yes, because NO ONE had EVER heard of KSM before he was brought to trial in NYC. And do Cheney and the rest of the gang who are so terrified of a federal trial realize how little a federal defendant actually gets to speak in open court? It’s not like he’ll get to filibuster, and federal judges — even in the Southern District of New York — aren’t exactly known for allowing long speechifying by the accused.

Cheney and his ilk tried for many years to spin movie-plot threats as an impetus to get what he wanted. I’m not sure more movie-plot threats and fearmongering (especially given Cheney’s less-than-stellar track record as to the veracity of his fearmongering) will help matters any this time around.

Vidiot says:
December 9, 2009 at 11:12 am

1) It’s not that they’re “afraid” of having the trial in NYC… that’s a left-wing straw-man argument, designed to sucker the gullible into a “we’re tougher than you” argument. There is NO precedent for bring captured enemy combatants from other countries, into the United States, and giving them a civilian trial. It goes against our rules and procedures… and the reason why we’d want to do that has never been explained by Eric Holder or the White House. They’re changing the rules, without explanation… that’s the problem.

2) This isn’t about Cheney. The left hates him so much, that mention his name and the whole focus becomes Cheney-Cheney- Cheney- Cheney… and you windup supporting folks like KSM, because you don’t want to agree with Cheney. That’s a level of hate that’s frightening… don’t be that blinded.

3) I don’t understand why the left never wants to admit that there are folks who want to kill Americans (ALL Americas), and are plotting to do so. It’s like it’s too inconvenient for them to think about… and anyone who does so is either a “war monger-er,” a “scare monger-er,” or some other form of “I don’t want to have to consider what you’re saying” name calling. There were plans to attack America, there were people who wanted to do it, some of the actions taken by the Bush Administration (and continued by the Obama Administration) have prevented such attacks. Pretending like they don’t exist won’t make them go away… it will only encourage another smoking hole in the ground.

4) Back to the beginning… there is no way that KSM walks out of this trial un-convicted. If that happens, the entire Obama Administration (and the majority of Democrats) can buy a ticket to Finland, because average Americans will riot. So it will never happen… and they know that. This of course begs the question, “If you know that, why bother?” The reason is obvious… because they think it will hurt Republicans and hurt Bush to have a big showy trial, where all their “controversial stuff” gets talked about in the open. There is no other reason. “Justice” would be accomplished in a tribunal no problem, and I doubt that many in the world would be unhappy if they didn’t see KSM in an NYC court rating like the crazy person he is. There is no practical reason for it… other than a White House vendetta.

I believe in America. I believe in our justice system. I believe in the rule of law. We’re superior to the terrorists in every single way.

My question is; why do conservatives hate America?

m says:
December 9, 2009 at 12:32 pm

Tell you what… I’ll answer your question, when you show me where in the American justice system, it says that captured enemy combatants, captured on foreign soil, should be given a civilian trial.

If you can answer that, please send it to Eric Holder… in the hearings, he seemed confused.

Ummm. Unless I am mistaken, was it not the previous administration that put KSM on the map with the endless boasting of his capture and interrogation? Yep. He is already on the map. Cheney is being more than a little disingenuous here.

ImNotBlue has a valid point about no precedent for civilian trials for enemy soldiers. The problem is that those rules apply to nations warring against each other. There really is no law or such that covers enemy combatants from other than a recognized nation.

I agree that our justice system is as good as it gets and that we should use it. By going to federal court, there will be no cameras in the courtroom – a fact ignored by both sides.

To be honest, I have no idea what is the right thing to do. If it was left up to me, I would have interrogated him on the battlefield and shot him “while trying to escape.” However, I don’t get to make that choice, and as I said, I really am conflicted on this one. Part of me wants to allow our justice system to work and show the world exactly what America stands for, while another part just wants to see KSM splattered against a wall. I suspect most Americans feel the same as I do, but are afraid to say so.

@m: Seriously, what is with the constant hating? Conservatives don’t hate America. Liberals don’t hate America. And No Party Affiliation folks like me don’t hate America. One would think that the passion of these debates reveals a deep love for this nation by all sides, and that is why it gets so heated. Maybe, just maybe, if one side or the other could stop the anger and engage in a civil discussion without the accusations of hate and such, we might find that most of us love and cherish America and our freedoms. I may disagree with some, but I never challenge their patriotism or love of this nation. The ability to publicly disagree in forums like this (or in peaceful protest) is a large part of what makes America great.

Conservatives are terrified of this trial. Terrified I tell you!!! In fact there has been a run on Depends by teabaggers. Does it surprise you that five deferment Dick has a problem with this? This guy craps his pants when he sees his shadow.

ImNotBlue,

Are you for real? You accuse me of a straw-man argument while constructing whole villages out of thatch moistened by your bile. I don’t “support KSM”, no matter how darkly you accuse me of it. I don’t deny that there aren’t terrorists who want to kill Americans, and I don’t know anyone who does. Kindly confine your arguments to things that actually exist. In reality. Not just what appears on Fox News.

Point by point:

It’s not that they’re “afraid” of having the trial in NYC… that’s a left-wing straw-man argument, designed to sucker the gullible into a “we’re tougher than you” argument.

Really? I seem to recall lots and lots of bellyaching from right-wing pundits and politicians saying that they fear another terrorist attack in New York. But apparently you’re saying that none of that happened. Right. (I love how the wingnuts seemingly alternate their utmost concern for New York with faux-populist screeds against New York. Hasn’t Coulter called for terrorist attacks in Manhattan against the New York Times? But, I digress.)

There is NO precedent for bring captured enemy combatants from other countries, into the United States, and giving them a civilian trial. It goes against our rules and procedures

Well, duh. There’s no precedent, because the situation didn’t exist until relatively recently. We’ve never defined people as “enemy combatants” before the Bush Administration…and what the Bush Administration wanted to do was to ignore the Constitution and simply bury them in Gitmo indefinitely without any recourse to the courts. It was the Supreme Court that overturned those decisions and forced the creation of the commissions and tribunals. The “rules and procedures” that you so lovingly allude to were set up by the Bush Administration.

There’s a far longer precedent, by the way, for having trials occur in the jurisdiction of the crime that was committed. See Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. That’s older than the Bush Administration and its Constitution of “whatever the President wants is the law”, in case you’re keeping score at home.

There’s also nothing to say that we CAN’T give them a civilian trial — yeah, we’re going against precedent by doing it, but that precedent is only a couple years old, and is a Bush-era administrative rule. Not to mention, but there have been civilian trials for terrorism before (even in the Southern District of New York! Amazing! And the Republic didn’t crumble!).

They’re changing the rules, without explanation… that’s the problem.

Oh yes, because ignoring habeas corpus and basic jurisprudence as laid out in the Constitution wasn’t changing the rules. It was protecting America, even if we had to shred the Constitution’s protections to do it.

Yes, Obama and Holder are changing the rules by bringing the terror defendants to New York to stand trial. But they’re changing the Justice Department’s stance — something they’re allowed to do — and not running roughshod over the law.

This isn’t about Cheney. The left hates him so much, that mention his name and the whole focus becomes Cheney-Cheney- Cheney- Cheney… and you windup supporting folks like KSM, because you don’t want to agree with Cheney.

um, perhaps I’m being obtuse here, but isn’t this post about Cheney’s appearance on Hannity? And wasn’t my first comment taking issue with something that Cheney said? This is as much about Cheney as it is anything else.

And, as I mentioned, please show where I said that I’m supporting KSM. (I smell the peculiar agricultural tang of curing straw here. It might even be man-shaped.) I think that KSM should be given a fair and public trial in a court of law. Now, the Bush/Cheney decisions — such as torture, et cetera — have made it tough for Justice to try him. But I have confidence that federal prosecutors can pull it off. If he is convicted (as I’m sure he will be, given his past statements, his earlier attempts to plead guilty, et cetera, then I hope for a rigorous, strict, and appropriately severe punishment to be imposed upon him. I don’t interpret that as “support”, and no fair reader would.

3) I don’t understand why the left never wants to admit that there are folks who want to kill Americans (ALL Americas), and are plotting to do so. It’s like it’s too inconvenient for them to think about… and anyone who does so is either a “war monger-er,” a “scare monger-er,” or some other form of “I don’t want to have to consider what you’re saying” name calling. There were plans to attack America, there were people who wanted to do it, some of the actions taken by the Bush Administration (and continued by the Obama Administration) have prevented such attacks. Pretending like they don’t exist won’t make them go away… it will only encourage another smoking hole in the ground.

When you’re done ctrl-v’ing the right-wing talking points, please let me know. I still fail to be convinced by your nonsensical argument that wanting to try suspects accused of serious crimes is “pretending like they don’t exist.”

Back to the beginning… there is no way that KSM walks out of this trial un-convicted. . . .This of course begs the question, “If you know that, why bother?” The reason is obvious… because they think it will hurt Republicans and hurt Bush to have a big showy trial, where all their “controversial stuff” gets talked about in the open. There is no other reason. “Justice” would be accomplished in a tribunal no problem, and I doubt that many in the world would be unhappy if they didn’t see KSM in an NYC court rating like the crazy person he is.

And, no one’s going to “see KSM in an NYC court rating like the crazy person he is.” (They won’t even see him ranting.) Cameras aren’t allowed in federal court, dig? And, as I noted (which you ignored — par for the course, really) above, do you “realize how little a federal defendant actually gets to speak in open court? It’s not like he’ll get to filibuster, and federal judges — even in the Southern District of New York — aren’t exactly known for allowing long speechifying by the accused.” And we KNOW that KSM hates Americans and wants to kill them. (Wait a second! You said that no one on the left admits that there are people who don’t like us. I guess that was yet another — you guessed it — straw man.) How is his saying so in court really going to materially affect the security of the United States? People will shrug, say “of course he doesn’t like us” to themselves, then wonder what’s for dinner.

whoops, should’ve closed that ital tag here. Those last two grafs were my writing, not ImNotBlue’s.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Cheney.

I think the long term damage to our reputation and ideals is paramount, something I wish the former administration had given more consideration to before implementing their foreign policies.

Rather than create martyrs we should criminalize them and impose harsh sentences, something made none the easier by Mr. Cheney’s own approach and previous actions.

“one of the most evil men in history”

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle.

Yeah – and that Nuremberg thing? it put Goering on the map – made a hero out of him – right? Hey, got an idea!! Let’s put Cheney on trial!! See if it makes a hero out of him. How’d that work out for Scooter? Is he still a hero?

Only the cowards of the right wing, the SurrendeRepublicans, are afraid of putting KSM and the rest of them on trial in NYC.

Cheney. A noose. A rope. A public square. Um – humm!!

Ted says:
December 9, 2009 at 2:42 pm

You are a perfect example of how hate (in your case, it’s hate for all things Republican/Conservative/Not-Liberal) will cause you to SUPPORT anti-American terrorists. You hate is all consuming, and everything else gets overwhelmed. How sad.

Vidiot says:
December 9, 2009 at 2:48 pm

Are you for real?

Yup. And you and Ted can share a raft… floating along the, “if Republican’s like it, it must be wrong” river.

I seem to recall lots and lots of bellyaching from right-wing pundits and politicians saying that they fear another terrorist attack in New York.

Yes, how foolish of me to “assume” you’re so anti-right, that you’d mock concern over a terrorist attack. How foolish indeed.

I just wonder why you’re NOT concerned that NYC might be the target of another attack? Is it because you don’t care? Is it because you think America “deserves” it? Or is it because you simply MUST disagree with anything someone on the right says, so if they’re concerned, you’re not?

There’s no precedent, because the situation didn’t exist until relatively recently.

Wrong.

We’ve never defined people as “enemy combatants” before the Bush Administration

Wrong again… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_combatants

In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin, the Court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:

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. 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.

…and what the Bush Administration wanted to do was to ignore the Constitution and simply bury them in Gitmo indefinitely without any recourse to the courts.

Wrong still. (1) Where in the constitution does it say these people deserve civilian trials? (2) The Bush Admin and many of those on the right want military tribunals, not civilian show trials as Eric Holder has decreed.

There’s a far longer precedent, by the way, for having trials occur in the jurisdiction of the crime that was committed.

And that applies to… wait for it… AMERICAN CITIZENS! NOT FOREIGN COMBATANTS!

There’s also nothing to say that we CAN’T give them a civilian trial

That is true… but just because we CAN do it… why should we? Still no answer.

Not to mention, but there have been civilian trials for terrorism before (even in the Southern District of New York! Amazing! And the Republic didn’t crumble!).

Against foreign citizens? Oh, yeah… forgot that again, didn’t you?

I still fail to be convinced by your nonsensical argument that wanting to try suspects accused of serious crimes is “pretending like they don’t exist.”

For evidence of this, please re-read you OWN COMMENTS. If you’re not going to pay attention to what you write, I’m not sure I should bother.

You’ve made a lot of claims and attacks and snark in your post. Great job finding the keyboard and managing to make words! However, beyond that… so many of your claims simply don’t make sense, or are contradicted by reality that you might want to considered stopping by the “real world,” before your next post. That way, perhaps you’ll be less confused.

________

Funny though. Despite so many nasty attacks and comments above (Bill, Nachi, vIdiot, etc), nobody has said why they think these trials will be a GOOD thing. Why is a CIVILIAN TRIAL better than a military tribunal? Why is this the right move specifically?

I know, I ask a lot… mostly because you folks don’t know the answer. All you know is, “Obama said do it, so I obey… Cheney said it’s bad, it must be wrong.” And the beat goes on.

Oh, that’s the height of argument, making fun of my nickname. You’re going to deploy the much-vaunted Rubber/Glue gambit next, right? It’s also pretty rich that you make fun of me and call me an idiot in the same breath as decrying “nasty attacks.” Poor baby!

Once again, you seem to be quite comfortable not only telling me what you think, but what I think as well. You seem to be more than happy to talk about my opinions or motivations. Only one problem: you’re dead wrong — as has become depressingly usual for you — and your straw men are approaching Wicker Man-size.

Yes, how foolish of me to “assume” you’re so anti-right, that you’d mock concern over a terrorist attack. How foolish indeed. I just wonder why you’re NOT concerned that NYC might be the target of another attack? Is it because you don’t care? Is it because you think America “deserves” it? Or is it because you simply MUST disagree with anything someone on the right says, so if they’re concerned, you’re not?

Pure and utter bullshit. I’m not mocking concern over a terrorist attack, and if you think that I am, then you need to once again work on your reading comprehension. As someone here wrote once, “reading is fundamental.” Who could that have been?

I think that the right-wingers’ concerns over a terrorism trial in NYC inviting a terrorist attack there are ridiculous, misplaced (if not trumped-up and fictitious altogether), and downright off-base. I didn’t say I wasn’t concerned that NYC might be the target of another attack; that’d be ludicrous. I am fully aware that NYC is a tempting target for all the reasons that it’s been targeted so many times before. I am concerned, yes, that it will be targeted again. Yet, nevertheless, I continue to live in NYC and go about my business without cowering in fear. Terrorists’ weapon is just that: terror…and I refuse to be victimized by it.

I never said America deserves a terrorist attack; that’s repugnant, and I resent that you so casually threw that out, as if you know the slightest thing about my motivations. You really should confine yourself to critiquing the things that people say here, rather than bringing in all sorts of talking-point-derived extraneous crap that isn’t germane. (once again! straw man! your argument tactics are really getting quite monotonous. Perhaps you’ve been reading Schopenhauer.) I should point you to some 9/11 victims I know who’d cheerfully knock your teeth in for saying that. As Bob Dole said in a presidential debate: “quit lying about my record.”

Interesting about ex parte Quirin, by the way; I hadn’t seen that before. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

But the Bush Administration didn’t want military trials or commissions or tribunals or what-have-you; they reluctantly agreed to them once SCOTUS forced them to.

That is true… but just because we CAN do it… why should we? Still no answer.

But why shouldn’t we? We’re capable of trying people for terrorism and winning convictions. A law-enforcement approach to terrorism as a crime has reaped dividends and resulted in long prison sentences and executions. Again, I’ve yet to hear a rational argument against trying these defendants in civilian court that doesn’t seemed to be rooted in movie-plot fearmongering. I invite you to try to make one. Bonus points if you don’t quote Cheney or visit the Fox News website.

Against foreign citizens? Oh, yeah… forgot that again, didn’t you?

Actually, yes, we have. Does Ramzi Yousef ring a bell? He was convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993. He’s not a U.S. citizen — he was born in Kuwait and is of Pakistani descent — and he’s currently serving life without parole in the federal supermax. (There are others I could name, but I figured one disproof of your blanket statement would suffice.) Forgot that again, didn’t you?

I’d invite you to point out where my statement — that you think my wanting to try terrorism suspects is pretending that terroristic acts don’t exist — is self-contradictory, but you seem to be far more interested in inchoate attacks that don’t actually go anywhere.

Great job finding the keyboard and managing to make words!

Thanks! And wow, you managed to do it too! Next time, try making actual thoughts!

so many of your claims simply don’t make sense, or are contradicted by reality

Yet you don’t address them. And you say that I’m being snarky, while of course you must be Emily Fucking Post.

I should point out the things I said in my last comment that you decline to acknowledge or address, while casting aspersions on my argument style (from your padded cell, apparently):
–that federal defendants don’t get to make long rants in criminal trials;
–that cameras aren’t allowed in federal court;
–that whatever KSM says in federal court won’t materially affect national security;
–that it doesn’t hurt Republicans, Bush, or Cheney to try KSM;
–that federal prosecutors say they are capable of trying KSM with evidence untainted by torture;
–that the reason I’m talking about Cheney — which you apparently think is somehow off-base — is because the original post is about his appearance on Hannity;
–that the Bush Administration “changed the rules” in dealing with suspected terrorists far more than the Obama Administration’s choice to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court does — chiefly by Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales doing away with habeas corpus and many other bedrock principles of our judicial system; et cetera.

But apparently Cheney said all this stuff, so it’s good enough for you.

Yeah, I love how the Republicunts somehow take credit for post-9/11 security stuff instead of taking the blame for 9/11 itself. Since, you know, they ignored all the intelligence and went on vacation instead. Not to mention how they then helped a bunch of Bush’s Saudi buddies leave the country, even though the attack was funded and backed by the Saudis.
Mens Health

Vidiot says:
December 10, 2009 at 3:07 am

Where did make fun of your name? Oh that… typo… must have hit the shift key late, and spell check doesn’t grab that. If you need a tissue to help get over it, I’ll be happy to send you a coupon.

You seem to be more than happy to talk about my opinions or motivations.

Well, someone has to be. You certainly aren’t expressing them. Have you answered my question yet? Let’s read on…

I’m not mocking concern over a terrorist attack,

Well, yes you are.

I seem to recall lots and lots of bellyaching from right-wing pundits and politicians saying that they fear another terrorist attack in New York.

Tell me how I’m supposed to interpret that statement, in a way that ISN’T mocking the threat.

I am fully aware that NYC is a tempting target for all the reasons that it’s been targeted so many times before. I am concerned, yes, that it will be targeted again.

Sounds like a lot of “bellyaching” to me.

Yet, nevertheless, I continue to live in NYC and go about my business without cowering in fear. Terrorists’ weapon is just that: terror…and I refuse to be victimized by it.

So you’re making the old, “the terrorists win” argument here? Really?

The point of those who argue against having the trail in NYC is that it will make NYC an EVEN BIGGER target. If you own a store that constantly gets robbed, you don’t say, “Yeah, I think I’ll get rid of my alarm system… having one means I’m living in fear.” That’s just common sense.

Of course, it doesn’t answer the actual question of, “Why is it a GOOD THING to have it in NYC?” But let’s read on…

I never said America deserves a terrorist attack; that’s repugnant, and I resent that you so casually threw that out, as if you know the slightest thing about my motivations.

Actually, I never said you did. I gave three potential reason why you might be less concerned that NYC would get attacked again. Moreover, I have actually talked to people… IN PERSON… who said right after 9/11 that America “deserved it.” So don’t claim that this isn’t an idea held by some of those on the left… if seen it with my own eyes, “repugnant” as it was. Again, as I’ve said before, and you like to point out… “reading is fundamental.”

But the Bush Administration didn’t want military trials or commissions or tribunals or what-have-you; they reluctantly agreed to them once SCOTUS forced them to.

Well, let’s examine this. I’m not sure if they didn’t want to give trials, or they just didn’t want to give trials while they were still in combat… but let’s assume for the moment you’re correct. If we both agree that KSM and the like will never beat the rap, and all this is just a show trial… he’ll go to jail sure enough… the what’s the point in a trial anyway? Yes it “looks good,” but is it really necessary? The money, the risk, the spectacle… for what? A lot of “theoretical” stuff happening there… but I can certainly see the alleged point, if that was their intention.

But why shouldn’t we?

THIS IS NOT AN ANSWER! “Just because,” does not work here! Although, it does prove that you have no rational, other than want to agree with the current administration.

Again, I’ve yet to hear a rational argument against trying these defendants in civilian court that doesn’t seemed to be rooted in movie-plot fearmongering.

Ah yes, the old, “tell me XYZ” line, combined with a list of “standards” you must first account for. Do the reasons really matter to you? Nah… you’ll just call them “fearmongering” or “movie-plot” (yet another phrase I would point to as evidence of your disrespect). Try this:

1) There is not precedent for having civilian trials for those captured on the battlefield.
2) There is no benefit for having civilian trials for those captured on the battlefield.
3) Civilian trials for those captured on the battlefield will create more risk than benefits.
4) The civilian trials will only result in providing a forum for the defense lawyers to attack American soldiers and commanders with fallacies and half-truths.
5) Civilian trials for those captured on the battlefield will create unrealistic expectations of our men and women fighting overseas… they will be required to do their duty as soldiers, then function as “detectives” and collect bits of evidence for trial, hindering their performance, putting them in further jeopardy, and potentially causing the death “combatants” because it’s easier than bringing them to trial.

How are those? Look at that… 5 reasons… and you have yet to provide ONE. But let’s read on…

Actually, yes, we have. Does Ramzi Yousef ring a bell?

Oh for Pete’s sake… you can’t be this dense. Yousef was IN AMERICA when he attempted to blow up the Trade Center in ’93. He was arrested for a crime he committed WHILE ON AMERICAN SOIL. Come on, man… get it together.

I’d invite you to point out where my statement…

“Bellyaching.” “Fearmongering.” “Movie-plot.” Etc.

I should point out the things I said in my last comment that you decline to acknowledge or address, while casting aspersions on my argument style (from your padded cell, apparently):

You really want to play that game. Should I point out again how the NUMBER ONE QUESTION I ASKED YOU remains unanswered?

–that federal defendants don’t get to make long rants in criminal trials;

But they’re lawyers do.

–that cameras aren’t allowed in federal court;

But reporters are.

–that whatever KSM says in federal court won’t materially affect national security;

How do you know that? Do you know what he’s got to say?

–that it doesn’t hurt Republicans, Bush, or Cheney to try KSM;

It allows the media to constantly bring up the specter of “torture,” and allows the Democrats to say, “If it weren’t for XYZ allowed by Republicans/Bush/Cheney/etc. we’d have an easier time.”

–that federal prosecutors say they are capable of trying KSM with evidence untainted by torture;

Um… okay. And?

–that the reason I’m talking about Cheney — which you apparently think is somehow off-base — is because the original post is about his appearance on Hannity;

Yes, that is the impetus of this story. However, the story exists without Cheney… his comments are just comments. But the desire to talk about it, and to make it about Cheney, is because it’s easier to attack him than to explain why it’s a good thing to try KSM in civilian court… which you still haven’t answered.

–that the Bush Administration “changed the rules” in dealing with suspected terrorists far more than the Obama Administration’s choice to try the 9/11 defendants in a civilian court does — chiefly by Bush/Ashcroft/Gonzales doing away with habeas corpus and many other bedrock principles of our judicial system; et cetera.

FOREIGN COMBATANTS DON’T HAVE HABEAS CORPUS RIGHTS! Show me where they do.

Oh well… three pages of typing, responding to a whole lot of babble… and you STILL haven’t answered the question. I’m starting to think you don’t know the answer. Well, that’s a lie. I’m not starting to think that… I’ve thought it all along… you’re just making it hard for me to give the benefit of the doubt.

Tough back and forth there, but a great read.

Innocent question:

“In the 1942 Supreme Court of the United States ruling Ex Parte Quirin, the Court uses the terms with their historical meanings to distinguish between unlawful combatants and lawful combatants:”

Does Article III of the Geneva Conventions supersede the above?

From Wikipedia:

“Article 3 has been called a “Convention in miniature.” It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts.[1] It describes minimal protections which must be adhered to by all individuals within a signatory’s territory during an armed conflict not of an international character (regardless of citizenship or lack thereof): Noncombatants, combatants who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, including prohibition of outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment. The passing of sentences must also be pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples. Article 3′s protections exist even if one is not classified as a prisoner of war.”

“Article 5 specifies that prisoners of war (as defined in article 4) are protected from the time of their capture until their final repatriation. It also specifies that when there is any doubt whether a combatant belongs to the categories in article 4, they should be treated as such until their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.”

“The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of “unlawful combatants” by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, “There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,”…

Our constitution requires signed treaties become the “law of the land”, and Military Tribunals are not “a regularly constituted court”; or are they?

Jim R says:
December 10, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Does Article III of the Geneva Conventions supersede the above?

I think a lot of it depends on your POV. To someone like myself, the Geneva Convention isn’t really law, as it’s not really part of our Constitution. It’s nice to have a global standard, but when push comes to shove, our laws are more important than “their” laws.

Furthermore, it is commonly believed that for the Geneva Convention’s guidelines to really be effective, all countries involved must participate equally. In the case of the War On Terror, AQ and the like aren’t a nation, and they do not follow GC guidelines at all. Therefore, some would assert that such an agreement does not apply… while others would say “in for a penny, in for a pound.” I believe America attempts to do a little of both… act within the established guidelines, but we’re not willing to sacrifice security or common sense.