PDA

View Full Version : Bombing Attempt from Al Qaeda



Ganzta
29 Dec 2009, 10:29am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/us/29terror.html?_r=1&ref=politics

It seems to me that the national security is getting more lax after the frenzy of 9/11. After the White House party crashers, there's this. What surprised me was if there were no technical errors with the bomb, this would have been a successful terrorist attack on US soil.

Ramb0
29 Dec 2009, 10:36am
Looks like it is back to the extremely long waits in the Airports. Its a shame that these radicals feel that taking innocent lives somehow makes them closer to their God. Nutjobs, all of them.

This is why we must continue to beef up national security and hunt down these animals.

Omar
29 Dec 2009, 11:09am
Terrorism fail.

Red
29 Dec 2009, 11:40am
Extremists see Obama and the liberal leaders running the USA as weak.

Our own government tries to put intelligence officers and military personnel in jail for doing their job while they shut down Guantanamo bay. You're safer as a terrorist than as an employee of the USA trying to protect it.

It's only the first year of Obama, there will be more of these attempted attacks. Whether they be crazy Muslim military personnel shooting people on base, or more rich kids trying to blow up American planes.

Weakness is provocation.

Drox
29 Dec 2009, 01:08pm
I found it funny how bad he failed, I'd would have let him burn alittle longer before helping him out if I was on the plane then stomped it out for good measure lol. Whats sad is how weak homeland security was for this guy to get on a plan with a "bomb" in the first place.

Bilbo Baggins
29 Dec 2009, 01:22pm
Extremists see Obama and the liberal leaders running the USA as weak.

Our own government tries to put intelligence officers and military personnel in jail for doing their job while they shut down Guantanamo bay. You're safer as a terrorist than as an employee of the USA trying to protect it.

It's only the first year of Obama, there will be more of these attempted attacks. Whether they be crazy Muslim military personnel shooting people on base, or more rich kids trying to blow up American planes.

Weakness is provocation.

First off, being perceived as weak really doesn't come into the equation, IMO, they're going to try and kill innocent people no matter what they think of the strength of the US leaders. Torture is unacceptable. In case you didn't know a bunch of soldiers were, between 2004-06, put in military prison, and kicked out of the army, so this isn't something new. Guantanamo bay should never have existed in the first place, it is wrong to place people in prison for years at a time with out charging them with anything, because if there was evidence of anything why not put them on trial the right way. What putting people in Guantanamo says is that they don't have evidence for a majority of the people there, so many of them could be there for no good reason.

Bad Dog
29 Dec 2009, 02:25pm
First off, being perceived as weak really doesn't come into the equation, IMO, they're going to try and kill innocent people no matter what they think of the strength of the US leaders. Torture is unacceptable. In case you didn't know a bunch of soldiers were, between 2004-06, put in military prison, and kicked out of the army, so this isn't something new. Guantanamo bay should never have existed in the first place, it is wrong to place people in prison for years at a time with out charging them with anything, because if there was evidence of anything why not put them on trial the right way. What putting people in Guantanamo says is that they don't have evidence for a majority of the people there, so many of them could be there for no good reason.

So according to what you want to do we abolish all prisons like Guantanamo and give all of the former detainees a big hug and send them home? Good luck with that plan.

Omar
29 Dec 2009, 03:05pm
So according to what you want to do we abolish all prisons like Guantanamo and give all of the former detainees a big hug and send them home? Good luck with that plan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Prisoner_complaints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#NGO_reports
(sorry for using wiki, cba)

Sounds like a cool prison.

When you mean all prisons like guantanamo, do you mean those in the US? Cause I think it's the only one, correct me if I'm wrong. (No flame)

Bad Dog
29 Dec 2009, 03:32pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#Prisoner_complaints
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp#NGO_reports
(sorry for using wiki, cba)

Sounds like a cool prison.

When you mean all prisons like guantanamo, do you mean those in the US? Cause I think it's the only one, correct me if I'm wrong. (No flame)

No I meant all of these prisons where we keep terrorists, ect..
I believe there are more than just Guantanamo, but ya they are outside of the US.

Sk!ll3r
29 Dec 2009, 03:33pm
WHat next ? Some terrorist walks into White House ? How the hell he got through security ? : O , plastic explosive ?

Omar
29 Dec 2009, 03:39pm
No I meant all of these prisons where we keep terrorists, ect..
I believe there are more than just Guantanamo, but ya they are outside of the US.

NSFW
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_abuse

Good thing this one doesn't exist anymore (It was handed out to the iraqies again, so i was told)

Slavic
29 Dec 2009, 03:57pm
Extremists see Obama and the liberal leaders running the USA as weak.

Our own government tries to put intelligence officers and military personnel in jail for doing their job while they shut down Guantanamo bay. You're safer as a terrorist than as an employee of the USA trying to protect it.

It's only the first year of Obama, there will be more of these attempted attacks. Whether they be crazy Muslim military personnel shooting people on base, or more rich kids trying to blow up American planes.

Weakness is provocation.

Seems to make sense; I mean I can't think of any terrorist attacked that occurred during a conservative administration.


I think whether Washington swings left or right makes hardly a difference in changing the resolve or Islamic extremists.

affyafg
29 Dec 2009, 04:47pm
The funny thing how the he'll he pass security...Amsterdam has one the harsh security in airports if u ever been there they basically they search u naked there but he still passEd security... But maybe it's 1 of the government conspiracy to scare ppl... and tell them there is still terriost around...

Bilbo Baggins
29 Dec 2009, 05:31pm
So according to what you want to do we abolish all prisons like Guantanamo and give all of the former detainees a big hug and send them home? Good luck with that plan.

No we put them on trial. If there is sufficient evidence they will be found guilty and can be put in a lovely federal prison without all the torture.

trakaill
29 Dec 2009, 10:20pm
Seems to make sense; I mean I can't think of any terrorist attacked that occurred during a conservative administration.


I think whether Washington swings left or right makes hardly a difference in changing the resolve or Islamic extremists.

the shoe bomber .... but I agree with left or right not being the issue here...did the kid ever mentioned obama in the interviews?? Crazy people are crazy end of story... young teen with weak mind being told what to do...

phatman76
30 Dec 2009, 12:02am
the shoe bomber

lol, how obscure. how about 9/11? haha. But as to whether a political orientation affects our security RE red tampon.

Say what you will about the resolve of terrorists, but the Obama Administration's legal stance on terror is foul. For christ sakes, their Attorney General got some South American terrorists pardoned and returned at the end of Clinton's second term. That is a whole giant scandal no one really talks about anymore, but certainly represents some conflict of interests. But ignoring the moral questionability of the Administration...

You cannot have a double standard where some terrorists are tried in American courts and some are not, yet that is what Obama seeks to do in the NYC federal courts. We must try all prisoners as war criminals, and as such they are at the mercy of the military courts with military prosecutors and defense counsel. They should not have fifth amendment rights. They should not have pro-bono legal defense from white-shoe firms. Obama has done this for a few terrorists however. Now every terrorist will ask, and now every terrorist will eventually be entitled, to a full public court. These courts will provide bully-pulpits, watered-down sentencing, and will open up things we shouldn't let everyone see.

Now the CIA and the FBI will be have to submit subpoenaed records with sensitive data to the defense teams. That data can and will be leaked. Soon the information gathering methods of our intelligence community will be seen by the entire world. That will help the terrorists in a real tangible way.

Not to mention all the cutbacks on budgets and the removal of enhanced interrogation methods. Certainly Obama being president makes a difference to our security to terror. By the next election cycle we will assuredly be less secure than we were in 2008, at least if our president actually fulfills any of his campaign promises.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 01:13am
Not to mention all the cutbacks on budgets and the removal of enhanced interrogation methods. Certainly Obama being president makes a difference to our security to terror. By the next election cycle we will assuredly be less secure than we were in 2008, at least if our president actually fulfills any of his campaign promises.

"Prolonged isolation,
Prolonged sleep deprivation,
Sensory deprivation,
Extremely painful "stress positions,"
Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights),
Forced nakedness,
Sexual humiliation,
Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures),
Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia,
Exploitation of phobias,
Simulation of the experience of drowning, i.e., waterboarding."

You're telling me that any information procured through those methods is at all reliable. The problem with torture, yes that is what it is, drop the 'enhanced interrogation' BS. Any information they gather this way is suspect, you're going to tell them what ever they fucking want to hear. End of story.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 01:50am
lol, how obscure. how about 9/11? haha. But as to whether a political orientation affects our security RE red tampon.

Say what you will about the resolve of terrorists, but the Obama Administration's legal stance on terror is foul. For christ sakes, their Attorney General got some South American terrorists pardoned and returned at the end of Clinton's second term. That is a whole giant scandal no one really talks about anymore, but certainly represents some conflict of interests.


By south american terrorists I assume you mean Puerto Rican?
The people who were released were never, never, found guilty of murder or of doing anything violent for that matter. Yet they were given sentences of up to 105 years, longer sentences than the norm for what they were found guilty for. Bad decision now, probably. But in a pre9/11 world not so much. Note Clinton was also influenced on this decision by the likes of " at the appeal of 10 Nobel Peace Prize laureates, former President Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico."

tank40175
30 Dec 2009, 05:51am
Love how some peeps take the media today as gospel. Let's get a couple of things straight....

1. G-bay is a picnic in a park compared to what these guys face if sent to a Federal prison. There have been a few unfortunate events there that were made out to be more than they were. Most of what you refer to (besides waterboarding) were isolated incidents, and troops responsible were dealt with, didn't happen to everyone.

2. Give them a trial?? They are not even entitled to one. By the UCMJ, combatants captured outside of a military uniform can be executed on the spot without trial. They have no rights, but our Government in it's continued efforts to bash Bush (and by doing so the Republicans) are giving them rights while taking the rights of our troops to do thier jobs. And now we are going to give them a stage to voice thier mis-guided hatered on. These fuckers in Gitmo should thank thier lucky stars the are even breathing.

Phonicz
30 Dec 2009, 07:14am
it just shows how fail security is

Red
30 Dec 2009, 10:25am
Seems to make sense; I mean I can't think of any terrorist attacked that occurred during a conservative administration.


I think whether Washington swings left or right makes hardly a difference in changing the resolve or Islamic extremists.

9/11 is the culmination of failures under Clinton's administration and the complacency of Clinton and Bush's administrations until that point, once it did happen the Bush admin did all it could to prevent further attacks at home, and they did so, quite successfully.

Obama came into power with the current reality of Islamic extremism and the fight against it. He is the one that took a step back on fighting it and seeing it for what it is. He started politicizing it, going after our own intel officers while at the same time easing up on KNOWN terror suspects by giving them a "fair trial" yadda yadda.

In this first year alone we had the FT Hood shootings and now this bombing Attempt.

As to "changing the resolve or Islamic extremists", I thought Obama was supposed to be the beacon of change and all his kow towing (both literal and figurative) to the Muslim world was supposed to bring upon peace.

Seems to be doing dick, other than showing how limped dick he is.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 05:34pm
9/11 is the culmination of failures under Clinton's administration and the complacency of Clinton and Bush's administrations until that point, once it did happen the Bush admin did all it could to prevent further attacks at home, and they did so, quite successfully.

Obama came into power with the current reality of Islamic extremism and the fight against it. He is the one that took a step back on fighting it and seeing it for what it is. He started politicizing it, going after our own intel officers while at the same time easing up on KNOWN terror suspects by giving them a "fair trial" yadda yadda.

In this first year alone we had the FT Hood shootings and now this bombing Attempt.

As to "changing the resolve or Islamic extremists", I thought Obama was supposed to be the beacon of change and all his kow towing (both literal and figurative) to the Muslim world was supposed to bring upon peace.


As to the Fort Hood shootings, the FBI decided the guy wasn't a threat, Obama had nothing to do with it at all, it would have happened even if Bush was president. Now, I seem to recall there being something about a guy trying to detonate a shoe bomb on a plane when, Bush was president, only a few months after 9/11, great job Bush!

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 05:52pm
Love how some peeps take the media today as gospel. Let's get a couple of things straight....

1. G-bay is a picnic in a park compared to what these guys face if sent to a Federal prison. There have been a few unfortunate events there that were made out to be more than they were. Most of what you refer to (besides waterboarding) were isolated incidents, and troops responsible were dealt with, didn't happen to everyone.

2. Give them a trial?? They are not even entitled to one. By the UCMJ, combatants captured outside of a military uniform can be executed on the spot without trial. They have no rights, but our Government in it's continued efforts to bash Bush (and by doing so the Republicans) are giving them rights while taking the rights of our troops to do thier jobs. And now we are going to give them a stage to voice thier mis-guided hatered on. These fuckers in Gitmo should thank thier lucky stars the are even breathing.

Heard of the Geneva Conventions?
"willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial." Those are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions seems to disagree with what you said, and last time I checked the US was supposed to go along with them.

While their actions are despicable, their being unhappy with the US is kind of our fault, face it, we fucked up the situation in the middle east which is why we are so unpopular there. One multiple occasions we supported governments which were dictatorships because it fell in line with our country's goals.

Habibi
30 Dec 2009, 05:55pm
I found it funny how bad he failed, I'd would have let him burn alittle longer before helping him out if I was on the plane then stomped it out for good measure lol. Whats sad is how weak homeland security was for this guy to get on a plan with a "bomb" in the first place.

Drox, its a new type of bomb.. that was made to be undetectable through the security.. the terrorists are ahead of the national security in united states again.. just like 911.. pretty sad

Habibi
30 Dec 2009, 05:58pm
9/11 is the culmination of failures under Clinton's administration and the complacency of Clinton and Bush's administrations until that point, once it did happen the Bush admin did all it could to prevent further attacks at home, and they did so, quite successfully.

Obama came into power with the current reality of Islamic extremism and the fight against it. He is the one that took a step back on fighting it and seeing it for what it is. He started politicizing it, going after our own intel officers while at the same time easing up on KNOWN terror suspects by giving them a "fair trial" yadda yadda.

In this first year alone we had the FT Hood shootings and now this bombing Attempt.

As to "changing the resolve or Islamic extremists", I thought Obama was supposed to be the beacon of change and all his kow towing (both literal and figurative) to the Muslim world was supposed to bring upon peace.

Seems to be doing dick, other than showing how limped dick he is.

i think Obama is better then George Bush and definitely better then that redneck McCain.. if McCain was president.. we would be having another world war with the middle east

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 05:59pm
Drox, its a new type of bomb.. that was made to be undetectable through the security.. the terrorists are ahead of the national security in united states again.. just like 911.. pretty sad

Actually I have a question, this was an international flight, right?

If so does the country the flight is flying from administer all the security that has to be held to a standard set by the destination country, or is just whatever that country has for security standards? (I've never flown international)

Dracula
30 Dec 2009, 06:15pm
Heard of the Geneva Conventions?
"willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments
willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
compelling one to serve in the forces of a hostile power
willfully depriving one of the right to a fair trial." Those are grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions seems to disagree with what you said, and last time I checked the US was supposed to go along with them.

While their actions are despicable, their being unhappy with the US is kind of our fault, face it, we fucked up the situation in the middle east which is why we are so unpopular there. One multiple occasions we supported governments which were dictatorships because it fell in line with our country's goals.

The Geneva Convention applys to soilders of a foreign Government, NOT a terorist orginization.

Ganzta
30 Dec 2009, 06:26pm
As to the Fort Hood shootings, the FBI decided the guy wasn't a threat, Obama had nothing to do with it at all, it would have happened even if Bush was president. Now, I seem to recall there being something about a guy trying to detonate a shoe bomb on a plane when, Bush was president, only a few months after 9/11, great job Bush!

Really, you're arguing that Obama had nothing to do with the shooting, but the shoe bomb was completely Bush's fault? It doesn't matter if either Obama or Bush caught the swine flu, took a bullet in his leg and had to spend time in the hospital during the entirety of the events, if anything happened during their term, it will be tied to them. I'm not saying that Obama himself allowed it to happen, but his administration and its current practice did.


No we put them on trial. If there is sufficient evidence they will be found guilty and can be put in a lovely federal prison without all the torture.

i think Obama is better then George Bush and definitely better then that redneck McCain.. if McCain was president.. we would be having another world war with the middle east



"Prolonged isolation,
Prolonged sleep deprivation,
Sensory deprivation,
Extremely painful "stress positions,"
Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights),
Forced nakedness,
Sexual humiliation,
Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures),
Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia,
Exploitation of phobias,
Simulation of the experience of drowning, i.e., waterboarding."

You're telling me that any information procured through those methods is at all reliable. The problem with torture, yes that is what it is, drop the 'enhanced interrogation' BS. Any information they gather this way is suspect, you're going to tell them what ever they fucking want to hear. End of story.

It seems to me that you're just a liberal fanatic that likes to disagree with anything that the conservatives have done based on things you hear on Fox News. With all your red herrings, you should go make a fortune by starting your own processing food factory. I can say that soldiers are bad and that we should dismiss our entire military because innocent people can get pierces through by bullets or blast to pieces with our current practice. Our national security was heightened during the Bush administration mostly because 9/11 happened. What we're trying to discuss here is how the national security is getting more lax since Obama was elected, not that Bush is a bad man and Obama is the symbol of all hopes.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 06:33pm
The Geneva Convention applys to soilders of a foreign Government, NOT a terorist orginization.

"The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

Dracula
30 Dec 2009, 06:37pm
"The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"

Nice Copy and Paste of Wikipedia bro, come back to me when you can come up with a real argument.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 06:40pm
Nice Copy and Paste of Wikipedia bro, come back to me when you can come up with a real argument.

Hey I thought it was.

Read this then http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm

Here I'll make it easier for you

"It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that;

[e]very person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view.296" its from the website up there

Ganzta
30 Dec 2009, 06:41pm
"The treatment of prisoners who do not fall into the categories described in Article 4 has led to the current controversy regarding the interpretation of "unlawful combatants" by the George W. Bush administration. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is contradicted by the findings by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment. The judgement quoted the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law,"
Do you mind also quoting Article 4 from the Third Geneva Convention from Wikipedia as well?

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 06:52pm
Do you mind also quoting Article 4 from the Third Geneva Convention from Wikipedia as well?

Seeing as you asked:
Article 4 defines prisoners of war to include:
4.1.1 Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict and members of militias of such armed forces
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
that of carrying arms openly;
that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
4.1.3 Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.
4.1.4 Civilians who have non-combat support roles with the military and who carry a valid identity card issued by the military they support.
4.1.5 Merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
4.1.6 Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.
4.3 makes explicit that Article 33 takes precedence for the treatment of medical personnel of the enemy and chaplains of the enemy.

My response to this, from the fourth convention:
Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared and in an occupation of another country's territory.
Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: 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. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

Dracula
30 Dec 2009, 06:55pm
Hey I thought it was.

Read this then http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/part3B.htm


Ah, but in those trials we are not talking about a terrorist orginization. The geneva convention was not put inplace to protect members of an orginization whos ONLY goal is death and destruction. It is not even as if they are some kind of resistance movement fighting for an independent state ect, they are a terrorist orginization fighting only to kill and destroy on a supposed "holy war" against the West and specificlly the United States.

Ganzta
30 Dec 2009, 07:01pm
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661
"The Supreme Court held that “international” did not mean “global” but rather “intern-nation” or “between nations.” Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, the court held, the conflict with al-Qaeda was not inter-nation, or international, however global in might be. Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” "

now this is case closed

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 07:02pm
Ah, but in those trials we are not talking about a terrorist orginization. The geneva convention was not put inplace to protect members of an orginization whos ONLY goal is death and destruction. It is not even as if they are some kind of resistance movement fighting for an independent state ect, they are a terrorist orginization fighting only to kill and destroy on a supposed "holy war" against the West and specificlly the United States.

Its really very clear: There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 07:07pm
http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661
"The Supreme Court held that “international” did not mean “global” but rather “intern-nation” or “between nations.” Because al-Qaeda is not a nation-state, the court held, the conflict with al-Qaeda was not inter-nation, or international, however global in might be. Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” "

now this is case closed

"The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions." http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

yeah thats what I get when I go to that site...

** Edit**
Why not paste the next lines?
"Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” At the same time, where, as in Afghanistan, such a conflict takes place in the territory of a party to the Geneva Convention, the court held, Common Article 3 could be applied. With these two requirements met in the court’s eyes, that the conflict was not of an international character and took place in the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions, the court then went on to hold that Common Article 3’s additional provisions were applicable, such as the requirements relevant to the Hamdan military commissions case, that criminal judgments on detainees, i.e., sentences imposed as punishment for being found guilty of a war crime, be passed only by a “regularly constituted court” providing “all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”'

Ganzta
30 Dec 2009, 07:18pm
"The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29, 2006, decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld applied Common Article 3 to a global conflict with a non-state actor, al-Qaeda, taking place within the territory of a country that is a party to the Geneva Conventions, Afghanistan. Its implications are that Common Article 3 applies to the global conflict with terrorists anywhere on earth involving the territory of a party to the Geneva Conventions." http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

yeah thats what I get when I go to that site...

** Edit**
Why not paste the next lines?
"Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” At the same time, where, as in Afghanistan, such a conflict takes place in the territory of a party to the Geneva Convention, the court held, Common Article 3 could be applied. With these two requirements met in the court’s eyes, that the conflict was not of an international character and took place in the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions, the court then went on to hold that Common Article 3’s additional provisions were applicable, such as the requirements relevant to the Hamdan military commissions case, that criminal judgments on detainees, i.e., sentences imposed as punishment for being found guilty of a war crime, be passed only by a “regularly constituted court” providing “all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”'

I misinterpreted the context, and I apologize, but Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not mention anything about a proper trial.

And why is this turning into another POW and Geneva Convention thread?
Is it really necessary to relate/blame everything on the mistreatment of prisoners.
What other arguments have you presented in this thread except that torture is wrong therefore Bush is bad/Obama is good.

Dracula
30 Dec 2009, 07:20pm
Its really very clear: There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law

You say it as if we are at war, which we are not because there is no state\country\ recognised reststiance movement against us.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 07:28pm
I misinterpreted the context, and I apologize, but Article 3 of the Geneva Convention does not mention anything about a proper trial.

Yeah, the whole Geneva Convention is put together a little weirdly, like three is common article, as it was included in all of the conventions, so when you read about you'll read about it differently. Three does mention stuf bout proper trials, but it depends on which Geneva convention you read about it under.
"Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: noncombatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."
A

And why is this turning into another POW and Geneva Convention thread?

Great question... I did ask something related to this awhile back though:
"Actually I have a question, this was an international flight, right?

If so does the country the flight is flying from administer all the security that has to be held to a standard set by the destination country, or is just whatever that country has for security standards? (I've never flown international)"

I've also never said that Obama is good, that was Bubblez. Okay I'll admit it now Obama is good. Furthermore Red Tampon brought this about, read the first or second page.

Bilbo Baggins
30 Dec 2009, 07:31pm
You say it as if we are at war, which we are not because there is no state\country\ recognised reststiance movement against us.

The supreme court disagrees: "Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” At the same time, where, as in Afghanistan, such a conflict takes place in the territory of a party to the Geneva Convention, the court held, Common Article 3 could be applied. With these two requirements met in the court’s eyes, that the conflict was not of an international character and took place in the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions, the court then went on to hold that Common Article 3’s additional provisions were applicable, such as the requirements relevant to the Hamdan military commissions case, that criminal judgments on detainees, i.e., sentences imposed as punishment for being found guilty of a war crime, be passed only by a “regularly constituted court” providing “all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”' read the post above yours.

tank40175
31 Dec 2009, 06:46am
For it to offically to be a "war" congress has to declare it. This has not been done since 1941. The Supreme Court cannot declare war, or even ask for it. They can state thier view of it all they want, as any in this country, but they only interpet the law not make it or override it. The President can authorize military action, but not declare war. Congress has to do it. This is the law of our Constitution.

And by your own quote, it is deemed "armed conflict of an international character" this does not mean a declared war. So what Drac said is 100% correct. We are in this type of conflict always, somewhere. Otherwise the Korean war would still be going on, or we would be at war every time one of our ships has to intercept Somali pirates. All of these are "armed conflicts of an international character", but certianly not a war. Even Korea and Vietnam both were not official wars by law.

And how about you take what the Geneva Convention says to how our enemy has conducted themselves. Military targets, uniform, civilians.................. Instead of just trying to bash America by it. These people are living in better conditions in Gitmo than they will in any Fed prison, or even than where they came from. What do you thin is waiting for them in a Fed? They can't be put in with the general population, for thier own safety. So they will spend the rest of thier days in isolation. They will be going to a Supermax style prison given the nature of thier crime, not the hotel style prison everyone thinks of when you say Fed Prison. Trust me, I've seen them during my time in the military, as I was on a transport detail a couple of times to deliver people to spend some quality time there. They have it as good as they are going to get, better than any other option we have to send them to. Or maybe you would be happy just releasing them so they can try to kill more innocents. Like the two former Gitmo guests that were behind this Christmas attempt.

Bilbo Baggins
31 Dec 2009, 05:52pm
For it to offically to be a "war" congress has to declare it. This has not been done since 1941. The Supreme Court cannot declare war, or even ask for it. They can state thier view of it all they want, as any in this country, but they only interpet the law not make it or override it. The President can authorize military action, but not declare war. Congress has to do it. This is the law of our Constitution.

And by your own quote, it is deemed "armed conflict of an international character" this does not mean a declared war. So what Drac said is 100% correct. We are in this type of conflict always, somewhere. Otherwise the Korean war would still be going on, or we would be at war every time one of our ships has to intercept Somali pirates. All of these are "armed conflicts of an international character", but certianly not a war. Even Korea and Vietnam both were not official wars by law.

And how about you take what the Geneva Convention says to how our enemy has conducted themselves. Military targets, uniform, civilians.................. Instead of just trying to bash America by it. These people are living in better conditions in Gitmo than they will in any Fed prison, or even than where they came from. What do you thin is waiting for them in a Fed? They can't be put in with the general population, for thier own safety. So they will spend the rest of thier days in isolation. They will be going to a Supermax style prison given the nature of thier crime, not the hotel style prison everyone thinks of when you say Fed Prison. Trust me, I've seen them during my time in the military, as I was on a transport detail a couple of times to deliver people to spend some quality time there. They have it as good as they are going to get, better than any other option we have to send them to. Or maybe you would be happy just releasing them so they can try to kill more innocents. Like the two former Gitmo guests that were behind this Christmas attempt.
I didn't mean to say that the supreme court declared any war only that they say that the Geneva conventions apply. Further more when gitmo closes, which it is, the detainees are going to an "underused" prison in Illinois.

tank40175
1 Jan 2010, 06:11pm
Some are, but what I said about the conditions they are moving from, and to are still true for the prison in IL.

Bilbo Baggins
1 Jan 2010, 07:03pm
Some are, but what I said about the conditions they are moving from, and to are still true for the prison in IL.

The prison they are going to only has a handful of minimum security prisoners who will have basically no contact with the Guantanamo bay detainees, so basically it will be like gitmo, 'cept without the torture, and with the legit trials.

Toxin
2 Jan 2010, 09:04pm
Bilbo, stop fucking arguing if 95% of your arguments are copied and pasted. And Geneva Convention and G-Bay shit goes here (http://www.steamgamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25840)

LegalSmash
3 Jan 2010, 03:21pm
The supreme court disagrees: "Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” At the same time, where, as in Afghanistan, such a conflict takes place in the territory of a party to the Geneva Convention, the court held, Common Article 3 could be applied. With these two requirements met in the court’s eyes, that the conflict was not of an international character and took place in the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions, the court then went on to hold that Common Article 3’s additional provisions were applicable, such as the requirements relevant to the Hamdan military commissions case, that criminal judgments on detainees, i.e., sentences imposed as punishment for being found guilty of a war crime, be passed only by a “regularly constituted court” providing “all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.”' read the post above yours.

LOL @ bilbo, you miss the forest for the tree

Okay, and what makes you an expert on SCOTUS jurisprudence, wikipedia? Your commentary is confused... let me fix it for you:

The issue in Hamdan was whether the govt violated an american citizen Hamdi's 5th amendment right to due process by holding him indefinitely without access to attorney based on an exec branch declaration that he was an enemy combatant. Basically, does separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to exec branch determinations that a US citizen is an enemy combatant.

Congress can declare war, the supreme court cannot, congress can technically dismantle scotus and do away with it if they pass appropriate constitutional amendments. SCOTUS is best seen as a grandparent who advises you as to what his old journal says and how his old journal matches up to your new wacky ideas.

Re: Declaration of war: The US has not declared war in well over 60 years because there has not been a good enough reason to, and Americans as a people have generally ceased being as unquestioningly patriotic as they were prior to 1959... blame the baby boomers, who felt its not appropriate to let the youth go lose limbs for the whim of a few old men. Since its politically unpalatable to ask for a constitutionally declared war, the congress furnished the war powers act, and several other manners by which to allow the executive to mobilize available forces against hotspots with their continued approval. Even these, however, suffer issues because congress has YET to go against the president's desire in the use of war power and pull the troops out of anywhere from Korea to Iraq, to Somalia. This being the case, figure the new idea is that rather than declaring a time, place, and plan, we throw the available boys and girls in uniform into the grinder, and advertise larger bonuses and more college money for joining up, rather than having an honest to God draft.

CONGRESS ALLOWED the president to have and use the warpower act. No congress has attempted to ask an incumbent president to relinquish the power, nor has a president willingly given it up....

This tirade ties in to the issue of the geneva convention. Legally speaking Geneva applied to prisoners of war. Prisoners of war exist where a state of war or conflict exists between two or more belligerent parties... IE: US v. Germany, Iran V. Iraq, Coalition v. Vietnam.

All of these groups are actual sovereign nations, or parties that control a nation's resources, making it two sovereigns going at it with each other.

This is NOT the US versus a minimalist extremist group of AK and RPG toting islamists. There was no previous precedent for this matter for us, so we coined them "enemy combatants", which is NOT an interchangeable term with prisoner of war. This in effect shows GC does NOT apply here anymore than it would have in the spanish civil war, or between the chech rebels and russians.

Stepping back into matters of law once more an enemy combatant who is a US citizen, such as puerto ricans, or hamdi are entitled to an attorney, due process, and a fair trial in an Article III court.

A NONcitizen enemy combatant, on the other hand is not entitled to the same guarantees as is a US citizen and no court has stated that he SHOULD be given such great privilege.

Clear enough for you all?

Bilbo Baggins
3 Jan 2010, 08:52pm
LOL @ bilbo, you miss the forest for the tree

The issue in Hamdan was whether the govt violated an american citizen Hamdi's 5th amendment right to due process by holding him indefinitely without access to attorney based on an exec branch declaration that he was an enemy combatant. Basically, does separation of powers doctrine require federal courts to defer to exec branch determinations that a US citizen is an enemy combatant.



Uhh, Hamdan was from Yemen, I don't quite understand the point you are making here...
are you thinking about Hamdi v Rumsfeld different case entirely.

Hamdi (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/hamvrum)
hamdan (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/hamvrum.html)

LegalSmash
5 Jan 2010, 07:24pm
Uhh, Hamdan was from Yemen, I don't quite understand the point you are making here...
are you thinking about Hamdi v Rumsfeld different case entirely.

Hamdi (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certgrants/2003/hamvrum)
hamdan (http://www.law.duke.edu/publiclaw/supremecourtonline/certGrants/2005/hamvrum.html)

In that case, you make it even more simple...

NON-US citizen does not have those due process rights aforementioned... additionally, BTW, Geneva is a conventional treaty we signed, we CAN back out of them at will, if we so choose.

Bilbo Baggins
5 Jan 2010, 08:41pm
In that case, you make it even more simple...

NON-US citizen does not have those due process rights aforementioned... additionally, BTW, Geneva is a conventional treaty we signed, we CAN back out of them at will, if we so choose.

Which we haven't backed out of, so


Under the language of Common Article 3, the court deemed the conflict with al-Qaeda an “armed conflict not of an international character.” At the same time, where, as in Afghanistan, such a conflict takes place in the territory of a party to the Geneva Convention, the court held, Common Article 3 could be applied. With these two requirements met in the court’s eyes, that the conflict was not of an international character and took place in the territory of a Party to the Geneva Conventions, the court then went on to hold that Common Article 3’s additional provisions were applicable, such as the requirements relevant to the Hamdan military commissions case, that criminal judgments on detainees, i.e., sentences imposed as punishment for being found guilty of a war crime, be passed only by a “regularly constituted court” providing “all the judicial guarantees … recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.” http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3661

You're still wrong, the supreme court disagrees, read the quoted above. I would think that the Supreme Court knows its stuff.

tank40175
6 Jan 2010, 05:55am
Bilbo, Legal knows his stuff. You keep harping about the GC. Well even though the US is a signer of the treaty, we do use and maintain weapons systems and weapons that are not aprroved by the GC. We use these weapons even though they are not approved. We do follow the GC as a guideline, but still realize that in most cases we are fighting an enemy that does not even care to read the F'ing thing. Our Nuclear arsenal is not technically allowed by the GC, but yet we have them ready, if needed. But understand that if you are going to look to the LAW our military is bound to then refer to the UCMJ. That stands for "Uniform Code of Military Justice". <-----So you can Wiki it.

Bilbo Baggins
6 Jan 2010, 05:30pm
Bilbo, Legal knows his stuff. You keep harping about the GC. Well even though the US is a signer of the treaty, we do use and maintain weapons systems and weapons that are not aprroved by the GC. We use these weapons even though they are not approved. We do follow the GC as a guideline, but still realize that in most cases we are fighting an enemy that does not even care to read the F'ing thing. Our Nuclear arsenal is not technically allowed by the GC, but yet we have them ready, if needed. But understand that if you are going to look to the LAW our military is bound to then refer to the UCMJ. That stands for "Uniform Code of Military Justice". <-----So you can Wiki it.

I get what you're saying, but as a country we signed protocol one, and two (they deal with WMDs) but we never ratified them. This means that we haven't actually claimed to go along with that portion of the conventions, the parts that are relevant (well, where its gone now) to this discussion, we did ratify, which means we should go along with what that entails. BTW on the subject of legal he was directly trying to say the opposite of what the Supreme Court decided after he got a couple of cases confused.

Hmm... I'm giving the UCMJ a quick once over and found this


831 ART. 31. COMPULSORY SELF-INCRIMINATION PROHIBITED
(a) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to incriminate himself or to answer any questions the answer to which may tend to incriminate him.

(b) No person subject to this chapter may interrogate, or request any statement from an accused or a person suspected of an offense without first informing him of the nature of the accusation and advising him that he does not have to make any statement regarding the offense of which he is accused or suspected and that any statement made by him may be used as evidence against him in a trial by court-martial.

(c) No person subject to this chapter may compel any person to make a statement or produce evidence before any military tribunal if the statement or evidence in not material to the issue and may tend to degrade him.

(d) No statement obtained from any person in violation of this article, or through the use of coercion, unlawful influence, or unlawful inducement may be received in evidence against him in a trial by court-martial. source (http://www.constitution.org/mil/ucmj19970615.htm)

which back on the topic of torture in what seems to be prohibited by the UCMJ, "unlawful influence" sounds like torture to me.

Red
6 Jan 2010, 06:18pm
Oh shit, Bilbo challenged Legalsmash on legal language, this'll be fun.

His name isn't Legalsmash for no reason.

LegalSmash
6 Jan 2010, 09:46pm
I'll reply in entirety in a few dozen hours. For now:

I didn't get cases confused at all, Hamdi IS relevant here, and my point is just as accurate and important there: US CITIZENS have the right to trial "legit" as you so eloquently put it... noncitizens do not... Hamden is a noncitizen, and unentitled to said rights... that was my point with Hamdi.

As for Hamdan (2006), understand this, they clarified the EXECUTIVE branch cannot preclude the supreme court of the right to hear the case in considering the issue of jurisdiction. This is true, and I completely agree... its a basic concept of constitutional law.

This is different from the actual issue of the case, whether the executive branch's head: the president has the power to convene military tribunals that are not authorized by an organic statute created by congress (For familiarity on the issue of administrative law and how a statute gives administrative courts and military courts power, go read the administrative procedures act to start.).

The court clarified what constitutes the "laws of war" under US jurisdiction, which constitutes of 21 USMJ, and statutes passed by congress governing the issue. They clarified the president's power's under the War Powers (See my previous post).

This is not an endorsement of "the prisoners get rights gaiz", but more a rebuke of: "Bush's administration's lawyers got it wrong".

Read Breyer's plurality opinion where he states what the law in the country has been throughout the entire time this, and all other crises, including Japanese internment was going on : If congress passes it, its okay. This is the one issue I'll harp on with Hamden... CONGRESS can pass the law, CONGRESS can decide the jurisdiction on a matter, and CONGRESS can change the SCOTUS jurisdiction if they deem it necessary.... the EXECUTIVE CANNOT. Its a seperation of powers and jurisdiction issue, not a "prisoner's rights" issue.

The laws under the geneva convention and UCMJ were not endorsed as "the law to try detainees by", but used to distinguish the differences between what the "commissions" Bush's admin had set up, and what would be proper under UCMJ and Geneva, which according to the opinion by steven's included being tried by "a regularly constituted court", and distinguished the commissions from them.

My point, still stands, SCOTUS has the right so long as congress wants them to have it... Congress can change SCOTUS' original jurisdiction... Grandparents who's opinion is taken into consideration until you dislike it enough to just not ask any more... as I previously mentioned.

This case is like Plessy v. Ferguson, the NLRB cases of the 1930s, and a SLEW of 1950 era McCarthy cases, its one of many that will try to address the matter which has more than one angle.... I think in 5 to 10 years we may have a handle on the matter... but its not a landmark case that will end the issue by any means....

Your reliance on this one case to say "SCOTUS NOT AGREES" is no different than the imbeciles that howled "seperate but equal is equal" in the early 1900s or that a mentally retarded person should be permanently steralized and incarcerated in Buck v. Bell.... its pretty much cheering for a picture when you see half an in of the canvas... The reality is that the supreme court is as fickle as a 16 year old girl... and will change its mind thirteen times in thirteen minutes given the opportunity and the right political appointments... so that being the case, when a FEW administrations pass, and a FEW appointments happen, I'll be happy to agree if its still the same.. chances are however that it wont be.


I invite you to consider the fact that despite our constant haranguing on human rights, we maintain and use weapons that would be considered violative of the entire treaty when the time comes for it... its no different than extremists firing mortars from madrassas and RPG's at humvees from Mosques.... we pay lip service to Geneva... ask the North Vietnamese who fought our military at Ia Drang, or the citizenry of Dresden Germany about that.

I can guarantee you that should congress and the obama administration actually put half a bit of thought into properly crafting a law allowing for tribunals which are MANY TIMES MORE draconian and arbitrary, and set the proper jurisdictional limitations, it could and would be done... and its not an "OBAMA;s GOT DA GOVT IN CONTWOLL YO..." issue, its a "my lawyers and statesmen paid better attention to covering loopholes that could potentially scuttle our plan" issue.

Brb.

Bilbo Baggins
7 Jan 2010, 01:46pm
I'll reply in entirety in a few dozen hours. For now:

I didn't get cases confused at all, Hamdi IS relevant here, and my point is just as accurate and important there: US CITIZENS have the right to trial "legit" as you so eloquently put it... noncitizens do not... Hamden is a noncitizen, and unentitled to said rights... that was my point with Hamdi.

As for Hamdan (2006), understand this, they clarified the EXECUTIVE branch cannot preclude the supreme court of the right to hear the case in considering the issue of jurisdiction. This is true, and I completely agree... its a basic concept of constitutional law.

This is different from the actual issue of the case, whether the executive branch's head: the president has the power to convene military tribunals that are not authorized by an organic statute created by congress (For familiarity on the issue of administrative law and how a statute gives administrative courts and military courts power, go read the administrative procedures act to start.).

The court clarified what constitutes the "laws of war" under US jurisdiction, which constitutes of 21 USMJ, and statutes passed by congress governing the issue. They clarified the president's power's under the War Powers (See my previous post).

This is not an endorsement of "the prisoners get rights gaiz", but more a rebuke of: "Bush's administration's lawyers got it wrong".

Read Breyer's plurality opinion where he states what the law in the country has been throughout the entire time this, and all other crises, including Japanese internment was going on : If congress passes it, its okay. This is the one issue I'll harp on with Hamden... CONGRESS can pass the law, CONGRESS can decide the jurisdiction on a matter, and CONGRESS can change the SCOTUS jurisdiction if they deem it necessary.... the EXECUTIVE CANNOT. Its a seperation of powers and jurisdiction issue, not a "prisoner's rights" issue.

The laws under the geneva convention and UCMJ were not endorsed as "the law to try detainees by", but used to distinguish the differences between what the "commissions" Bush's admin had set up, and what would be proper under UCMJ and Geneva, which according to the opinion by steven's included being tried by "a regularly constituted court", and distinguished the commissions from them.

My point, still stands, SCOTUS has the right so long as congress wants them to have it... Congress can change SCOTUS' original jurisdiction... Grandparents who's opinion is taken into consideration until you dislike it enough to just not ask any more... as I previously mentioned.

This case is like Plessy v. Ferguson, the NLRB cases of the 1930s, and a SLEW of 1950 era McCarthy cases, its one of many that will try to address the matter which has more than one angle.... I think in 5 to 10 years we may have a handle on the matter... but its not a landmark case that will end the issue by any means....

Your reliance on this one case to say "SCOTUS NOT AGREES" is no different than the imbeciles that howled "seperate but equal is equal" in the early 1900s or that a mentally retarded person should be permanently steralized and incarcerated in Buck v. Bell.... its pretty much cheering for a picture when you see half an in of the canvas... The reality is that the supreme court is as fickle as a 16 year old girl... and will change its mind thirteen times in thirteen minutes given the opportunity and the right political appointments... so that being the case, when a FEW administrations pass, and a FEW appointments happen, I'll be happy to agree if its still the same.. chances are however that it wont be.


I invite you to consider the fact that despite our constant haranguing on human rights, we maintain and use weapons that would be considered violative of the entire treaty when the time comes for it... its no different than extremists firing mortars from madrassas and RPG's at humvees from Mosques.... we pay lip service to Geneva... ask the North Vietnamese who fought our military at Ia Drang, or the citizenry of Dresden Germany about that.

I can guarantee you that should congress and the obama administration actually put half a bit of thought into properly crafting a law allowing for tribunals which are MANY TIMES MORE draconian and arbitrary, and set the proper jurisdictional limitations, it could and would be done... and its not an "OBAMA;s GOT DA GOVT IN CONTWOLL YO..." issue, its a "my lawyers and statesmen paid better attention to covering loopholes that could potentially scuttle our plan" issue.

Brb.

I think that I can agree with you on most of what you said. If this is what you were saying the first time then I misinterpreted, and for that I apologize. I get what your saying, SCOTUS deemed the military commissions unlawful, and that Gitmo detainees should get a normal trial should they get one. As to your remarks on us "paying lip service" to the Geneva conventions we never actually ratified protocols 1 & 2 which deal with wmds, we did however go along with the fourth Geneva convention which I suppose wmds could be lumped into.

BTW, "SCOTUS NOT AGREES" best line ever.

Undeadkitty
7 Jan 2010, 07:21pm
Personally this was an attempt by a small group that claims to be part of a large organized group. but its not.

LegalSmash
7 Jan 2010, 08:09pm
I think that I can agree with you on most of what you said. If this is what you were saying the first time then I misinterpreted, and for that I apologize. I get what your saying, SCOTUS deemed the military commissions unlawful, and that Gitmo detainees should get a normal trial should they get one. As to your remarks on us "paying lip service" to the Geneva conventions we never actually ratified protocols 1 & 2 which deal with wmds, we did however go along with the fourth Geneva convention which I suppose wmds could be lumped into.

BTW, "SCOTUS NOT AGREES" best line ever.

It can be very confusing to determine wtf the supreme court says a lot of the time... Its technically part of my job description to know, but they change their mind a LOT...

Regarding Geneva, despite all the good intent one executive may have in entering us into a treaty, and the congress at the time ratifying it, ANY exec can unilaterally cancel it, which is a dangerous part of having out set up as it is...

phatman76
14 Jan 2010, 02:32am
FYI about the question about who does security for flights inbound to the USA from foreign destinations, I do believe there are Americans on that end in Amsterdam. Although our system is not nearly as secure as El Al, the airline of Israel. Their Airline controls all flights inbound and outbound, has its own terminals and security procedures on foreign soil, and has armed guards on every international flight. I believe our system consists of a couple guys and a metal detector most of the time. But Farouk's name did pop up on the databases in Amsterdam, so clearly someone there had the USA watchlists and was checking the passengers before they got in the air. Unfortunately, Farouk was on the list that still permits flying to the USA.

As for the Geneva Conventions, I do certainly believe the entire issue is one that needs resolving. Our Constitution admits that when we enter into a treaty, it becomes the supreme law of the land. Legal believes there is no problem, neither do I, with detaining the prisoners. I do think it is wrong not to charge and try them, but the democrats have shut down the tribunals that would do just that. Now they again languish in prison. Yet Obama refuses to close Gitmo and move them all to Federal Courts. Since the democrats have already shot down the conservative way of dealing with abiding the GC and trying the prisoners (via tribunal), why don't they do it their way? Either withdraw from the Geneva Conventions or move the prisoners to the USA. I have a strong feeling that no democratic politician except a few safely entrenched North-East representatives will dare do either thing. It would be suicide.

Obama will either grow a spine and reopen the tribunals or he will break his promises. The Republicans now have the point of strength here. I want to try and give every terrorist his right to hang as soon as possible.

As to the legality of the war on terror and if it gives us the right to subject governed peoples to our military, the

sheriff
20 Jan 2010, 08:42pm
this is why I don't go anywhere that requires me to fly in a plane... long-ass lines cuz of some fuckin extremists. fuck humanity.

Zealot
21 Jan 2010, 07:29am
Looks like it is back to the extremely long waits in the Airports. Its a shame that these radicals feel that taking innocent lives somehow makes them closer to their God. Nutjobs, all of them.

This is why we must continue to beef up national security and hunt down these animals.

Seconded, also Bomb has been defused, Counter-Terrorists Win.