Al-Qaida detainees not protected by Geneva Convention: U.S. appeals court

[truthpusher]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/07/15/1133378-ap.html

July 15, 2005
------------------------
Al-Qaida detainees not protected by Geneva Convention: U.S. appeals court
------------------------
WASHINGTON (AP) - A federal appeals court put the Bush administration's military commissions for terrorist suspects back on track Friday, saying a detainee at the Guantanamo Bay prison who once was Osama bin-Laden's driver can stand trial.

A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, whose case was halted by a federal judge on grounds that procedures of the military commission that will hear his case were unlawful.

"Congress authorized the military commission that will try Hamdan," said the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges ruled.

link: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2005/07/15/1133378-ap.html

[ixion]

1. and again, the US court system attempts to condone torture

The thing is, it really doesn't matter what the appeals court thinks... it matters what the world thinks. Also, as soon as we break the geneva conventions, we open a pandora's box for every other fascist country to do the same. :-(

[gp]

3. no no you don't understand...

we're the good guys! we're allowed to do that! :sarcasm:

[MGKrebs]

2. Wow. We really are in new territory here aren't we?

Either these prisoners are prisoners of war, and Geneva applies, or they are suspects in a crime and are subject to the US justice system. But we are creating a seperate class of prisoner for which neither system applies, and we arbitrarily assign it to "military justice".

Saddam Husseins driver? Wouldn't he be a candidate for the Iraqi justice system?

[punpirate]

10. Indication of how well the propaganda's worked...

"Saddam Hussein's driver?," you say?

The petitioner was purportedly bin Laden's driver.

But, you're right--and legally right--that this creates a separate class of person without the rights of either POW or accused criminal, and yet, US military courts will prevail, which were previously restricted to either administering justice to US soldiers or POWs under the Geneva Conventions.

Not something of which we as a country should be proud.

[MGKrebs]

18. I cannot believe I made that mistake!

Embarrassing.

[The Magistrate]

15. The Geneva Accords, Mr. Krebs

Actually do envision a "third class", namely that of "unlawful combatant". This applies to persons who are not agents of a legitimate state, and who can be shown to have conducted themselves in a manner contrary to the laws of war. Such status is supposed to be determined by an adjudicating agency, that may be military. Such status, of course, canot be simply declared by executive fiat, and the determinative hearing is supposed to be a genuine evidentiary proceeding. Signatories of the Geneva Accords are still bound, even when dealing with prisoners of non-signatory powers, or "illegal combatants", to treat them humanely, refraining from maltreatment and torture. The proceedings to determine whether a person is an "illegal combatant" are also expected, at least, to be carried through promptly, without persons languishing in a legal limbo for many years.

[MGKrebs]

19. Yes, I do remember that.

I oversimplified a bit, but as you said, those guys would be covered under Geneva in some way.

[The Magistrate]

21. They Certainly Are, Sir

It is, really, hard to determine from this news account just what the judges really have ruled. It seems that they initially questioned whether the military commissions set up were of a nature that fulfilled the Geneva requirements for ascertaining whether a person was a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant, and have now decided that they are in accordance with those requirements. This unfortunate fellow probably does not have the right to insist, without any determinative hearing, that he is a prisoner of war, any more than the Executive authority of the U.S. has any right to declare, absent such a hearing, that he is an illegal combatant. The worst feature of this, of course, is that there is no reason whatever to suppose he will receive a fair hearing from the military commission he will be brought before.

[6 sack fiber]

20. Not really a new class -

Roosevelt did to to 150,000 Japanese-Americans in WWII. And NONE of them were picked up on the battlefield as supposedly some of these have been.

[thebigidea]

47. you can invoke WWII all you want...

... but don't tell it to someone who lived through the period or they'll laugh in your face.

[ovidsen]

4. The DC Appeals Court is "liberal"

I have a feeling this issue has been signed, sealed, delivered and nailed. And it's nothing to be proud of.

[Toots]

5. So is this the first person to go to trial?

Going on three years and finally we want to take one of them to trial. Even a military trial is at least something. In America we have the right to a speedy trial. I thought GitMo was American soil. I don't know anywhere in our Constitution where it says our Bill of Rights (Amendments) are for Citizens only. I read it to mean anyone in America or on American soil. I know if Cuba attacked it we would sure claim that to be the case, just as we claimed our Embassy was American soil when Iran captured and held americans for more than a year.

[Stuckinthebush]

6. See, all you have to do is label someone a terrorist

and all rights are thrown out of the window.

The problem is that when our soldiers are captured, they can be labeled a terrorist and all of their rights will be thrown out of the window.

Uh, oh. Perhaps we need to rethink this....

[Zorra]

35. Step 1: Anyone that speaks out against the Bu*h administration can be

arrested as a terrorist under the Patriot Act after this law is "defined and interpreted" by Bu*h's new fascist Supreme Court.

Step 2: Anyone that speaks out against the Bu*h dictatorship is arrested and sent to gitmo.

Step 3: Anyone arrested for speaking out against the Bu*h dictatorship gets a kangaroo military tribunal and is executed.

[Just Me]

7. Aw shit. Please, tell me we are NOT going down that road!!!

Crap! Surely to God Almighty the SCOTUS will reverse this ruling.

[mtnester]

9. Heaven help us if the Muslim community think our courts back up torture

and the denial of Geneva Rights to their citizens. God have mercy on us then.

[ZR2]

11. WTF does this have to do with torture ?

This is stricktly a ruling that the case may proceed to trial.

[mtnester]

17. Well, since it applies to the ENTIRE Geneva Convention

"The protections of the 1949 Geneva Convention do not apply to al-Qaida and its members, so Hamdan does not have a right to enforce its provisions in court, the appeals judges ruled. "

There are many things in the convention itself, but the perception will be just what I said. The worst possible scenario will be plucked out, and interpreted that way...you know it will cause this is the way the human condition works.

[K-W]

8. So now our enemies arent legally human beings.

Can we call the US facist yet?

[Zodiak]

13. We went fascist years ago

So starting to say it now will only inclide you in the "reality-based community".

Honestly, no one in the world will care what bullshit comes from our court system. A violation of the Geneva conventions is not determined here, anyways, and ruling that the provisions do not apply to these prisoners is ALSO not determined here, either. We are not the arbiters of international law, despite our trying to make it so.

If we continue down this road, the rest of the world will cut us off economically and then crush us militarily. Bush is painting a big red target on the US for generations to come.

....feel safer?

[K-W]

14. I hate to break it to you, but might makes right.

International law is just words on paper. It has no value whatsoever unless some entity with power enforces them.

"we continue down this road, the rest of the world will cut us off economically and then crush us militarily. Bush is painting a big red target on the US for generations to come."

That just isnt realistic. We run the world economy. And we have a nuclear arsenal that could blow up the planet, not to mention a conventional military that could probably defeat a large portion of the world combined if not all of it.

Meanwhile, the world isnt going to unite against us the world is full of self-intersted actors who are going to look out for thier bottom lines and forming a coalition to bring down the most powerful country in the world will never be the bottom line for even a majority of nations.

The US would only get kicked if it was already down. Nobody is going to attack the biggest bully on the block.

[MGKrebs]

22. I disagree with some of that.

It's not an all or nothing deal, in that some other entity would suddenly step up and challenge us and we would kick their ass. It would be, could be, and probably is happening incrementally.

Challenges to tarriffs, changing which currency international transactions are done with, charging higher interest on debt, buying our corporations, failing to help subsidize our adventures, perhaps less intelligence sharing, less technology sharing, and who knows what else.

[K-W]

25. So you think that nations are trying to secretely undermine the US

as a response to violations of international law?

If so, I dont agree. There are certainly plenty of nations that want to see the US less powerful, but it has nothing to do with international law and everything to do with wanting a bigger piece of the pie.

The US has been violating international law for as long as there has been international law. Foriegn governments are not interested in justice, they are intersted in self-preservation/self enrichment.

The only way the US leaders face the music for thier crimes is if they start invading other powerful nations, or if there is a social revolution in powerful nations and the people force thier governments to enforce international law.

Until then, the US will continue to get away with its crimes as long as it keeps contributing to the power and wealth of the right people in the right contries.

[Zodiak]

26. You have some good points about self-interest

However, what I referred to is exactly the incremental isolation of the United States that we are seeing today (mentioned a couple of posts up). Countries that were isolated as America's enemies are now forming tacit military and economic alliances openly and brazenly. When these countries find a way to divorce themselves from US dependence, then we will see a ramping up of these tactics. The object is to bring the US to its knees by influencing key commodities and markets and letting the US have enough rope to hang itself economically.

Can anyone honestly not see this beginning to happen today? Would these countries be doing this if we weren't a giant international bully with a tinpot dictator as a ruler?

You are right about the nulclear arsenel, which would make invasion of the US impossible and impractical, but forcing us out of our satellite colonies would be a great way of handing the US military defeat after defeat. Not by guns and bombs, but by incompetence, inefficiency, and a failure to see a losing situation before engaging in conflict.

And because of international law, the people of these countries will support them in this endeavor. I would say it will take one more invasion for this and then we will see this program implemented in earnest. It is wrong for the US to think themselves immune to this because everyone needs us....nobody is that important.

We are clearly trying to steal the world's resources and economies for the benefit of a few of our wealthiest citizens. Eventually this strategy will run into conflict with the self-interest of the rest of the world's nations, and then we are in for a fight of generations.

I didn't want to type all this in my earlier post, but this is what I forsee. The difference in opinion here is only how valuable the world sees us and the role of international law in these conflicts. International law goes far as far as providing pretenses for war and selling that war to the citizenry. As Americans, we have a lot of experience in this department.

[K-W]

27. I think foriegn governments are more pragmatic than that.

"However, what I referred to is exactly the incremental isolation of the United States that we are seeing today (mentioned a couple of posts up). Countries that were isolated as America's enemies are now forming tacit military and economic alliances openly and brazenly. When these countries find a way to divorce themselves from US dependence, then we will see a ramping up of these tactics."

Certainly, in fact it was just these trends that spawned the new American Imperial Strategy. We can no longer suppress regional development, particularly in Asia and Europe through the old model. This is why the US is now destroying the old model of world order and returning to a more overt style of control.

The UN for instance used to be a tool of US control, but as time passed it became a thorn in the US's side. We went from never vetoing a UN resolution (because we basically controlled the UN) to becomming the veto leader. So now we scorn the UN and go out of our way to prove that it doesnt matter.

"The object is to bring the US to its knees by influencing key commodities and markets and letting the US have enough rope to hang itself economically."

I disagree with that. Taking this tact would alost certainly throw the whole world into military and economic chaos. Other countries dont want the US destroyed or humiliated, they simply want more balance in power. The other powerful nations still have a stake in retaining something close to the current world order, any major upset could lead to a catastrophe like real democracy breaking out or something.

Its like corporations. Even when they are competing, they are still, to a large extent conspiring. It is far more important for all the industrial nations to protect the overall international order (with elite countries and undeveloped countries) than it is to restrict the US. Other nations will try to make moves wherever possible, but thier eventual goal probably does include a very powerful US. Just as the US's goals always included a powerful Europe and Japan. They were so valuable in keeping the international order that we had to tolerate thier economic competition.

[reprobate]

28. K-W and Zodiak, I'd like your opinion on something related sort-of.

It seems to me that the United States, and Bush in particular along with his corporate supporters are now being seen as the cause of global climate change, and polution in general. I believe this is causing more blowback for us that is generally thought.

What is your opinion as to how this will effect the general power balance, if at all?

[Zodiak]

29. I'm American

and in being American, I do not have the pulse of the peoples of the world. However, I can say that I have read that common citizens of other industrialized nations are not too happy with our stance on global warming. These dissatisfied citizens of other countries can exert pressure on their leaders to get the US to join the global community, but of course the US will not cooperate.

The "blowback" that I see ocurring is an upheaval of some of these governments friendly to the US. Spain is an excellent example; the entire balance of power in Spain shifted partially as a response to the bombing and partially due to anger over Spain's complicity in the Iraq war. Once enough of these governments are shifted over to anti-US interests, then we shall see REAL blowback against the US (UN pressure, favored trade with countries other than the US, tarriffs, etc.).

K-W and I only differ in how strong we feel the inertia of the present world system is. I think the world has been upheaved enough for power flux to occur, K-W feels that the current system encourages enough inertia that will serve to protect the US from the anger of the world.

The issue is debatable since it is entirely speculative. Regardless of this discussion, we are all in for a hell of a ride if we maintain th present course.

[reprobate]

33. Thanks for the response. And I agree that the ride will be bumpy.

I see the protestors at the WTO and Big 8 and know that for each of those demonstrators from other nations, each will influence many other friends, families, etc.

To my mind the main problem is the corporation and the laws governing corporations. Originally in the US states had the ability to remove the charter of any corporation that acted against the public interest. That, of course, is no longer even possible. Instead, corporations now own and control the gov'ts that are supposed to regulate them.

I have the feeling that what is starting is the realization by many peoples that their wants and needs are irrelevent to their governments, being controlled as they are by business interests. I think when this understanding becomes general, then we will start to see some real blowback.

Like we usesd to say here in orlando in the early days of the mouse house, "That's gonna be a real E-ticket ride."

[pberq]

34. America feels the heat

See this article from the Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,,1527598,00.html

<snip>
The gap between scientists' increasingly urgent warnings about climate change and the lack of action by politicians was never more apparent than at the end of the G8 summit in Gleneagles last week.

Much of the reaction across the world was of disappointment, of hopes dashed by the intransigence of the US president, George Bush. But the fact that the issue had such a high profile at the summit was a milestone in itself, and a tribute to Tony Blair's political courage. He took the risk of being branded a failure because he was unable to influence his Iraq war ally.

It was ironic that the terrorist attack on London came on the day that the discussions about climate reached the crunch point at Gleneagles. The aftermath of the bombings deflected world attention from the stalemate that was reflected in the lack of promised action in the final communique.

If David King, the government's chief scientist, is right in describing climate change as "a greater threat than terrorism", then Thursday's terrorists let the politicians off the hook by diverting the world's attention. . . (More)

[tedzbear]

31. I recommend a great book on this very subject...

The Sorrows of Empire, by Chalmers Johnson.

:smoke:

[Maple]

44. Wow, are you ever dreaming!

You are the world's biggest debtor nation...and don't look now, but you no longer have a rug underneath your feet!

And please leave off bragging about the military might until you can freely walk at least one block in Baghdad.

[LiberalFighter]

12. Do U.S. courts have jurisdiction to decide international law?

[shraby]

16. Since when does a court of appeals overrule

a Supreme Court ruling? The Supreme Court ruled that he had a right to a trial in the courts.

[Roland99]

23. Who's on that court and who appointed them?

[Zhade]

24. We are an outlaw nation.

We must be stopped.

[symbolman]

30. Maybe if they called them

PRISONERS OF WAR it might be different, but all of a sudden EVERYONE became mysteriously a "detainee".. cops were calling ARREST victims "detainees" and of course the media pushed it as the latest fascist BUZZWORD..

They could call them all "ducks" and then say that the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to ducks so you have no rights my dear quacking pal..

And then they'd start arresting all the "swans" just to be safe..

The power of facist wordsmithing when shoved down the public's throats, and installed in authority centers.

Maybe if we all started calling Bush an "Orange" and voted that Oranges aren't allowed to be President we could win - and like Limbaugh, if they called us out on it we can use his excuse, "They have no sense of humor - I'm just an entertainer.."

Another use of symantics to defy total bullshit.

We should Trademark the work "Detainee" and then sue all these bastards for Trademark infringement and make them pay up - at least $10 thousand dollars per use :)

[0007]

36. Hilarious post!

[jayctravis]

32. Does this mean the administration is fighting for inhumane treatment?

[kodi]

37. then no Geneva Convention status for americans held by al qeada.

the idiots do not realize that this provides incentive for al qeada to kill any american serviceman they capture.

[Robbien]

38. Appeals court: Geneva Conventions don't apply to Guantanamo inmates

WASHINGTON - A Guantanamo detainee who once was Osama bin Laden's driver can be tried by military tribunal, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, apparently clearing the way for the Pentagon to resume trials suspended when a lower court ruled the procedures unlawful.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled unanimously against Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni.

More broadly it said that the 1949 Geneva Convention governing prisoners of war does not apply to al-Qaida and its members. That supports a key assertion of the Bush administration, which has faced international criticism for holding hundreds of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay without full POW protections.

. . .

Two lawyers representing Hamdan, Georgetown University law professor Neal Katyal and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charles D. Swift, said the appeals court ruling "is contrary to 200 years of constitutional law."

"Today's ruling places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and long-standing treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States," the two defense lawyers said in a statement.

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2005/07/16/news/news15.txt

[Mythsaje]

39. Must be those

damned activist judges again.

Oh, wait. Don't 'activist judges' have to be Liberal?

Now I'm confuzzled.

[aquart]

40. Is this Sentelle's court?

Who sits on this sucker?

[Maple]

41. An 'American' court

decided this, did they? All by themselves.

I guess this means the 'insurgents' don't have to follow the Geneva conventions either. Anyone warn the US soldiers?

There is a world court, and they are the ones to decide on matters like this. NOT the courts of the invader.

[NorCal]

42. When have they?

When have the terrorists followed the geneva conventions? All I've seen them do is make people shorter by about a foot.

[Maple]

43. They made a point of doing so

for a long time...it's gradually wearing off as they find they don't get treated the same way in return.

Pictures of Saddam in his underwear being the most recent example.

But banned weapons, abuse of prisoners, abuse of bodies...these things add up ya know.

Beheading is a method of execution...one France used for a very long time. No worse nor better than being shot to dust. Especially if you're a passerby...or at a wedding.

[PSPS]

45. Yes, our daisy cutters do make people shorter...

Just ask the coutless tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis, including children. Oh wait, you can't because they're all dead.

We are the terrorist nation.

[NuttyFluffers]

46. So is whole world, US citizens included, Al-Qaida until proven innocent?

sorry to ask the stupid question, but it seems to be the most logical extention to abuse this.