Subject:
|
Re: Somethings been bothering me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Dec 2003 19:10:59 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
438 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> (moreso than usual...)
>
> From
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/22/security.padilla.backlash.reut/index.html
>
> "
> Two court rulings last week about the rights of prisoners held in the U.S. "war
> on terrorism" represent a rebuke to the Bush administration's legal tactics
> following the September 11 attacks, analysts and human rights organizations
> said.
> "
>
> Down the page this gets mentioned--
>
> "
> "The two cases are different. It's questionable whether people captured during a
> war in Afghanistan are entitled to any of the protections of the U.S.
> Constitution," said Robert Levy,
> "
of the Cato Institute...
> Here's the thing--these people are being detained by US forces. They are being
> detained under some US ruling. Whether they are US citizens or not is
> immaterial--they are 'in jail' due to violation of some US law or policy.
>
> And isn't the Constitution the 'gandpappy' of US law--aren't *all* US laws
> beholden to the Constitution? In other words, if anyone is being detained by a
> US ruling, doesn't that person have the right to appeal to the Constitution,
> even if they are not American?
I'm mostly on the same page as you here. However I don't think the US
constitution ever promised that non citizens have any particular rights outside
of US borders did it? I think habeas corpus applies to (or at least OUGHT to
apply to) detainees within the US, unless it's been established they are
something covered by something else.
In this case I'm sort of at a loss as to why these people (taken in Afghanistan
or wherever) aren't either prisoners of war, and thus subject to the Geneva
Convention, given that we're signatory, or civilians and thus subject to the
informal conventions about how civilians are to be treated.
In general, I don't see making up arbitrary designations as a good road to go
down, never did, so calling them "enemy combatants" seems like skirting
admitting that they are POWs (you don't have to be in a *declared* war to take
POWs) so that something can be done to them that violates the Geneva Convention.
And that's just wrong.
As for the Supremes ruling that Gitmo ain't the US, OK. But what is it then? Is
it Cuba? It may not be US territory,but it's under US control. EVERYTHING has to
be under the sovereignty of someplace, or so it has been argued when suppressing
breakaway states. Hence the US is fairly to be held accountable for what it does
there.
And that's true whether or not the US chooses to ratify the treaty joining it to
the ICC... it was true before the ICC even existed and it will be true
afterwards.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Somethings been bothering me...
|
| (moreso than usual...) From (URL) court rulings last week about the rights of prisoners held in the U.S. "war on terrorism" represent a rebuke to the Bush administration's legal tactics following the September 11 attacks, analysts and human rights (...) (21 years ago, 23-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
2 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
