[icantstandit]

(For those of you claiming that we do not need to pay attention to the Geneva conventions, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. This is a major blow to Bush administration policy which basically denied these rights to their captives. I especially like the part where Snow says "It's not really a reversal of policy". OK, then what is it? Because it looks like you'll have to do a 180.- TM)

U.S. will give detainees Geneva rights

By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer 21 minutes ago

The Bush administration, called to account by Congress in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling blocking military tribunals, said Tuesday all detainees at Guantanamo Bay and in U.S. military custody everywhere are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.


White House spokesman Tony Snow said the policy, outlined in a new Defense Department memo, reflects the recent 5-3 Supreme Court decision blocking military tribunals set up by President Bush. That decision struck down the tribunals because they did not obey international law and had not been authorized by Congress.
The policy, described in a memo by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, appears to reverse the administration's earlier insistence that the detainees are not prisoners of war and thus not subject to the Geneva protections.


But the administration has insisted that it has always treated the detainees humanely.
Word of the Bush administration's new stance came as the Senate Judiciary Committee opened hearings Tuesday on the politically charged issue of how detainees should be tried.


"We're not going to give the Department of Defense a blank check," Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (news, bio, voting record) of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, told the hearing.


Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont, the committee's top Democrat, said "kangaroo court procedures" must be changed and any military commissions "should not be set up as a sham. They should be consistent with a high standard of American justice, worth protecting."


The Senate is expected to take up legislation addressing the legal rights of suspected terrorists after the August recess — timing that would push the issue squarely into the election season.


Guantanamo has been a flash point for both U.S. and international debate over the treatment of detainees without trial and over allegations of torture, denied by U.S. officials. Even U.S. allies in the war on terrorism have criticized the facility and process.
The camp came under worldwide condemnation after it opened more than four years ago, when pictures showed prisoners kneeling, shackled and being herded into wire cages. It intensified with reports of heavy-handed interrogations, hunger strikes and suicides.
Snow insisted that all U.S. detainees have been treated humanely. Still, he said, "We want to get it right."
"It's not really a reversal of policy," Snow asserted, calling the Supreme Court decision "complex."


Steven Bradbury, acting assistant attorney general of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, told the Senate hearing that the Bush administration would abide by the Supreme Court's ruling that a provision of the Geneva Conventions applies.
But he acknowledged that the provision — which requires humane treatment of captured combatants and requires trials with judicial guarantees "recognized as indispensable by civilized people" — is ambiguous and would be hard to interpret.
"The application of common Article 3 will create a degree of uncertainty for those who fight to defend us from terrorist attack," Bradbury said.


Snow said efforts to spell out more clearly the rights of detainees does not change the president's determination to work with Congress to enable the administration to proceed with the military tribunals, or commissions. The goal is "to find a way to properly do this in a way consistent with national security," Snow said.


Snow said that the instruction manuals used by the Department of Defense already comply with the humane-treatment provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. They are currently being updated to reflect legislation passed by Congress and sponsored by Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., to more expressly rule out torture.


"The administration intends to work with Congress," Snow said.
"We want to fulfill the mandates of justice, making sure we find a way properly to try people who have been plucked off the battlefields who are not combatants in the traditional sense," he said.
"The Supreme Court pretty much said it's over to you guys (the administration and Congress) to figure out how to do this. And that is where this is headed."
Under questioning from the committee, Daniel Dell'Orto, principal deputy general counsel at the Pentagon, said he believes the current treatment of detainees — as well as the existing tribunal process — already complies with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
"The memo that went out, it doesn't indicate a shift in policy," he said. "It just announces the decision of the court."
"The military commission set up does provide a right to counsel, a trained military defense counsel and the right to private counsel of the detainee's choice," Dell'Orto said. "We see no reason to change that in legislation."

[punkmother]

Supreme Court wrong again.

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by punkmother

Supreme Court wrong again.

Thanks, but this new info, that the Bush admin actually intends to comply, is new today.

[CreativeDestruc]

dumb. They dont fight under any signatory of the convention. They dont have uniforms, or insignia, they arent under anyone's command, etc... They are fighting for their own conscience, this a perpetual struggle to them. They arent just going to stop fighting when released, because their government is no longer waging war, like most soldiers. Their governments arent going to take away their tanks, their guns, and their other platforms to wage war. You let them out, and they will be fighting for themselves and their beliefs again.

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by CreativeDestruc

dumb. They dont fight under any signatory of the convention. They dont have uniforms, or insignia, they arent under anyone's command, etc... They are fighting for their own conscience, this a perpetual struggle to them. They arent just going to stop fighting when released, because their government is no longer waging war, like most soldiers. Their governments arent going to take away their tanks, their guns, and their other platforms to wage war. You let them out, and they will be fighting for themselves and their beliefs again.

And therefore we can keep them without charging them forever???

And therefore we don't have to respect their human rights???


You are trying to justify incarceration without trial, which is antithetical to everything the country stands for. You are also trying to not have to abide by ACCEPTED INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS by which to treat captured soldiers. Yes, they are not soldiers in the traditional sense (one army, one nation) but the GC hasn't caught up with the times yet, and it is still based upon old terms. So basically, you are trying to incarcerate prisoners indefinitely on a technicality.

And now that both SCOTUS and the Bush admin say that they will abide by the GC, you RepubliParrots can stop talking about "the Geneva conventions don't apply here!".. because you know what? They do, and always have.

[punkmother]

it is a bit ridiculous to just disappear these people. if they were that bad and truly an enemy threat, they should have just shot them. now that they are captured, try them. if found guilty, do whatever with them. if they are found innocent, open the gate and let cuba have them.

[kartaron]

Originally Posted by icantstandit

For those of you claiming that we do not need to pay attention to the Geneva conventions, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. This is a major blow to Bush administration policy which basically denied these rights to their captives.

...

And now that both SCOTUS and the Bush admin say that they will abide by the GC, you RepubliParrots can stop talking about "the Geneva conventions don't apply here!".. because you know what? They do, and always have.

Geneva doesnt say that American civil courts are the only method of obtaining a fair trial. In fact the trials of multiple international war criminals have had restrictions placed on ruled of evidence. It is also common that trials be placed on hiatus until the end of open conflict.

This is all beside the point that the geneva conventions were contructed to benefit an adherant and penalize a transgressor. Spies and saboteurs can be summarily shot. Not giving them a speedy trial cant be a violation.

I have respect for a few of your arguments but in this you are wrong. The Supreme Court again has overidden the executive and legislative branches of government, and in so doing, the represented will of the people. Ive read the opinions of the court and the legal hurdles the court jumped through to rationalize this decision are disgusting. The SC has some ironic temerity to accuse the administration of abusing law when they pointedly ignored specific (and fully legal) law which removed their jurisdiction to the case.

The Legislative body has no authority to counter the judicial command. Removing justices would be difficult if not impossible in closely split houses. Passing a constitutional amendment over such a technical issue is a wast of time.

Thus the SC can now ignore their jurisdiction and the foundation of existing law and rule wholly as to their own will. So long as they do not annoy the majority of the congress they are safe. Only a few more steps now until they become a defacto Politburo.

[icantstandit]

Originally Posted by kartaron

Geneva doesnt say that American civil courts are the only method of obtaining a fair trial. In fact the trials of multiple international war criminals have had restrictions placed on ruled of evidence. It is also common that trials be placed on hiatus until the end of open conflict.

This is all beside the point that the geneva conventions were contructed to benefit an adherant and penalize a transgressor. Spies and saboteurs can be summarily shot. Not giving them a speedy trial cant be a violation.

I have respect for a few of your arguments but in this you are wrong. The Supreme Court again has overidden the executive and legislative branches of government, and in so doing, the represented will of the people. Ive read the opinions of the court and the legal hurdles the court jumped through to rationalize this decision are disgusting. The SC has some ironic temerity to accuse the administration of abusing law when they pointedly ignored specific (and fully legal) law which removed their jurisdiction to the case.

The Legislative body has no authority to counter the judicial command. Removing justices would be difficult if not impossible in closely split houses. Passing a constitutional amendment over such a technical issue is a wast of time.

Thus the SC can now ignore their jurisdiction and the foundation of existing law and rule wholly as to their own will. So long as they do not annoy the majority of the congress they are safe. Only a few more steps now until they become a defacto Politburo.

Holy chicken little! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

Hey buddy, you do know that only 2 of the 8 justices went against it, don't you? Meaning that some of the conservative judges agreed with the decision. Basically, now that the Bush admin and the congress have agreed to comply, end of story, case closed.

What are you talking about "over-ridden"? Do you have any idea how our system works?

NEWSFLASH! This is how our system works. When there is a conflict, the justices will be required to rule upon a controversial case, and their decision is what the congress and the executive have to abide by.

How did you think it works?

[Stoic1]

+



=

LOL

[Kippy Winstead]

Originally Posted by CreativeDestruc

dumb. They dont fight under any signatory of the convention. They dont have uniforms, or insignia, they arent under anyone's command, etc... They are fighting for their own conscience, this a perpetual struggle to them. They arent just going to stop fighting when released, because their government is no longer waging war, like most soldiers. Their governments arent going to take away their tanks, their guns, and their other platforms to wage war. You let them out, and they will be fighting for themselves and their beliefs again.

its the sup court dude... just deal with it man...