelligence services, do you think that those responsible for its security are likely to permit anyone without strong jihadist credentials and proven beliefs near Bin Laden? ( For example, do you think Ayman al Zawahiri, his second-in-command, is also likely the same sort of committed jihadi and terrorist as Bin Laden? ) Quote:
Originally Posted by Philistine One of the things that makes the Declaration of Independence part of the Organic Law of the United States is Congress' designation of it (along with the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, and the Northwest Ordinance) as the Organic Law of the United States of America in the First volume of the US Code. | Where? I looked at several on-line versions of the US Code and was unable to find this. I also did various searches to no avail.
Possibly my Google Fu is weak.
However, I will point out that if this is indeed the prevailing view I cannot for the life of me figure out why the North put down the Confederacy in the Civil War....inasmuch as the Declaration also declares the right to rebellion. Somehow I don't think Congress has been very inclined to approve THAT as "organic law". Or SCOTUS either, for that matter.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
| |
| | |
07-18-2008, 05:53 PM
|
#92 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 1,713
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata {snip}Now then, given the nature of Al Qaeda and it's status as target for various militaries and intelligence services, do you think that those responsible for its security are likely to permit anyone without strong jihadist credentials and proven beliefs near Bin Laden? ( For example, do you think Ayman al Zawahiri, his second-in-command, is also likely the same sort of committed jihadi and terrorist as Bin Laden? ) | Sure. But much like Bin Laden, I don't expect that there would be any difficulty in proving that fact.
My main concern is with those being held who dispute their relationship with Al Queda. Quote: |
Where? I looked at several on-line versions of the US Code and was unable to find this.
| http://uscode.house.gov/ (Then click on download--choose either ASCII or .pdf. It is the first section under either.) Quote: |
I also did various searches to no avail. Possibly my Google Fu is weak.
| Try ["us code" "organic laws"] (without typing the brackets) Quote: |
However, I will point out that if this is indeed the prevailing view I cannot for the life of me figure out why the North put down the Confederacy in the Civil War....inasmuch as the Declaration also declares the right to rebellion. Somehow I don't think Congress has been very inclined to approve THAT as "organic law". Or SCOTUS either, for that matter.
| AIUI, the DOI (and the three others) were not incorporated into the US Code until after the Civil War. FWIW, the DOI was extensively used as a justification for the South's secession.
--Philistine | |
| | |
07-19-2008, 01:45 AM
|
#93 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata Now then, given the nature of Al Qaeda and it's status as target for various militaries and intelligence services, do you think that those responsible for its security are likely to permit anyone without strong jihadist credentials and proven beliefs near Bin Laden? ( For example, do you think Ayman al Zawahiri, his second-in-command, is also likely the same sort of committed jihadi and terrorist as Bin Laden? ) | No.
characters | |
| | |
07-19-2008, 06:44 PM
|
#95 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,475
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Philistine | OK, but it's just the documents. I still don't see anything incorporating them into the law.
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
| |
| | |
07-23-2008, 05:55 AM
|
#96 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| Quote:
Originally Posted by Inquartata | I don't think they would, no. | |
| | |
07-26-2008, 06:51 PM
|
#97 | | Curmudgeon-in-Chief
Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Somewhere in your nightmares!
Posts: 23,475
| Quote:
Originally Posted by mrbiggs I don't think they would, no. | Then...why is it necessary to "prove" it in a US court?
__________________
Use the Shift key, people! Keyboard manufacturers everywhere are ineffably saddened when you ignore what they made just for you!
| |
| | |
07-27-2008, 01:43 AM
|
#98 | | Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: MA
Posts: 7,458
| |
