SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Hawkmoon who wrote (2153)1/13/2003 3:15:17 PM
From: zonder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 15987
 
Forget the 1997 stuff

Why? (Not to mention "How?") The U.S. military issued regulations in 1997 that set out detailed procedures for such tribunals. Do they teach you to "forget regulations" in the Army, Hawk? <g>

But the primary issue is that have been declared "unlawful combatants" and thus their "status" has been declared.

Hawk. Please. The Geneva Convention does not have a distinction for "unlawful combatants" and so such a classification does not exist for all intents and purposes.

You cannot just sign a treaty and then invent a designation and claim your detainees are not covered by it, you know...

There's nothing in the Geneva convention that says a competent tribunal has to be immediately called.

How many years will have to pass, in your opinion?

Only that they must be treated in accord with the Geneva Convention until such time that one is called to determine their final status.

They must enjoy POW status until this tribunal is called together, you mean.

And on top of that, since none of these prisoners have entered the United States, they are NOT entitled to the same protections as those being held within official US territory.

Huh? They were captured in a war zone. There is nothing in the Convention about having to enter no country.

The 1950 Supreme Court decision Johnson v Eisentrager held that enemy aliens who have not entered the United States are not entitled to access to US courts. Under this ruling, the recourse the prisoners have about a change in status, etc., is to appeal through the Executive Branch, not the court system.

Did you forget to paste the following sentence? Strange. It continues like this:

But it is not clear whether this decision applies to the current situation, since there are other ways to construe the legal situation (I’ll let the lawyers figure this out).

es.rice.edu

Cheating, hm? <g>

So basically, the guy (who says he is not a lawyer) says he is not sure if this applies to the current situation of Guantanamo detainees.

So what's the beef??

Possibly in the sentence you forgot to paste?