Defending the Truth

I found this article and the link is below it. You can clearly see how the USSC overstepped it's authority.


"In deciding as it did, the Court also ignored its own venerable precedent — of over a half-century’s standing — that the Geneva Conventions, even when they do create binding obligations on governments, do not create judicially enforceable rights for individuals. Disputes over their application are, rather, to be worked out diplomatically, among the political representatives of sovereigns. Moreover, the Geneva Conventions were irrelevant to Hamdan’s case. He is a terrorist combatant who fails to meet the conventions’ definition of a prisoner of war; consequently, he is not entitled to the conventions’ POW protections. In order to get around this inconvenient fact, the Court had to invoke (and distort) “Common Article 3” of the conventions, which applies only to civil wars taking place within the territory of a single country, as opposed to international conflicts. The Court argued, absurdly, that because al Qaeda is not a nation, it cannot be in an international conflict: so the global War on Terror is not “international,” despite having been fought in the United States, Somalia, Yemen, Kenya, Tanzania, Afghanistan, and Iraq. As for Article 3’s requirement that the conflicts to which it applies be confined to a single country, the Court’s majority found an easy way to get around it: by ignoring it......

http://tinyurl.com/rxxew

It's amazing how often you quote editorials and think that they prove something...
You're just looking for an excuse to hold onto your opinion, and I guess you found that... An editorial which could be classified as "mental masturbation"...

"Bravo" for you...
You've ignored all the arguments, and stuck to your guns by quoting an editorial. Finding solace in that somebody else shares your conclusion, because you aren't capable of arguing the points that form that conclusion...

And the upshot of all this is just plain hilarious.
NO REASON can be given for why Bush can't operate these "trials" like regular military court martials.
NO REAL objection raised...

The objection is my opinion and the opinion of other Americans that the Geneva convention does not cover individuals who are not fighting for anything than their religious idiology. You said something about there being other Geneva conventions than just one and you have failed to back that up. Looks like you're just as bad as me doesn't it.

And that opinion is wrong.
I asked you before and you hid from the question.
Do you think that the Geneva Convention covers ONLY prisoners of war?

I suspect that is the ONLY thing you know about the Geneva convention, and a LOT is slipping by you on a subject you know very little about.


Actually, I wanted to see how much you knew before I answered the question.
I was waiting for your answer BEFORE I gave my info on the Geneva Convention.

You see, we have discussed this issue on this board BEFORE you popped up here.
So, my info has already been given.
Others have seen it.

I'm waiting to see if you can answer a simple question first.
If you want to just say "I don't answer simple questions", or give some other response to my question, I'll go ahead and give the info...

And then you can ignore it just like everything else you don't want to listen to...

Okay, show me how the Genevea convention covers terrorists who fight for no country but fight for an ideology.

You still haven't answered my question...

To apply a standard of rules(the Genea convention) you must have a legal means to show these rules actually apply, or don't apply. These people are not legally terrorists. There is no court set up to prove, or even decide, this. Show me how the Geneva doesn't apply to these people.

Bush's Assault on Freedom: What's to Stop Him?
Paul Craig Roberts
Tuesday, July 4, 2006


On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-3 decision ruled that President Bush's effort to railroad tortured Guantanamo Bay detainees in kangaroo courts "violates both U.S. law and the Geneva Conventions."

Better late than never, but it sure took a long time for the checks and balances to call a halt to the illegal and unconstitutional behavior of the executive.

The Legal Times quotes David Remes, a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling: "At the broadest level, the court has rejected the basic legal theory of the Bush administration since 9/11 – that the president has the inherent power to do whatever he wants in the name of fighting terrorism without accountability to Congress or the courts."

Perhaps the court's ruling has more far-reaching implications. In finding Bush in violation of the Geneva Conventions, the ruling may have created a prima facie case for charges to be filed against Bush as a war criminal.

Many readers have concluded that Bush assumed the war criminal's mantle when he illegally invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The United States itself established the Nuremberg standard that it is a war crime to launch a war of aggression. This was the charge that the chief U.S. prosecutor brought against German leaders at the Nuremberg trials.

The importance of the Supreme Court's decision, however, is that a legal decision by America's highest court has ruled Bush to be in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

There are many reasons to impeach Bush. His flagrant disregard for international law, U.S. civil liberties, the separation of powers, public opinion and human rights associate Bush with the worst tyrants of the 20th century. It is true that Bush has not yet been able to subvert all the institutions that constrain his executive power, but he and his band of Federalist Society lawyers have been working around the clock to eliminate the constraints that the U.S. Constitution and international law place on executive power.

Republicans are "outraged" that "liberal judges" have prevented Bush from "protecting us from terrorists." In the U.S. Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist said that Republicans will propose legislation to enable Bush to get around the Supreme Court's decision. Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa., already has a bill ready. What sense does it make to talk about "liberal opposition" when liberal Republicans like Spector are falling all over themselves to kow-tow to Bush?

Americans are going to have to decide which is the greater threat: terrorists or the Republican Party's determination to shred American civil liberties and the separation of powers in the name of executive power and the "war on terror."

The rest of the world has already reached a decision. A Harris Poll recently conducted for the Financial Times found that the populations of our European allies – Britain, France, Italy and Spain -- view the United States as the greatest threat to global stability.

A Pew Foundation survey released the same week found that 60 percent of the British believe that Bush has made the world less safe and that 79 percent of the Spanish oppose Bush's war on terror.

Republicans and conservatives equate civil liberties with homosexual marriage, abortion, racial quotas, flag burning, banning of school prayer and crime resulting from a lax punishment of criminals. This is partly the fault of the ACLU and left-wingers, who go to extremes to make a point. But it is also the fault of conservatives, who believe that their government is incapable of evil deeds.
http://newsmax.com/archives/articles...3/183341.shtml

I do hope every single one of these detainees is tried - and the evidence against them is brought to the public's attention.

Then the liberal crybabies, like you, will have to find something else to complain about and scream at the Bush Administration for!

Now Jefferson, let's not be insultive. Please try and grow up.
I also hope every single one is tried. Simply because it is the right thing to do. I am not saying that none of them are guilty. I am saying that we are suppose to go by the laws of this country. Like I have said, more than once, don't like the laws, work to change them. Right now all the detainees should get a trial. We are wrong to run that camp the way we have been, period.
All the insults in the world will not change these facts.