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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: D. Long who wrote (171631)	6/29/2006 6:51:21 PM
From: Murrey Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

Get to it, Congress. Yea, right after November. What a bunch of collective do nothings!

To: D. Long who wrote (171631)	6/29/2006 6:54:16 PM
From: rich evans	Respond to of 793846

I think the President had implicit or inherent power to set up the tribunals/commissions per history if they were set up with enough due process per UCMJ and Article 3 of Geneva. President did not have power though to set up tibunal outside these due process rules. We shall see. Rich

To: D. Long who wrote (171631)	6/29/2006 11:02:17 PM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793846

It is not a simple decision to understand, and I'm not entirely sure I do. The takeaway I have from my first cursory reading is that the Geneva Conventions are not, yes, not, usable by the Gitmo prisoners offensively as substantive law governing their rights. It is clear that the detainees are not going to be able to make claims based on the GCs. Instead, the Court held illegal the way in which the Commissions were set up. The UCMJ, which will now apply, requires that the trials be conducted under the standards of the the laws of warfare; the GCs are part of such laws. The various GCs are part of a larger body of laws which govern the manner in which the trials are to be conducted. Since the UCMJ incorporates these laws of warfare, the GCs standards, and other laws, apply. I think these are the most important points. I'm not sure the decision is that significant if my reading is correct as I appreciate that the government is using the substantive standards set forth in the GCs without admitting that they apply. I agree with your assessment of the decision concerning conspiracy. I have a hard time agreeing with the notion that a conspiracy charge should be allowed against a formal or informal combatant. I have a hard time with the paper-thin distinctions made by the majority in distinguishing Eisentrager. caselaw.lp.findlaw.com On the whole, not a terrible decision at first glance.