Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (2029)	1/10/2003 2:08:49 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15992

>>Would you care to look it up in the Geneva Convention? It's pretty clear.<< In other words, you don't know.

To: zonder who wrote (2029)	1/10/2003 7:09:08 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15992

I was trying to determine your opinion. Since you seem upset about what we have done, you must have an idea of what we should have done differently. I'm not sure whether you are complaining only about some formalities not being followed in what you think is the correct way or whether you think we are doing injustice to the detainees. Do you think a tribunal you approve of would decide to free detainees we are holding? Or change the conditions under which they are detained?

To: zonder who wrote (2029)	1/11/2003 1:49:45 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15992

This is supported by the use of the term "tribunal" (rather than, for example, "authority") which, in it's usual English usage, means a "A court of justice; a judicial assembly" (from the OED). Certainly under English law any tribunal determining legal matters (and the status of a person as a POW or not is undeniably a legal matter) which did not act in accordance with natural justice (and there are numerous precedents confirming that this applies to military tribunals as much as civil) would be liable to have it's rulings quashed. Such as a panel of military judges? The U.S. military issued regulations in 1997 that set out detailed procedures for such tribunals. Under these regulations, the tribunals consist of three commissioned officers. The regulations also provide that persons whose status is to be determined shall: be advised of their rights at the beginning of their hearings; be allowed to attend all open sessions and will be provided with an interpreter if necessary; be allowed to call witnesses if reasonably available, and to question those witnesses called by the tribunal; have a right to testify or otherwise address the tribunal; and not be compelled to testify before the tribunal. writ.news.findlaw.com That article, as well as many others, can be found on FindLaw's Tribunal section here:http://writ.news.findlaw.com/tribunals.html. Including the following which is a good summation of the issue by the Vice Dean and Professor of Law at Columbia University: writ.news.findlaw.com There. Enough. Unless you wish to argue that your arrogant little lawyer friend trumps a whole herd of lawyers, many with quite eminent CVs, the issue is closed. The LAW SUPPORTS US POLICY. Derek