Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Can Scotus get anything right, anymore?

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Otherguy Overby, Aug 12, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Otherguy Overby

    Otherguy Overby member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Refrigerator box
    from: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.24759/pub_detail.asp

    Their's an ill wind blowing through SCOTUS.
     
  2. GoRon

    GoRon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,495
    Location:
    west burbs of Chicago
    Take a look at the names, that ill wind is an old stench that has been around awhile.
     
  3. cpileri

    cpileri Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,425
    same ones?

    Are those the identical bunch that voted in the majority in the Kelo vs New London case?
    I remember Ginsberg, Souter, and Kennedy fro kelo. But I cant find where I worte it down. Who were the other 2 in kelo? Were they Stevens and breyer? I wouldnt be at all suprised.
    C-
     
  4. crebralfix

    crebralfix member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,356
    Right for who?
     
  5. strambo

    strambo Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,929
    Location:
    Oregon
    We need to stop reacting and draft a set of EPW rules to apply to terrorist and any non-military combatants. Get this approved by Congress and be done with it. That would put and end to the debate and push to treat them in accordance w/ Geneva. As long as they are not being tortured and are treated roughly as well as our US criminals (in terms of physical needs, not the same "rights") then it should be OK.

    They aren't military....this is important because when you release POWs at the end of a conflict, you do not have to worry about them attacking you. The nations are no longer at war. Al Qaeda personnel will always be a threat. They aren't US citizens and shouldn't get the same treatment as a US citizen criminal either...esp. the same due process.
     
  6. brerrabbit

    brerrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    Actually, the supreme court decided correctly in forcing adherence to geneva convention rules. It was a treaty that was signed off by congress, and is de facto law.

    Whether or not the enemy obeys the rules, all signees to the treaty must obey the rules. We signed, and should follow it until we publicly withdraw from the treaty.

    As per the geneva convention, even if the detainees do not meet the requirements of POW's they must be treated as such.

    My personal belief is that the geneva convention is outdated. The civilized countries follow it, but then again, the civilized countries are also not very likely to get into war with each other, or break the treaty provisions if they do.

    The people we are fighting now routinely break a very wide range of rules that would have got them shot or hung back in WWII.

    The simplest solution would be an addendum to the geneva convention allowing a nation to not follow it if the country, people ,or group they are fighting do not adhere to it. If the geneva convention is not changed, notify all signees and publicly withdraw from the treaty.

    If violations of the treaty are not dealt with harshly, no one will feel obligated to follow it, including us.

    I am not going to get into secret evidence, I think that ploy is anathema to anything resembling justice . A person being prosecuted must be able personally to refute evidence against him, not by proxy his lawyer. If the evidence is so sensitive, do not bring it into court, it might get leaked. Also, if you want to get technical, under geneva convention rules, we do not have authority to try any member of al quaida captured in Afghanistan.

    Actually read thearticles of the geneva convention and the hague convention sometime, they make for interesting reading.
     
  7. ilbob

    ilbob Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    12,480
    Location:
    Illinois
    Since these guys are very clearly NOT lawful combatants under any stretch of the geneva convention, I don't see how it would apply to them.
     
  8. Turkey Creek

    Turkey Creek Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    356
    Location:
    MO
    Is this a trick question?
     
  9. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    The only reason there's a SCOTUS at all is the fact that we WON a World War. This obvious fact appears to be lost on the blackrobes who preside over parsing the "rights" of people sworn to destroy everything we and our illustrious forebears have stood for over two centuries.
     
  10. brerrabbit

    brerrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    ilbob

    The geneva convention provides rules for dealing with people that are not lawful combatants.

    To put it bluntly, Anyone an occupying power detains falls under geneva convention rules. If they are unlawful combatants, they still have the rights of POWs under the geneva convention until they are punished for being unlawful combatants. There are more than a few areas in the conventions where the gitmo guys are covered under POW status

    In WWII, it was usually pretty quick involving a tall tree and short rope for anyone carrying a weapon and not wearing a uniform. The geneva convention has relaxed the uniform requirements, which I think is to the detriment of the convention.

    I am not defending the convention, nor the gitmo prisoners. I am personally for withdrawing from the convention unless it gets an overhaul to compensate for modern warfare.
     
  11. rhubarb

    rhubarb Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    765
    Location:
    South Texas
    From our Declaration of Independence:

    Put these men on trial. They have a right as men to be tried. If they are guilty of being "unlawful combatants," punish them with death. If not, send them home. How can it be any other way? Why would it?
     
  12. brerrabbit

    brerrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    Thing is, because they are combatants, legal or not, under geneva convention rules as now written, they cannot be executed merely for being combatants, lawful or not. They can be tried for unlawful acts of war, such as killing civilians, not wearing a uniform, etc, but not for shooting at american soldiers.

    They can be tried for violations of the geneva convention, which is a war crime BTW, but that must be done by a neutral third party or by a tribunal of signees.

    As long as we back the geneva convention we should follow its rules. If we are going to break them, we should withdraw from the convention.

    It was not written with todays type of warfare in mind. We are way overdue for geneva convention VI
     
  13. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    I dont have a problem with Hamdan. It is basically fancy judge-speak for "you cant just hold people indefinitely without trial, no matter how awesome a reason you have."

    Our justice system already has ample ability:
    -to deal with prisoners of war.
    -to deal with prisoner of war who violated the rules of war by not wearing uniforms, etc.
    -to deal with criminals who break laws in this country.
    -to deal with people that conspire with criminals to commit crimes.
    -to deal with criminals that break laws in this country but are hiding overseas

    We have 3 choices:
    -prove they were involved in combat vs US troops, at which point they become POWs. This applies even to ones that brokes the rules of war.
    -prove they committed a crime, at which point they should be charged and put on trial in the US. If they broke our laws, they get our justice. This is common sense.
    -let them go.

    It is better this way. Every person who deserves punishment fits in one of the above categories.
     
  14. Hawkmoon

    Hawkmoon Member

    Joined:
    May 5, 2004
    Messages:
    3,454
    Location:
    Terra
    The clown who wrote this also disregards the distinction between lawful and illegal combatants. Lawful combatants can be treated as prisoners of war and subjected to military tribunals as war criminals. Illegal combatants are, by definition, NOT soldiers, NOT military, NOT captured in "battle" ... and are thus NOT prisoners of war nor subject to trial by military tribunals.

    Unfortunately, our government really likes to have its cake and eat it too, so they play fast and loose with words and definitions according to the whim of the day.

    One day they'll perhaps learn that if you want other people/groups/countries to play according to the rules, it helps to play by the rules yourself.
     
  15. Otherguy Overby

    Otherguy Overby member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    982
    Location:
    Refrigerator box
    Duh...

    Conceptually, SCOTUS wants us, and the world to play by the rules.

    However, a group, who is not a government, and also not a signatory to the Geneva Convention, and doesn't play by those rules, then holds the same rules against us.

    So, we, and the Israelis are in conflict with this group who follows only one rule: Kill us all and destroy our culture. They hide within their own civillian population, threaten their way into local government and wage war.

    What this comes down to is they are using our philosphy, religion and sense of fair play to their advantage, IOW tying our hands behind our backs. So, our neurotic solution is to play fair with them?

    If dealing with Al Quieda (sp) were up to me, I'd kill them, run them through a chipper shredder (some, hopefully still alive) and feed the terrorist mulch to pigs. When there was a sufficient ammount of manure, I'd drop it on the UN.
     
  16. brerrabbit

    brerrabbit Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    401
    I have no problems with that whatsoever. Trouble is being a signee to the geneva convention does tie our hands.

    Considering the moslems consider all moslem lands their country, they do not consider themselves foriegn, and neither do the laws of the lands we are we are engaged in,they would not be considered foriegn fighters if it went to trial.

    Truth be told, My personal feelings are that to obtain victory, and obtain the goals neccesary for victory, we must withdraw from the geneva convention. We already have a myriad of laws in place protecting the rights of prisoners. We are highly unlikely to go to war with the countries that would uphold the geneva convention. As such it is no longer in our best interest to be a signee any more
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page