[antimedia] antimedia: I think DJ Drummond....

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by antimedia:
I think DJ Drummond....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1151640062.shtml


   ....best [1]captured my thoughts on today's Supreme Court decision
   regarding the Guantanamo detainees.

     Apparently, the Supreme Court has watched enough Television to
     become fooled into believing that Al Qaeda terrorists are somehow
     just like American citizens; certainly the High Court raised the
     bar on their expectation of standards. Never mind the history of
     armed conflicts â which have extensively used military tribunals â
     or even the [2]Geneva Accords, which while not really applicable to
     non-uniformed non-national government, non-soldier terrorists,
     nonethless specifically required military courts ([3]Chapter III,
     Article 84); nope, the US Supreme Court has once again set up new
     rights for people trying to murder Americans, even as it scolds the
     Executive Branch for allegedly trying to âlegislateâ.
     The text of the decision, including concurrence and dissent, is 185
     pages of legal wrestling, ill-considered and prejudiced in the
     main. Justices Kennedy and Stevens, in particular, should hang
     their heads in shame for working against the interests of our
     country and citizens, but I doubt they have the honor to consider
     the gravity of their offense. The very notion that the established
     and effective practice of our military should be abandoned in
     preference of an artificial presumption of equal standing by men
     who fight not for a country or a corps of soldiers, but who instead
     have deliberately targeted civilians for the shock value, and who
     have assaulted their own nation for the specific purpose of causing
     a general insurrection against a freely-elected government, is
     heinous.

   I was particularly stunned by the Court's reference to the Geneva
   Conventions. I'm not a lawyer, but even I can see that terrorists do
   not qualify for the protections of the Conventions.

     Article 4
     A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are
     persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have
     fallen into the power of the enemy:
     1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well
     as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such
     armed forces.
     2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps,
     including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a
     Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own
     territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such
     militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance
     movements, fulfil the following conditions:
     (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his
     subordinates;
     (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a
     distance;
     (c) That of carrying arms openly;
     (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws
     and customs of war.
     3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a
     government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
     4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being
     members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft
     crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour
     units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed
     forces, provided that they have received authorization from the
     armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that
     purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
     5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of
     the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties
     to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment
     under any other provisions of international law.
     6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of
     the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces,
     without having had time to form themselves into regular armed
     units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and
     customs of war.

   It's hard to believe that the Justices of our Supreme Court are
   capable of independent thought after reading that. How can the
   terrorists captured in the war on terror possibly qualify as prisoners
   of war when they do not meet the very requirements that the
   Conventions set forth?
   I can't even find where the Justices address the issue. They seem to
   think that the Conventions apply to all people without regard to
   whether or not they meet the requirement set forth.
   Yet, in a stunning non sequitur, Justice Breyer is quoted saying,
   "'nothing' in it prevents the president from approaching Congress to
   seek the authority he thinks is necessary to set up such courts."
   If the Geneva Convention applies, how in the world could Congress pass
   a law that makes it no longer apply? I swear these guys leave me
   scratching my head trying to figure out what in the world is going on
   in their heads. The only conclusion I can come to is that they will
   have the outcome they will have and logic be damned.

References

   1. http://stolenthunder.blogspot.com/2006/06/bad-day-for-innocents-trap-for.html
   2. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm
   3. http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm