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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (24706)	7/21/2006 5:09:23 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541414

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. A minor edit could make my statement more specific - "...and there is no requirement in the third geneva convention to pass a sentence in order to hold captured combatants." Whether there is even a requirement under the Hamdi decision is a semantic issue. A requirement that someone held as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decision maker. Might be considered as something other than a requirement to pass sentence. I'm not splitting hairs here. Passing sentence means you are sentencing them for committing a crime, not recognizing their status as combatants and holding them. But then while there would seem to be no requirement to actually pass a sentence against anyone there clearly is a stipulation in Hamdi that a tribunal of some form be conducted, and Hamdan struck down the specific type of tribunal that the administration had started to use.

To: Ilaine who wrote (24706)	7/21/2006 5:15:10 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541414

to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker. Maybe it's my lay understanding of "sentence" but I don't find "sentence" in there. Sounds more like a hearing to me where the party can claim that he's not the right guy or that he's misclassified as to status, not a trial where he's found guilty of something and ordered to serve time for it. Also, that decision was for a US citizen someone claimed to be an "enemy combatant." For detainees not in both of those categories then the rest of the paragraph may not apply, seems to me.