I agree.

The Geneva Conventions with it’s legal history and interpretations are easily googled. Here is what I learned:

GC #3 states plainly that ‘militias’ and ‘volunteer corps’ that meet basic criteria have the complete set of protections afforded every captured soldier. (The criteria are things like carrying arms openly and following a chain of command; the Taliban & AQ easily qualify.)

International Law (the ‘International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia’ is apparently the latest example) plainly states: “…nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law.”

And finally, GC #3, Article 85, paragraph 9: “Captured members of enemy armed forces who have committed war crimes cannot thereafter claim the status of Prisoner of War.”

So instead of determining which of the Gitmo detainees might have forfeited Geneva Convention protections and prosecuting them quickly, routinely and legally, our own gov’t kept up to 700 people in cages. Their treatment has shamed the US and made our international esteem into universal approbation.

And for what it’s worth, thinking of Justice Scalia’s fearful prediction that American’s will die because of this decision—the US Constitution does NOT give the US Gov’t the responsibilty to see that I do not die. The US Govt has the responsibility to protect my liberties as defined by the Constitution. So go hide under your own bed and deal with your own fears in your own way, Judge, and leave me with my Constitution even in a dangerous world where I might be killed.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/52319

However, critics of the decision are correct in that the right of habeas corpus has never been extended to POW’s or to alleged illegal combatants. I write “alleged” because SCOTUS threw out the just established military tribunals which would have determined such status for the Gitmo prisoners, among other issues.

chsw

The problem is that nobody has determined the exact status of the Gitmo detainees. If they are determined to be POW’s then we can’t send them to trial under international and habeas corpus doesn’t apply. If they are not POW’s, then it does apply and they can be tried and can possibly face the death penalty. The SC resolved nothing.

That’s the American spirit — rights are a dangerous thing to give!

Talk about arrogance……..

Lee – Thanks.

“The November 13, 2001, Presidential Military Order gave the President of the United States the power to detain suspects, suspected of connection to terrorists or terrorism as an unlawful combatant. As such, it was asserted that a person could be held indefinitely without charges being filed against him or her, without a court hearing, and without entitlement to a legal consultant. Many legal and constitutional scholars contended that these provisions were in direct opposition to habeas corpus and the United States Bill of Rights.”

And from the US Constitution, Article 1 Section 9:
“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it.”

Then go read the Military Commissions Act:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Commissions_Act_of_2006

Simply put, if you believe that Bush and company have done no wrong, are acting in good faith, and are following the Constitution, then it will be impossible to get you to see what is obvious to the rest of us.

If you believe otherwise, then the simple answer is that you can’t trust government to slap a label of enemy combatant on the appropriate person and with hard RELIABLE evidence, that has been independently verified, and so minimizes the chance that people are kidnapped in the name of empire.

Just the fact that a large percentage of the detainees at Guantanamo have been let go after being held for YEARS with no charges indicates it was all a “kidnap people, who cares about evidence” approach, and THAT should be sufficient to make you angry.

It’s an all or nothing type thing. The executive being able to violate anyone’s habeas corpus rights means that no such rights exist.