Could the Supreme Court screw up any worse?

[rakkasan]

Today's ruling regarding the Enemy Combatants being held by the government will reshape the future conflicts like no one can possible imagine.

The opinion the SCOTUS offered states that Enemy Combatants are entitled to protection by way of the Geneva Convention, protection that was intended only for bonafide uniformed soldiers. In fact, not only does the Geneva Convention specify the right & just treatment of POW's, it also clearly distinguishes the criteria of both POW's & Enemy Combatants. The opinion offered to day by the SCOTUS tears that distinction right out of the Geneva Convention.

Absolutely stupid.

 

[SupraDerk]

A lot of this kind of crap I think boils down to the fact that our government doesn't want the United States' perception to come off as being the "big bully on the playground" to the rest of the world. This ruling would show that we operate by a dignified set of rules for war and that we are not lowering our standards to those of the insurgents.

Now with that said, I think having our government...more specifically having politicians run wars for us is retarded. Ever since the end of World War II we have been in stupid asymmetrical wars that we go into with the intention not to win. If the military was allowed to go in with the expectation and goal of winning, and they were allowed to go in with the scope of total war, then this shit would probably already be over with. But EVERYTHING has to be political here...so now we end up with long pointless wars and many people dying...hooray!

Haha, just my 2/100th's of a dollar!

 

[rakkasan]

A lot of this kind of crap I think boils down to the fact that our government doesn't want the United States' perception to come off as being the "big bully on the playground" to the rest of the world. This ruling would show that we operate by a dignified set of rules for war and that we are not lowering our standards to those of the insurgents.

Two issues here.

First, the SCOTUS is not supposed to interpret the global perception of the US. They are supposed make sure that lower courts are enforcing law in accordance with the intent of the constitution.

Second, and most importantly, they did in fact lower the standard so to speak regarding the interpretation on the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes its protection to persons that are not members of a recognized military or militia, wearing uniforms that bear insignia identifiable from a distance. Now the Enemy Combatants (read: insurgents) being held captive by the US are protected by the GC. This means that these murderous thugs are entitled to different treatment by the detaining force and a trial by court martial instead of a military tribunal.

 

[Supracentral]

Last I checked "persons that are not members of a recognized military or militia, wearing uniforms that bear insignia identifiable from a distance" are/were considered spies. Soldiers out of uniform can be shot as spies.

 

[SupraDerk]

Second, and most importantly, they did in fact lower the standard so to speak regarding the interpretation on the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes its protection to persons that are not members of a recognized military or militia, wearing uniforms that bear insignia identifiable from a distance. Now the Enemy Combatants (read: insurgents) being held captive by the US are protected by the GC. This means that these murderous thugs are entitled to different treatment by the detaining force and a trial by court martial instead of a military tribunal.

I was meaning not lowering our standards in the sense that we're not just lining them up and shooting them or beheading them or dragging them through the streets like they do to us.

 

[outofstep]

The SCOTUS has made a lot of very bad choices lately...

After the eminent domain issue, I'm surprised they are even still alive. Chalk that one up to the pussyfication of Americans.

 

[SupraMario]

Honestly I think they need to be shot. they tried to kill us. they tried to act like civilians, AKA being almost like a spy. but dont let them freakin go, cause they are going to do the same shit. try and start up more crap again.

 

[rakkasan]

Last I checked "persons that are not members of a recognized military or militia, wearing uniforms that bear insignia identifiable from a distance" are/were considered spies. Soldiers out of uniform can be shot as spies.

The Geneva Conention pertains to persons fighting & later detained on the battlefield. I don't see how spies would fit the bill.

 

[rakkasan]

Honestly I think they need to be shot. they tried to kill us. they tried to act like civilians, AKA being almost like a spy. but dont let them freakin go, cause they are going to do the same shit. try and start up more crap again.

If they fail to surrender, I agree, kill them. If they drop their weapon(s), US forces are bound take them captive & treat them as if they are POW's until it is determined by higher authority that they are considered Enemy Combatants.

I think that they should receive a military tribunal after the conflict is over. They were caught on the battlefield, so that's how their fate should be decided.

There is a video of chief justice Scalia speaking to a group of Europeans floating around the net. It lasts about an hour, and during the last 20 minutes or so, someone from the group asks him why the US thinks it's legal to detain the people in Guantanamo. To put it mildly, he drops the boom. It's a must see, as he speaks the truth without prejudice.

 

[SupraMario]

If they fail to surrender, I agree, kill them. If they drop their weapon(s), US forces are bound take them captive & treat them as if they are POW's until it is determined by higher authority that they are considered Enemy Combatants.

I think that they should receive a military tribunal after the conflict is over. They were caught on the battlefield, so that's how their fate should be decided.

There is a video of chief justice Scalia speaking to a group of Europeans floating around the net. It lasts about an hour, and during the last 20 minutes or so, someone from the group asks him why the US thinks it's legal to detain the people in Guantanamo. To put it mildly, he drops the boom. It's a must see, as he speaks the truth without prejudice.

yea but these guys werent just pulled from house and called suspected terrorist, they were shooting out our soldiers, even if i disagree with the war, I back ever man and woman on the feild out there.
these bastards arent fuckin innocent. they will just start more shit up.
fuckin drop them off in siberia or some shit, Like the russians did.

 

[rakkasan]

yea but these guys werent just pulled from house and called suspected terrorist, they were shooting out our soldiers, even if i disagree with the war, I back ever man and woman on the feild out there.
these bastards arent fuckin innocent. they will just start more shit up.
fuckin drop them off in siberia or some shit, Like the russians did.

Morals, young grass hopper. Once they are either incapacitated or have been disarmed, we have to take the high road

 

[Greg55_99]

Two issues here.

First, the SCOTUS is not supposed to interpret the global perception of the US. They are supposed make sure that lower courts are enforcing law in accordance with the intent of the constitution.

Second, and most importantly, they did in fact lower the standard so to speak regarding the interpretation on the Geneva Convention. The Geneva Convention specifically excludes its protection to persons that are not members of a recognized military or militia, wearing uniforms that bear insignia identifiable from a distance. Now the Enemy Combatants (read: insurgents) being held captive by the US are protected by the GC. This means that these murderous thugs are entitled to different treatment by the detaining force and a trial by court martial instead of a military tribunal.

The ruling of the court has nothing to do with global perception. It is about upholding adherance to the treaties to which the United States is a signatory. They are only to interpret the laws as enacted by Congress using the constitution as a basis.

It is not true your reading of the Geneva convention. Let me bring up a reference:

All armed forces, groups and units are necessarily structured and have a hierarchy, as they are subordinate to a command which is responsible to one of the Parties to the conflict for their operations. (20) In other words, all of them are subordinate to a command and to a Party to the conflict, without exception, for it is not permissible for any group to wage a private war. (21) Under these conditions, as well as those of the second sentence of this paragraph, all armed forces are "regular", whether they are established by a State in pursuance of appropriate laws, or by another Party to the conflict using its own methods, or even if they have risen spontaneously. Wearing or not a uniform or outfit is not a decisive criterion for the status of the individual concerned, as we will see in the examination of Article 44

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/470-750053?OpenDocument

The actual reference as to who and who is not a "combatant" is defined here;

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/4e473c7...524284f49042d4c8c12563cd0051dbaf?OpenDocument

The decision of the court is here:

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/05pdf/05-184.pdf

It's opinion says the Government has violated The Geneva Convention Article 3 Section 1.d.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebART/375-590006?OpenDocument

Now you may or may not bother to read all of this, but, the bottom line is this. The court is not saying these are nice guys. They aren't. The Court says that the President CANNOT simply declare anyone he wants as an "Enemy combatant" and take away rights from combatants by saying these men do not fall under the Geneva Convention. The Court holds that they do. (Regardless of whether they are a signatory or not). As such, the Court holds that they must be allowed due process under the law. They will either be charged under the Military's Uniform code of Military Justice or under civilian law. The Military Tribunal's that the President wants them tried under is unconstitutional because it denies them the right to face their accuser, present evidence in their defense, or even be at their own trial. If congress wanted the President to have that power then they must give it to him. And that's it.

Greg