0
   

Supreme Court Awards Habeas Corpus To Guantanamo Detainees

 
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 07:39 pm
old europe wrote:
oralloy wrote:
I don't see the mess. The administration considers them to be unlawful combatants (with some justification).


And that's the mess.

The term 'unlawful combatant' doesn't seem to be a legal term.

To me, it seems that 'unlawful combatant' is merely a PR term, coined by the Bush administration in order to be able to refuse detainees the protection of Geneva Convention governing treatment of prisoners in wartime as well as any other rights under national or international law.

Again, I might be wrong, and you might be able to link to the legal definition of what an 'unlawful combatant' actually is. I doubt it, though.


An unlawful combatant is any combatant who does not meet the standards laid out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949:

Link to Article 4: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590007



Here is what US military law has to say about them:

Quote:
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities
Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts
Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.

82. Penalties for the Foregoing
Persons in the foregoing categories who have attempted, committed, or conspired to commit hostile or belligerent acts are subject to the extreme penalty of death because of the danger inherent in their conduct. Lesser penalties may, however, be imposed.

http://www.usmc.mil/news/publications/Documents/FM%2027-10%20W%20CH%201.pdf




Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about them in 1942:

Quote:
By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations7 and also between [317 U.S. 1, 31] those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. 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. 8 The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals.

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/317/1.html




Here is an interesting article about them from a military lawyer in 1959:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/treatise.pdf



Here is a discussion of their rights by the Red Cross (though it focuses for the most part on wars between two states and not between a state and a non-state actor):

http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5LPHBV/$File/irrc_849_Dorman.pdf



This Wikipedia article on them is pretty good (at least as of when I am posting this):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 19 Jun, 2008 09:53 pm
I think the last couple of pages is very instructive, as we now have posters that agree with the Supreme Court decision arguing over what will happen now and a whole host of very basic questions. And this will continue with the lawyers and courts now that the door has been opened, and carried from ridiculous to bazaar.

I concluded long ago, as the administration did, because of expert legal advice within the administration that I believe was very accurate, that opening the door to these people to our courts was opening a Pandora's box, and that is what is happening now. The basic fact is that you cannot fight a war in the courts and be successful. Clinton tried to do it and 911 resulted. Bush is absolutely correct. With this Supreme Court decision, we not only cannot hold and interrogate these people as prisoners of a war in efforts to gain information and save lives in the fight agains terrorist networks as we have done so far, but now we encumber our own criminal justice system with these people. It is total insanity. It seems the left and Democrats have a death wish or something?

We have even had McCain calling for closing Gitmo, which is insanity. Where do we put these people, in the federal prison system, stateside? That is not only unwise, but unfeasible for alot of reasons.

We have a group of people that hated George Bush so vehemently and wanted their power back so bad that they would spin any issue into the most ridiculous lengths to achieve their end. Well now that the Supreme Court has ruled, where does it go from here and how foolish will this become? Who knows?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 09:28 am
okie wrote:
With this Supreme Court decision, we not only cannot hold and interrogate these people as prisoners of a war in efforts to gain information and save lives in the fight agains terrorist networks as we have done so far,


The Supreme Court decision does not prevent us from doing that. It just lets the courts hold hearings in order to verify that the detainees really were enemy fighters and not an innocent civilian who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.



okie wrote:
We have even had McCain calling for closing Gitmo, which is insanity. Where do we put these people, in the federal prison system, stateside?


If we close Guantanamo, the POWs will almost certainly be moved to the maximum security military prison at Leavenworth.

(Not the same facility as the famed federal civilian prison, but is in the same town.)
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 20 Jun, 2008 04:19 pm
Quote:
US asks to rewrite detainee evidence


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_evidence
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 09:28 am
Quote:
U.S. court dismisses case by Canadian at Guantanamo

By James Vicini
Fri Jun 20, 1:07 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Friday it cannot act on an appeal by a young Canadian until after his case has been decided at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp where he faces charges of murdering a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan.

The unanimous three-judge panel dismissed the appeal by Omar Khadr, who is scheduled to go on trial before a war crimes court on October 8.

The appeals court ruled that a 2006 law limits its jurisdiction to cases only after final judgments have been made by a military commission.

In June last year, the military judge presiding over Khadr's commission dismissed all charges on the grounds that he had been designated an "enemy combatant," and not an "unlawful enemy combatant" as required by law.

But a special military appeals court overturned the decision and ruled that Khadr's case could go forward. Khadr's attorneys appealed that decision to the U.S. appeals court in Washington.

They argued the public interest required the appeals court to review procedural issues to make sure the military commissions operate fairly and conform with the law. They said the appeals court should not wait until after his trial.

But Chief Judge David Sentelle, who wrote the opinion for the three-judge panel, disagreed. He said that once a final judgment has been rendered in the case, Khadr can then raise the issue, as well as any other issues.

Khadr, 21, is charged with murdering U.S. Army Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer with a grenade during a firefight at a suspected al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan in 2002.

He was 15 when captured and is one of two Guantanamo detainees captured as juveniles and charged with crimes that carry a maximum penalty of life in prison.

The other, Afghan captive Mohammed Jawad, is accused of throwing a grenade into a U.S. military jeep at a bazaar in Kabul in December 2002, shortly after the United States invaded Afghanistan to oust al Qaeda and its Taliban protectors following the September 11 attacks.

(Additional reporting by Jane Sutton in Miami, editing by Deborah Charles and Vicki Allen)

Copyright © 2008 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/guantanamo_hearings_dc
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Jun, 2008 10:43 am
We have our first habeas ruling:

AP: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/guantanamo_chinese_muslim

Reuters: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/guantanamo_court_dc
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/13/2020 at 10:17:18