We’re having a legitimate debate over in GD, so I’ll just say GO FUCK YOURSELF to the OP. I can see legitimate arguments on both sides of this decision, having actually read it myself. Frankly, it’s entirely unlcear to me why Bush has the authority from Congress to bomb the shit out of any of these guys if had wanted to, but has to defer to the SCOTUS in how he dispositions them if they’re captured. This was a very, very week ruling, and it’s unlcear what it will actually mean to the detainees. Congress could just as easily exlicitly give Bush pretty much he wants in terms of setting up the dispositioning process-- this ruling only said that he has to get that explicit authority from Congress.
It’s the law of war. While the enemy is fighting you, you use a variety of potentially lethal measures against it. However, once they are captured and disarmed, you treat them humanely, in accordance with the GC, and in accordance with how you want captured American troops to be treated by an enemy.
That’s fine concept, but you didn’t get if from this SCOTUS ruling, because that’s not what it said. Anyway, I’m not going to carry on a duplicate debate, but if you want to learn what the ruling actually did say and debate that, pop over to the GD thread.
I saw a mention of Article III, but that’s not what most people are thinking when they site the GC-- I bet they’re thinking of Article IV. Go to the GD thread and learn, grasshoper!
Your question itself was only tangentially related to the ruling. You asked a factual question and Giles gave you a factual answer. The reason a POTUS can bomb people on the battlefield but has to treat POWs humanely is because that’s what the GC says we have to do. That’s not hard to understand.
I’ve been lurking in that thread, and it doesn’t address why US troops in Afghanistan and Iraq can legally bomb (etc.) insurgents (etc.) over there. Mainly because that interesting issue was not before the court, and the court was narrowly confining itself to the issues before it.
That’s partially why I put “…and laws,” as I’m not surprised it is not in the Constitution, but still has a fundamental effect on judicial proceedings.
I think it bears mentioning that we’re not actually “at war with terror”, by the way. I don’t understand how the POTUS can invoke any wartime powers without a declaration of war or a definition of the enemy.
Yes it was. The court did consider not only the DTA, but also the AUMF, which we have used to, literally, drop bombs on suspected al Qaeda operatives, and not just in Afghanistan and Iraq-- remember the guy we took out in Yemen using a drone aircraft? The 2001 AUMF explicitly states:
Now, I’d like the see Congress limit that authority quite a bit, but I don’t see that it’s within the Court’s authority to do so. Maybe it is and maybe it isn’t. Like I said, I think there are good arguments on boths sides of this one.
There are many ways to interpret different clauses of the GC, just as there are many ways to interpret the Constitution, so don’t presume that your interpretation will prevail. But it’s unclear to me that the court is “enforceing the GC” in this ruling. This was a very, very narrow ruling about the DTA in this particular case, not a sweeping ruling about GC coverage for all Gitmo detainees. But I know it’s no use arguing with you about this stuff-- you know everything.
WWII was, speaking very broadly, a war for democracy. The “realities of warfare” today are different. Conservatives understand them, because this is conservatism’s war.
Pit vs Great Debates? Has to be the Pit. The outcome was never one about which there was the potential for serious debate.
SA&T simply exercised naked partisanship, instead of legal reasoning and chose to fly in the face of elementary legal concepts. i.e ‘How can we support this administration?’ rather than ‘What does the law mean?’
Their position as judicial officers is a farce. And Bush who appointed them, would otherwise be not so deserving of scorn. Partisanship and nationalism are his job. Stacking the bench with sycophants less so.