Actual left/right wing discussion Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (2784)	10/16/2006 7:08:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 10087

The long standing words of the applicable part of the treaty itself deal with "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." The argument that the fight against Al Qaeda is not a conflicting of international character is either an argument that ignores reality, or is a rather unusual reinterpretation of "international character". In terms of judicial interpretation of the amendment Ex parte Quirin and Johnson v. Eisentrager (previous long standing supreme court decisions) both had a different interpretation than Hamdan. So obviously that's an alteration of the long standing judicial interpretation of the treaty. The earlier presidents were accepted by the appeals court, and the supreme court than overturned the appeals court and there own earlier interpretations. Ex parte Quirin states - ""…the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants." It supports the idea that illegal combatants are not subject to the same protections under the Geneva Conventions as soldiers or peaceful civilians. Johnson v. Eisentrager doesn't deal with the conventions as much as the constitution but it states "We hold that the Constitution does not confer a right of personal security or an immunity from military trial and punishment upon an alien enemy engaged in the hostile service of a government at war with the United States..." and it accepted that non-resident aliens captured and held overseas had no habeas corpus rights to US courts.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next