Save your condescending bullshit for someone who isn’t an attorney, Sevastapol. I asked you for the “authority” that you apparently couldn’t be bothered to fucking identify, since I had no idea what on earth you were purporting to rely on. Next time, try to tone down the jerk and crank up the information.
And having now read the opinion, I look forward to the inevitable appeal to the D.C. Circuit. I believe that court will reverse, in whole or in substantial part, Judge Robertson’s decision. I’ll try not to be a complete asshole to you if that happens.
That’s quite alright. I was extremely condescending and merited your rant. Now had My learned friend addressed me in a professional manner we’d all be that much calmer.
I’m already in agreement–the US dismissal of GC protections for prisoners takenin Afghanistan and Iraq is shameful. I’m just pointing out that the decision in re Hamdan refers to presidential authority, not the military.
And for clarity of the record, I agree. I do not believe, for the reasons expressed in any number of previous threads, that al Qaeda (clearly) and Taliban (less clearly) prisoners are entitled to POW status, but I believe as a matter of policy that their treatment should be comparable in all material respects.
The G.C., of course, provides that such determinations are to be made by a competent tribunal, but only “should doubt arise” as to the person’s status. Doubt is shown by facts on an individual basis, not broad speculation. If Mr. Hamdan has facts that cast doubt on his status as a non-POW (if, for instance, he has evidence that he carried arms openly and observed the rules of war as a member of a formal militia, or that he took up arms spontaneously upon the approach of the enemy), then he is entitled to have that status determined by a tribunal. Judge Robertson’s decision is erroneous, IMO, because it makes the legal determination that anyone who was captured in the Afghan conflict is entitled to presumptive POW status, without considering whether there are any underly facts that give to the “doubt” necessary for that status.
The “terrorist” label, by the way, has nothing to do with the G.C. The issue is whether the individual falls under any of the specifically-enumerated categories of persons who are entitled to POW status under article (3? 6? I forget.) of the Geneva Convention.
I was discussing the requirements of the Geneva Convention, not the Army Regulations (which, of course, the administration may amend at the drop of a hat to eliminate the very provision on which Judge Robertson relies).
You can read the original memo written for Gonzales by Jay Bybee here (37 page pdf file).
The “it’s not torture unless the pain is akin to organ failure” memo is here (50 page pdf file).
And Gonzales’s memo in response to the Secretary of State’s request that Bush reconsider his decision not to treat Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners as POWs under the GPW can be read here (4 page embedded pdf file).
Debaser
*Ashcroft’s part in implementing the Patriot Act has kept us all safer and will continue to protect Americans for decades to come. The Ashcroft justice department has done a great job fighting terror and protecting the American people. Ashcroft would make a fine member of the Supreme Court.
*
Ashcroft is great at fighting, as long as he doesn’t have to do the fighting personally. Look up his stellar conduct of getting a draft deferment (during the Vietnam War) by teaching law in Missouri (a “vital” civilian job) instead of putting himself in harm’s way. Granted, maybe I’m being emotional and over-reacting but this is Veteran’s Day and I find it aggravating that there’s over 50,000 names on a wall and this dipshit took an easy way out. What did Thomas Paine call such people? Summer soldiers? Sunshine patriots?
I savor the levity of your remark, I truly do. Unfortunately, I feel restricted from expressing myself with equal giddiness on the subject of Abu Ghraib abuses, in view of easily foreseeable reaction by certain members of this board.
So being compelled to remain serious, in all seriousness I ask:
Why is it OK to joke about Waco, but not about Abu Ghraib?
Why is it OK to shoot, burn and crash religious fanatics in US, but not OK to force Muslim fanatics to strip naked and crawl on a leash?
Why is AG that arbitrarily authorised murder of US citizens considered better then AG upholding Patriot Act, that was passed by Congress and is the law of the land?
Dunno, Isk, but I have a suggestion: why don’t you start a thread all about Janet Reno and Waco and all that, so that people like yourself who are eager for opportunity to discuss the issues in great depth and detail will have an opportunity to do so? And then you can leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Why, then, the language deriding the Conventions as “quaint” and “obsolete”, when “inapplicable” would serve the purpose? Doesn’t the interrogation discussion also illuminate the purpose of the documents?
I’ve been puzzled by that aspect of this, too - not only is the presumption now of guilt, not innocence, but the defendant (who was scooped up with no or almost no warning somewhere in Buttplugistan, carted off halfway around the world, and has been caged incommunicado for up to 2 years now) has to provide the facts that prove he was an innocent bystander. And, the determination is made entirely by the administration acting as prosecution as well as judge. The process as this adminstration defines it is indistinguishable from the Inquisition.
Also, Presidential authority vs. military authority, what’s the diff? The Pres is the CinC.
debaser, got a cite for any of the facts that made you conclude that “Ashcroft has made us safer”? That is a conclusion based on fact and not party rhetoric, isn’t it?
Bad word choices, for sure, but basically true. The current version of the G.C. was written in the aftermath of WWII, when the prevailing concept of war was still army-to-army conflicts between nations, not guerilla wars and terrorism. The G.C. is poorly-equipped to handle such conflicts, where the combatants don’t wear uniforms and fight each other openly, and where they might not even have any nation-state behind them in the first place. The world just doesn’t fight very many old-fashioned wars these days, leaving any number of great big issues unresolved when it comes to what to do with captured terrorists and guerillas and such.
No, he does not have to prove that he was an innocent bystander. He has to provide facts – and that can be his own testimony, of course – capable of showing that he is in fact a person covered by article 6 of the Geneva Convention. So if Mr. Hamdan wants to prove that he was wearing a uniform and followed the ordinary rules of war, then great, maybe he’s entitled to POW status. If all he claims is that of course he’s a POW because he was taken prisoner in a war, screw him, he doesn’t get a tribunal because those facts are not capable of establishing POW status.
That’s one thing Judge Robertson got right. If Hamdan is entitled to a tribunal determination of his POW status, then the administration is completely wrong in claiming that it can substitute its determination for that of a competent tribunal.
Of course, you do realize that the practical difference is likely to be none whatsoever. There ain’t likely to be any white knights on those military tribunals.
Look at it this way. Bush + Ashcroft > Bush alone. Ashcroft was not merely the legal mouthpiece of the idealogues in Bush’s office/cabinet. Ashcroft had his own agenda(War on Pornography anyone?) and some of what the DoJ did under his tenure was not just bad stuff coming down from above that Ashcroft was ethically obligated(per his duties as attorney for the executive) to execute. Some of the bad shit that came out of the DoJ during Ashcroft’s tenure was done because Ashcroft himself had a hard-on for those issues. If Gonzales does not share this obsession with all things christian and moral then we may see a DoJ through which Bush/Cabinet bad shit still flows, but which is not itself adding to the deluge of defecation.
Ashcroft polished Bush’s turds and then added a few of his own to the platter to serve to the people. If Gonzales does nothing more than polish Bush’s turds(as his job requires) and refrains from adding to the platter then it would still be a net gain. minty has indicated that in his experience Gonzales is less likely to be a source of poo for the general population’s consumption than Ashcroft. I hope he’s right.
