From: russ@THRWHITE.remove-dii-this
To: alt.battlestar-galactica
Stephen M. Adams wrote in
news:di0t5t03102@news3.newsguy.com:
>>That's incorrect. Under the Geneva Convention, Unlawful Combatants
>>have to right to any such thing. They only have a right to a tribunal
>>if they are charged with a crime. Otherwise, they may be detained
>>indefinitely as Unlawful Combatants subject only to the requirement
>>that they be treated "with humanity." As to how long they can
>>ultimtely be held if they are not charged with a crime - the length of
>>the conflict. Since the conflict is still ongoing the US may be
>>continue to detain them.
>
> "Unlawful combatants" is a nice fiction. By those standards, the
> farmers and urbanites who fought the Britsh at Lexington and Concord
> were in that category.
They met at least some of the requirement: chain of command, openly bore
arms, complied with rules of war. The only thing else the Convention
requires is a recognizable badge or uniform.
> But it makes no difference. Whatever the Geneva Convention states, it
> is still a violation of American princples.
Except that the Consitution says that treaties are the law of the land.
> If they are suspected of
> some crime, then charge them. Bring them to the tribunal and give
> them a hearing.
Combatants, lawful or unlawful, do not have to be charged with a crime
to be detained. The Convention provides that combatants, both lawful
and unlawful may be detained until the end of the conflict.
> Frankly, the refusal to provide them with ANY legal recourse sends a
> message that the government is unable to present sufficient evidence
> to convict them.
As I note below, the Supreme Court did give them legal recourse to
challenge their status. You have to be realistic here. Right now, we're
dealing with several hundred detainees at Gitmo. In World War II we
held millions of prisoners. Would the military be required to put the
war on hold and have a few million POW status hearings?
>>None needed. The detainees at Gitmo are Unlawful Combatants under the
>>Convention and may beheld indefinitely until the end of the conflict.
>
> Which conflict? Hunting terrorists in Afghanistan? There is no war
> declared.
The Geneva Convention applies to "armed conflicts" not only formal
declared wars.
> How do you then define the end of the 'conflict'? And who
> would such an end be negotiated with???
I didn't write the treaty.
> I daresay that the Geneva Convention does not really contemplate this
> kind of conflict - undeclared, low intensity, not against the
> government of the country you are invading.
Actually it does and specifically defines the conditions that must be
met for a non-traditional combatant such as a guerilla fighter, to be
considered a Legal Combatant. In general, the Convention requires that
there be a chain of command, that the combatant openly bear arms, that
he wear a visible uniform, sign or badge, and that he follow the
recognized rules of war.
>>With respect to Padilla, his case is now before the Fourth Circuit
>>Court of Appeals and we will soon see what the law is with respect to
>>American citizens detained in the U.S.
>
> I daresay that any decision other then requiring immediate, full,
> complete access to the courts, as well as immediate due process, is
> the harbinger of the police state. And cause to disolve the current
> government. So say the Founders.
So say we all.
Actually, I missed another recent case in which the Supreme Court held
that the Gitmo detainees did have the right to a hearing to determine
their status. Considering that ruling, I am sure Padilla will as well.
Russ
---
* Synchronet * The Whitehouse BBS --- whitehouse.hulds.com --- check it out
free usenet!
--- Synchronet 3.15a-Win32 NewsLink 1.92
Time Warp of the Future BBS - telnet://time.synchro.net:24
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
