Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foundit66 You're leaving a LOT out about this case Sarge...
First, it predates the Geneva Convention. |
The Geneva Convention was originally adopted in 1864. So you are WRONG, it does not predate the convention. So lets be clear, you are wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foundit66 Second, it's legality has never really been addressed in an INTERNATIONAL purview. (At least that I can see.) I realize some may be comfortable with Americans deciding how Americans should treat other country's citizens, but I think a little bit about a bigger picture than just that... |
Again, you are wrong. Seeing as how the Convention met again following WWII, it was addressed. This convention deliberately spelled out who was a POW. It gave distinct criteria.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foundit66 Third, it involved a case of people who committed a crime on U.S. SOIL, and they were taken into custody on U.S SOIL. As opposed to people captured by U.S. troops who have invaded and/or acting on SOME OTHER COUNTRY'S turf...
I find that difference rather significant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte_Quirin |
However, the original contention was that it was the Bush Administration made up the term Enemy Combatant was it not?? Clearly this was a lie on the part of those members who believed it. I cited the case first to show where the term came from, and second to show that lo and behold, there is legal jurisprudence backing the decision. You fail to address that do you not??
Secondly, the case submits a basic premise, the establishment of illegal combatants, or enemy combatants. Come now sir, if you want to argue legalese at least know what you are arguing. The Supreme Court did not try the case, instead they ruled upon the Constitutionality of the case. In doing so, they established the legal jurisprudence that determines the status of combatants. In this case they recognized that there were legal and illegal combatants. Furthermore it established the legal jurisprudence in this country to address legal combatants -as prisoners of war and illegal combatants - are subjected to trial and punishment.
Quoting the decision by Justice Stone;
"Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful."
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foundit66 Fourth, did I mention that this case PREDATES THE GENEVA CONVENTION.
Ergo, the Geneva Convention, if applicable, would SUPERCEDE this case and make it moot. |
Geneva Convention established 1864, Ex parte Quirin decided 1942. Hmmm last time I checked 1864 was 78 years prior, but then I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by foundit66 The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the war on terror protection by the Geneva Conventions, has been disputed.[10][11][12] 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 incommunicado 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.[13]
Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which are, therefore, considered to be a part of US domestic law. The court cases which are currently making their way through the US judicial system should clarify the US administration's domestic legal position and its international treaty obligations.[14] |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
Bush IS the first person to try and apply this term, first used to describe SABOTEURS acting on AMERICAN soil to actual "war" conflict.
(Using "war" from Bush's own classification of "War on Terror".)[/quote]
However, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, the President is utilizing his constitutional authority. THus far, the Courts have upheld that power of the President, including in the cases of the current detainees. The simple fact remains, that this decision established the precedence for Enemy Combatants. Furthermore, in respecting international treaties, the detention of the detainees is also within the legal scope. They have been removed from the battlefield as required, they have been provided with food, shelter and clothing, and they have been allowed to practice their religion. Since the convention allows for the detaining of combatants until the end of hostilities, nothing has been done outside the law. Which means that the President does not have to charge them with a crime or worry about conducting tribunals until such time as hostilities end. They are not guaranteed a right to a speedy trial. All we have are a bunch of overactive organizations who are against the war in Iraq trying all means and methods to challenge the authority of the President as Commander in Chief.
Your argument has proved nothing other than the fact you do not understand how to argue legally.
dmk