Supreme Court Rules Conflict With Al Qaeda Under Geneva Convention
The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that President Bush's plan to subject Guantanamo detainees to judgment by military commissions is unconstitutional.
Not only that, but the Court ruled that captured terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, have to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention rules for detained prisoners of war.
From SCOTUSblog (via AMERICAblog):
(T)he Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever" --including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment...
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administration has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
Not only that, but the Court ruled that captured terrorists, including Al-Qaeda, have to be treated in accordance with the Geneva Convention rules for detained prisoners of war.
From SCOTUSblog (via AMERICAblog):
(T)he Court held that Common Article 3 of Geneva applies as a matter of treaty obligation to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling. The commissions are the least of it. This basically resolves the debate about interrogation techniques, because Common Article 3 provides that detained persons "shall in all circumstances be treated humanely," and that "[t]o this end," certain specified acts "are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever" --including "cruel treatment and torture," and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." This standard, not limited to the restrictions of the due process clause, is much more restrictive than even the McCain Amendment...
This almost certainly means that the CIA's interrogation regime is unlawful, and indeed, that many techniques the Administration has been using, such as waterboarding and hypothermia (and others) violate the War Crimes Act (because violations of Common Article 3 are deemed war crimes).
posted by Effwit at 10:36 AM
10 Comments:
To read anything more than this is a setback is very premature and I trust our Congress will take care of it in good time. So before you act like this was an indictment of President Bush's plan you are sadly mistaken. These people will be tried one way or another.
Jon:
It is a repudiation of the power grab that Bush has conducted in the aftermath of 9-11.
Congress may now write legislation permitting trials that do not meet the standards of the UCMJ. So be it.
I don't see how they can write legislation that will get around Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention though.
No it isn't, it is a set back and only you liberals think it is anything more than just a setback.
Congress will make the necessary changes and then the terrorists will be punished no matter how much you defeatists want to let them go.
Jon:
Do you know that many of the prisoners in Guantanamo were non-combatants who were sold by warlords to the U.S.?
Only a fraction of these men (10 men out of 450-500) have been recommended by the U.S. military for the military tribunals that were ruled unconstitutional.
There is no evidence against most of them.
Why do you oppose fair trials for these people? If they are as evil as you imagine--we will have no problem convicting them in a trial or court-martial.
By the way Jon, you are a defeatist. You help to throw the Constitution of the United States into the toilet by not resisting the Bush administration's attempts to wipe their asses with our nation's blueprint. Don't you know that hundreds of thousands of U.S. military servicemen have died to preserve and protect the Constitution?
And you pretend to support the troops, while at the same time you dishonor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
You are pathetic.
Eff,
Do you know that for a fact or are you just reprinting what you read on a liberal blog or website?
These people don't deserve trials except by a military tribunal as they are combatants an not simple criminals.
I am far from a defeatist and our US Constitution is alive and well
and far from in the toilet. You don't have to lecture me about our soldiers dying to defend our Constitution, it is you ridiculous liberals that attack the President and say that he is doing all these things that you claim are illegal.
This action by the US Supreme Court proves that all the liberals that claimed that the Republicans control all three branches of the government were dead wrong.
You liberals love to insult when you don't have a valid argument.
Jon:
The fact that the U.S. military at Guantanamo has nominated only 10 of the prisoners for the military tribunals, and that many of the captives were innocents who were sold by warlords to the U.S. has been widely reported. Not only in the "liberal" media.
It is you "ridiculous" wingnuts that defend the president and claim that his actions that violate the letter of the law (torture, unlawful imprisonment, NSA warrantless eavesdropping, etc) are somehow legal because we got attacked by some terrorists on 9-11.
This action by the US Supreme Court proves that all the liberals that claimed that the Republicans control all three branches of the government were dead wrong.
All three branches are controlled by Republicans. This isn't even a debatable point. You can count the members of each branch and do the math. One Supreme Court ruling, a "setback" in your words, doesn't change this fact.
As for who is right in this debate, time will tell.
One of us is going to end up looking ill-informed. And it isn't going to be me.
Widely reported where, maybe I missed it and if I did than I will stand corrected. It is unlawful imprisonment, I believe you misinterpreted what the US Supreme Court decided. They didn't say that the imprisonment was unlawful, all they said was the planned Military Tribunals can't be used as planned. That doesn't equate to unlawful imprisonment.
You show me where the NSA warrantless wiretaps have been judged to be unlawful, oh thats right you can't.
How can you say that the Judicial branch is controlled by the Republican's? If it is then the US Supreme Court would have not over turned the decision by the lower court and everyone knows that 90% of the US Circuit Courts of Appeals are dominated by liberal judges. So try to explain again how the Republicans control the Judicial Branch of our Government.
Well, you are right time will tell and I appreciate the debate. :)
Jon:
It seems that someone is pinch hitting for you in your most recent comment. I would think it is your wife. The use of tense and logic have improved greatly. Kudos.
By unlawful imprisonment, I was referring to the CIA renditions (kidnapping). Some were taken to Gitmo, some to the secret prisons. All against international law, to which the U.S. is a signatory.
The NSA warrantless domestic programs are directly contradictory to the FISA statute.
Republicans control the Judicial Branch by virtue of the fact that seven of the justices on the current Supreme Court--the final arbeter of the decisions of the Judicial Branch--were appointed by Republican presidents. Only two were by Democrats.
Sorry, my wife doesn't comment under my name. But I guess I will take it as a compliment. When and if the NSA wiretaps are ever deemed illegal by the courts and just in case you missed it the FISA court stated that he was within his authorization, but if it is deemed illegal then I will be the first to go back and admit I was wrong. I have said from the beginning if it is determined by the court to be illegal then I will speak out against it, but just by you claiming that it is against FISA isn't the same thing as a judge saying it is illegal.
Oh, I see where you are coming from and you are right about that, but as long as the Justices uphold the oath they took it really shouldn't matter what party the President that appointed them belongs, right?
Post a Comment
<< Home