7/7 http://csua.org/u/gcf (latimes.com)
John Yoo goes crazy
\_ Considering that tribunals have been used in almost all major US
conflicts (including many with no declaration of war), and that
the majority blatantly ignored Quirin and Eisentrager, going
to the absurd extreme of invoking Geneva accords never
ratified by the Senate, I can only conclude you have no idea
what you are talking about.
If, in light of Article III of the Constitution, you celebrate
the USSSC vacating laws passed by Congress that
\_ The United States Standards Strategy Committee? I think you
have an extra 'S'
\- snakes on the motd
strip their jurisdiction over the tribunals, I ask why even bother
with Congress? Just do away with it and let the USSSC reign
supreme.
\_ hey we are supposed to treat our goddamn prisoners the
way we would want a foreign nation to teach our goddamn
boys if they are captured. it's not a hard to understand
concept.
\_ I just wish the other side would treat our prisoners the
way we treat theirs. Having your picture taken naked by
some skank is a lot better than being mutilated beyond
recognition, being decapitated and your body dumped.
\_ That will make perfect sense when the prisoners are
associated with a foreign nation. The Geneva convention
allows for summary execution of fighters not wearing
uniforms.
\_ No, it does not mention them. There is a difference.
Anyway, according to ppp'er's logic, the POTUS could just
use executive power to overrule the SCOTUS. And that
would be a PITA, wouldn't it? -John
\_ Where does it "allow" that? Tell me the exact part where
it does, not some nutjob who told you that it does. You
are, quite simply, seriously misinformed.
\_ They are explicitly not covered in Article 4. If
there is some question as to whether they fit in
one of the catagories in Article 4, a tribunal is
required. Therefore, If they are explicity not
covered, the convention does not apply.
Specifically, they would only conceiveably fit
under Aricle 4.2, except that they don't fulfill
requirement b or d, and often not a or c.
\_ right...and of course MOTD Anonymous Coward is
more authoritative than the Supreme Court on
this issue. -tom
\_ I'm totally with you. The USSC never makes an
error. So you were a big supporter of their
decision in Bush v. Gore in 2000 then, right?
\_ Wow, I didn't know we were no longer allowed
to disagree with SCOTUS decisions. All hail
our philosopher king overlords!
\_ You're allowed to disagree. You're also
allowed to sound like an idiot. When you
regurgitate dittohead propaganda that
is directly contradicted by the decision
of the US Supreme Court, which has both
infinitely more experience than you and
has also studied the specific case in
far more depth than you have, you can do
both at the same time. -tom
\_ Exactly. I totally agree with you. The
USSC is infalible. Bush v. Gore 2000
was definitely a great ruling. Glad you're
on the same page.
\_ This post is meaningless. You assume a
lot and know nothing.
\_ Pot kettle I'm rubber and you're
glue... -John
\_ Sorry, just because John Yoo claims that the
Geneva Convention says something doesn't make it
so. Every other signatory to the Geneva Convention
agrees that there are only three categories of
states that there are only three categories of
people under the GC: 1) combatants 2) POWs and
3) civilians. The International Red Cross
3) Non-combatants. The International Red Cross
agrees. And now the USSC agrees. Your RNC kool-aide
is poisoned, you just haven't realized it yet.
\_ I've read what it says, I just did again.
The fact the some people disagree does not
surprise me. Please explain how people who
are explicitly excluded from the convention,
are actually covered by it. I'm not
pro-torture, but using the Geneva convention
to back up that position is idiotic.
\_ Do you mean the 3rd Convention Article 4
or the 4th Convention? The 4th Convention
Article 4 states:
"Persons protected by the Convention are
those who, at a given moment and in any manner
whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a
conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party\
to the conflict or Occupying Power of which
they are not nationals."
I really don't see the exclusion you claim
exists in that phrase.
or the 4th Convention? Your statements
make no sense in regards to the 4th Convention.
Go back and reread the *4th*Convention* which
is where the USSC drew its claim of jurisdition
from.
\_ Oops, you're right. I haven't had time
to get through the whole 4th, but this
is interesting: "Nationals of a State
which is not bound by the Convention
are not protected by it." No sure how
that applies to people who disavow
state.
\_ A good, but dense analysis:
link:www.csua.org/u/gcp
A bunch of the 4th Convention
specifically refers to spies and
saboteurs, the closest approximation
to todays "terrorists."
\_ freeper nutjob on the case!
\_ Spies and saboteurs belong to a
nation. They are not uniformed is
the difference between them and a
soldier. A close approximation is
not the same as "equal to".
\_ Well, I guess that makes it all
right then for the nation that
holds the torch of freedom and
overall higher standards to act
like a bunch of fucking baboons
and thugs. -John
\_ No one said that. And we're
talking about legalities here
not the right/wrong morals of
the situation and you know it.
\_ Legalities? Well, the USSC
sort of mooted that point
just now. -John
\_ which means we're not
allowed to discuss it.
\_ Who told you that the United States has not signed the Geneva
Convention?
\_ yoo@law.berkeley.edu send him email and tell him what you think.
\_ Who told you that Dubya's military tribunals are structured the
same way as in previous conflicts?
same way as in previous conflicts? Who told you that Quirin and
Eisentrager are relevant? Who told you that Congress can expect
unconstitutional laws to be left standing?
\_ Quirin was decided before the 4th Convention was signed, so
it is not relevant.
\_ And yet after 15 replies no one has recognized that the Court,
as I said in the first reply, does not, according to DTA,
even have jurisdiction to hear this case. That is the
significance of this ruling, that the USSC directly ignored
a Constitutionally enabled Congressional statute stripping
it of jurisdiction.
\_ Erm, which statute would that be? Also, as congress has the
power to create and define all courts INFERIOR to the Supreme
Court, isn't this moot?
\_ Who or what is DTA? Which Congressional statute do you claim
stripped the USSC of jurisdiction? Congress passes
unconstitutional laws with a distressing frequency, you do
know that, right?
\_ When you throw out a TLA for the first time you should
define it. You are referring to the Detainee Treatment
Act. The Constitutionality of this act is very much
in question. In fact, I think the USSC just ruled part
of it unconstitutional by their ruling, but I will have
to research it some more. See Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld. I think
that the DTA is unconstitutional on its face:
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be
suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion
the public Safety may require it." Art. 1, Sec. 9 |
http://csua.com/feed/